55528 réponses à ce sujet

[M Hedonist]

byne wrote...

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?

Love that site. The trope perfectly suits ME3's ending.
"A Gainax Ending frequently involves bizarre and nonsensical Genre Shifts, Fauxlosophic Narration, and/or Faux Symbolism, and may very well cause Ending Aversion. For an aborted Sequel Hook, you might encounter a Diabolus Ex Vacuus (where a new villain appears from nowhere, does something villainous, and then disappears again)"

[Ravereth]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

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.

Indeed, or your Shepard can always put a bullet through his head in the last moment just like Saren or TIM did... 

[ShepnTali]

EpyonX3 wrote...

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?

I understand that. But even ITers disagree on many things. And yeah, I do see a place for questioning from anti ITers. I'm just saying I'd hate to 8 pages of pointless ****** for tat arguments because a troublemaker says you're all delusional, with nothing to back your claims, etc. Arguing for the sake of arguing. I just hope one thread can be free of that. You guys deserve atleast that.

Just want to read a fun thread without the pointless hassles. This my final comment on the matter.

[byne]

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.

Throughout all three games Shepard has believed the Reapers needed to be destroyed. Whether or not you personally agree doesnt matter. Its always been what Shepard believed.

In the last 10 minutes you are given the option to control the Reapers or accomplish their goal for them instead of destroying them.

If you chose either of those options, you are by definition betraying what you've fought for for three games.

Whether you personally believe they'd be better outcomes is irrelevant. You havent fought from day one to control or synthesize, you've fought to destroy.

[DJBare]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

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.

And TIM failed, it's arrogance to believe we can do better, that's the point of my headcanon, we have to let go of reaper tech if we are to win, reaper tech is millions if not billions of years ahead of us, Sovereign had at least one thing right in my opinion, we would never understand, all we do is prod it, attach wires to it, make things happen and then use it without even understanding how it happens.

In short, how can we be so arrogant to think we can remain in control of something that's millions of years beyond us?

[byne]

DJBare wrote...


And TIM failed, it's arrogance to believe we can do better, that's the point of my headcanon, we have to let go of reaper tech if we are to win, reaper tech is millions if not billions of years ahead of us, Sovereign had at least one thing right in my opinion, we would never understand, all we do is prod it, attach wires to it, make things happen and then use it without even understanding how it happens.

In short, how can we be so arrogant to think we can remain in control of something that's millions of years beyond us?

So in your headcanon, are the Mass Relays (Reaper Tech) still destroyed?

[Deputy Secretary of Awesome]

Ownaholic wrote...

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 shoulder.
His eyes connect DIRECTLY with where Shepard is standing.

This was briefly covered in ACAVYOS' Indoctrination video, though I don't think it paid any particular attention to the eyes. I think whether Anderson is looking directly at Shep or not (he's kind of stiff and looking straight forward most of the scene, given TIM's apparent control), that line about "He's controlling you!" and "Listen to yourself, you're indoctrinated!" are both addressed to Shepard. Shep's own subconscious trying to alert himself/herself and us the player to what is happening.

[Stigweird85]

dreamgazer wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
 BYNE BYNE!!
This has some significance IMHO:

 

Using this as proof of opposition now. Does not mention it being a dream. They want specualtion on how you think Shepard died. HE/SHE IS  DEAD!

You do realize this isn't a law-binding contract that proves or disproves the theory, but an early-in-development artifact that shows that they were wanting to generate speculation over whether Shepard dies or not, right?  Core evidence that we're not to take what's going on at face-value.

If you want a more concrete example of BioWare's motivation towards incorporating elements of Shepard's indoctrination, the excerpt from the Final Hours app showcases that (though it's against forum rules to post that screen capture, I believe). 

Well considering this image IS from the Final Hours app, although I can understand why simpe screen shots of a paid for app may be considered a no-no

[dreamgazer]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

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.

I'd go read through the previous thread and reassess whether people who lean towards this interpretation don't defend it with cogent, rational throught.  

Also, this isn't a scientific theory.  It's an interpretation of the evidence we have presented to us in a piece of fiction, and the clues discovered frequently have their claws dug deep into the lore.   Again, there's more to the IT---and to the people participating in the thread---than "Shepard HAS to wake up in the EC".  It's a catch-all for analysis of the indoctrination process in the third game, and the entire series.

Instead of rattle off examples myself, I'd strongly recommend watching the twenty minute video in the first post of this thread.  It's pretty darn good at concisely delivering the necessary information.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 14 mai 2012 - 06:36 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

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.

Thats what happens when you are indoctrinated my friend.

[ExtendedCut]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

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.

Unfortunately, there is a small part of me that agrees with you.  I'm afraid that IT might be like finding Bigfoot - a bunch of scattered clues that only fit together if you really want them to fit together.

But then, on the other hand - clues like the appearance of the Starkid that just happens to look like the kid that haunts your dreams, and the ability of Shepard to survive the Citadel explosion (whether he wakes up on the Citadel or in London doesn't matter - neither are remotely possible), among other clues, can ONLY be explained by IT or poor writing. 

And I will give Bioware the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

[blooregard]

The original thread was locked? That's...unexpected.

[balance5050]

balance5050 wrote...

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.

I know most of you already get what I said, but I need to repost till someone comments on it.

Modifié par balance5050, 14 mai 2012 - 06:35 .

[Rosewind]

Ravereth wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

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.

Indeed, or your Shepard can always put a bullet through his head in the last moment just like Saren or TIM did... 

I thought Benzia became sanish because of the Rachni queen? or am I wrong?

[EpyonX3]

byne wrote...

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.

Obvious or not, the twist was at least revealed and confirmed in the same scene. That's what I'm getting at. If IT is true and it was bioware's intention, then they did it wrong because the game ended without the player being told he/she was tricked.

A simple breathe scene showing a possible husked Shepard would gave ben enough.

[Stigweird85]

EpyonX3 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.

pics removed

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.

I always though that he looked at the camera rather than at TIM but I also thought that Vendetta looked at Shepard on Thessia when he said indoctrinated presence detected.

[DJBare]

byne wrote...

DJBare wrote...


And TIM failed, it's arrogance to believe we can do better, that's the point of my headcanon, we have to let go of reaper tech if we are to win, reaper tech is millions if not billions of years ahead of us, Sovereign had at least one thing right in my opinion, we would never understand, all we do is prod it, attach wires to it, make things happen and then use it without even understanding how it happens.

In short, how can we be so arrogant to think we can remain in control of something that's millions of years beyond us?

So in your headcanon, are the Mass Relays (Reaper Tech) still destroyed?

Definitely, it's because we discovered them that we did not put in the effort to find our own way of interstella travel, another reason my headcanon says they should go is because they are more than a transit device, I also think they are communication bouyies for the Reapers.

EDIT keep in mind my headcanon takes place after Shepard wakes.

Modifié par DJBare, 14 mai 2012 - 06:36 .

[dreamgazer]

bigstig wrote...

Well considering this image IS from the Final Hours app, although I can understand why simpe screen shots of a paid for app may be considered a no-no

I think since THAT particular slip of paper has been scrutinized to death, regurgitated everywhere, and even mentioned in public by some of BioWare's higher-ups, it's an exception to the rule. 

[byne]

ExtendedCut wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

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.

Unfortunately, there is a small part of me that agrees with you.  I'm afraid that IT might be like finding Bigfoot - a bunch of scattered clues that only fit together if you really want them to fit together.

But then, on the other hand - clues like the appearance of the Starkid that just happens to look like the kid that haunts your dreams, and the ability of Shepard to survive the Citadel explosion (whether he wakes up on the Citadel or in London doesn't matter - neither are remotely possible), among other clues, can ONLY be explained by IT or poor writing. 

And I will give Bioware the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

Plus, even if IT isnt true, by now Bioware surely realizes most fans hate the current endings.

They can either go down with the ship, and let Mass Effect go down in history as one of the most disappointing endings to a game ever, or they can implement IT, claim it was always their idea, and have a completely mindblowing ending.

Unless they are insanely attached to the horrible literal endings, they have no reason not to just take IT and run with it.

[ExtendedCut]

MaximizedAction wrote...

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'.

Excellent point.  I agree completely. 

Like it or not, a HUGE amount of the IT vs. Anti-IT debate comes down to whether you believe Bioware is smart enough/good enough/original enough to have created something other than the face-value, poor ending that we know.

[nightcobra]

DJBare wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

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.

And TIM failed, it's arrogance to believe we can do better, that's the point of my headcanon, we have to let go of reaper tech if we are to win, reaper tech is millions if not billions of years ahead of us, Sovereign had at least one thing right in my opinion, we would never understand, all we do is prod it, attach wires to it, make things happen and then use it without even understanding how it happens.

In short, how can we be so arrogant to think we can remain in control of something that's millions of years beyond us?

if IT is true then we don't really know what happened to TIM after we talked to him at the cerberus base.
he could be like he was in the mental struggle or worse, a monster like in the artbook.
i'd be fine if we could convince TIM to use his research to make all reaper ground forces suicide before he dies as well, as a last act of defiance against the reapers and preservation of humanity, not necessarily being a good guy but a man who died for what he believed in, no matter how misguided he was in the end.

[DirtyPhoenix]

EpyonX3 wrote...

byne wrote...

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.

Obvious or not, the twist was at least revealed and confirmed in the same scene. That's what I'm getting at. If IT is true and it was bioware's intention, then they did it wrong because the game ended without the player being told he/she was tricked.

A simple breathe scene showing a possible husked Shepard would gave ben enough.

I can only imagine the ****storm that would have resulted.

[EpyonX3]

bigstig wrote...

EpyonX3 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.

pics removed

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.

I always though that he looked at the camera rather than at TIM but I also thought that Vendetta looked at Shepard on Thessia when he said indoctrinated presence detected.

No he definelty turns toward Kai Leng and then shuts down.

[EpyonX3]

pirate1802 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

byne wrote...

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.

Obvious or not, the twist was at least revealed and confirmed in the same scene. That's what I'm getting at. If IT is true and it was bioware's intention, then they did it wrong because the game ended without the player being told he/she was tricked.

A simple breathe scene showing a possible husked Shepard would gave ben enough.

I can only imagine the ****storm that would have resulted.

Worse than what it was without it? I would have loved to see that and so would indoctrination theorists.

[SS2Dante]

EpyonX3 wrote...

byne wrote...

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.

Obvious or not, the twist was at least revealed and confirmed in the same scene. That's what I'm getting at. If IT is true and it was bioware's intention, then they did it wrong because the game ended without the player being told he/she was tricked.

A simple breathe scene showing a possible husked Shepard would gave ben enough.

But that completely ruins the point of IT. It's meant to mimic the sensation of being indoctrinated, and indoctrinated people don't realise it has happened.

Besides, like I said, if they'd done that ending people would have boycotted Bioware for releasing an incomplete game.


BTW Epyon, you know the random cubemap in the garden planet that shows Vancouver? It's called windowCube or something. Don't suppose there's any way you can get the camera to check the reflections off Normandy's windows?

Modifié par SS2Dante, 14 mai 2012 - 06:39 .