55528 réponses à ce sujet

[byne]

HagarIshay wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...


IT does have its extremists, but none of them post in this topic regularly, so you can always come here for objective information about IT. 

Usually I see a lot of posts by extrimsts. Though It's basically four people that write everywhere.

Though I see not only the exrimsts that seem to believe that only destroy is right. I just wanted to ask if it's really THAT important for the IT supporters.

Ashamed to say that I'm glad you don't think it is too important.

The extremists are why I rarely venture outside this thread. They annoy me as much as the literalist extremists who call us crazy. Just because someone is on my side doesnt suddenly make that kind of attitude less annoying.

As for destroy, IT or not, I personally feel it's the best choice for ensuring the cycles dont repeat, but I dont think the others are completely without value in a literal interpretation.

[byne]

HellishFiend wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...


IT does have its extremists, but none of them post in this topic regularly, so you can always come here for objective information about IT. 

Usually I see a lot of posts by extrimsts. Though It's basically four people that write everywhere.

Though I see not only the exrimsts that seem to believe that only destroy is right. I just wanted to ask if it's really THAT important for the IT supporters.

Ashamed to say that I'm glad you don't think it is too important.

In any case, I think we can safely say that Bioware isnt going to universally screw over everyone that made the "wrong" choice in the decision chamber if IT is true. There wouldnt be enough diversity in that, and we were promised at least 16 unique endings, which I still think we're going to get once all is said and done. 

I figure choosing control or synthesis will just weaken your resolve and require a higher EMS to avoid an ending where you end up indoctrinated, and also a higher EMS to get the best ending than if you'd picked destroy.

[nightcobra]

HagarIshay wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...


IT does have its extremists, but none of them post in this topic regularly, so you can always come here for objective information about IT. 

Usually I see a lot of posts by extrimsts. Though It's basically four people that write everywhere.

Though I see not only the exrimsts that seem to believe that only destroy is right. I just wanted to ask if it's really THAT important for the IT supporters.

Ashamed to say that I'm glad you don't think it is too important.

as for me, my personal view on the matter is that destroy means resisting the indocrination attempt while control and synthesis mean succumbing to it.

HOWEVER...control and synthesis by no means should be a game over, critical failure screen. to me, shepard could pull a "matriarch benezia" and snap out of indocrination long enough to defeat the reapers, maybe even adding a boost to the overall EMS due to shepard maybe having a more in-depth knowledge of the reapers strategies and weaknesses due to touching their minds briefly while indocrinated. after the reapers are defeated, shepard dies due to the indocrination process unlike destroy where shepard would live due to having resisted the indocrination attempt.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 17 juin 2012 - 05:04 .

[paxxton]

HagarIshay wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

James may be going throught the process too... "Do you hear that hum? Is that just me?"

I thought the hum was supposed to be directed from Shepard? 

Though I might read the theory wrong . And the codex...

My first thought after hearing Vega talking about the hum was that he was making a joke.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 juin 2012 - 05:04 .

[HellishFiend]

HagarIshay wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

James may be going throught the process too... "Do you hear that hum? Is that just me?"

I thought the hum was supposed to be directed from Shepard? 

Though I might read the theory wrong . And the codex...

TSA found infrasound on the Normandy. Infrasound has extreme reach at significant amplitudes (it moves through walls like they arent there), so we should be able to conclude that the hum is affecting everybody to at least some extent, on a subliminal level. Though that is mostly just an educated guess based on real-life knowledge of infrasound. 

[Vox Draco]

HagarIshay wrote...

I have a question.

Some IT supporter already told me that they will have no problem considering or that they are even supporting the idea that control and synthesis are not critical mission failure. Some even support that destroy will also lead to indoctrination. But I wanted to ask the majority of the IT supporters.

If BioWare thought about indoctrination at the ending, and they also made destroy as indoctrination, would you still think BioWare was brilliant by thinking about the indoctrination, or will you hate it for leading all of the choices to indoctrination and there will be no way to resist it?

If BioWare didn't think about the indoctrination, but will adopt the IT and make destroy as invalid as the two other choices, would you still support the idea, or would you be mad at BioWare for not making destroy valid?

What I love the most about the IT is not being right or wrong, but to imagine how IT can be used to really expand the ending. And in my imagination, I don't see any reason why not all three choices would lead to some kind of indoctrination...supposed we really get some additional gameplay, I still hope for that

For example, it would be cool to actually play/fight in Shepard's mind based on the decisions you made? You pick green and you "wake up" in a synthesized world, in bodies of others (squdamate/LI/allies) and you are confronted with the illusion of a "brave new synthesized" world and have to break through or critical mission failure...

Blue: You "wake up" in a enviroment like the Geth-consensus, inside a "virtual world" and are confronted with the Illusion of controlling the Reapers...

Stuff like that. Not likely to happen of course, yet IT is NOT a one-dimensional cop-out as so many anti-ITlers always claim. Yet I have also to admit that if you really believe that face-value "control" or "synthesis" are great things, IT is not for you, and no matter what, picking destroy should have its benefits for a mostly sweet and less bitter ending...

But I hate the idea that picking anything but "red" automatically leads to mission failure. It should really lead to a different kind of ending, maybe less hopeful or with Shepard forced to sacrifice herself, but still provide anyone with the desire to pick the others colours to see/experience something different

[nightcobra]

HellishFiend wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

James may be going throught the process too... "Do you hear that hum? Is that just me?"

I thought the hum was supposed to be directed from Shepard? 

Though I might read the theory wrong . And the codex...

TSA found infrasound on the Normandy. Infrasound has extreme reach at significant amplitudes (it moves through walls like they arent there), so we should be able to conclude that the hum is affecting everybody to at least some extent, on a subliminal level. Though that is mostly just an educated guess based on real-life knowledge of infrasound. 

speaking of sounds....



at 3:18, i don't remember any reaper sounding like that. almost seems like a communication noise like the geth.

[paxxton]

@byne: Hey! A new theory has been proposed! Check it out. I think you will dislike it.

NEW!!! Reaper-induced Shepard's Dream Theory (RSDT) http://social.biowar...32/827#12611367

Modifié par paxxton, 17 juin 2012 - 05:11 .

[HellishFiend]

Vox Draco wrote...
Stuff like that. Not likely to happen of course, yet IT is NOT a one-dimensional cop-out as so many anti-ITlers always claim. 

Definitely not. That is my ultimate pet peeve misconception about IT. So many seem to think that IT is a fan suggestion to Bioware. A loophole they can exploit to retcon the endings.

That could not be farther from the truth.

IT is about the whole game (possibly even the whole trilogy) foreshadowing and building up to a final confrontation with Indoctrination. IT defines itself not as a way out of having written a bad ending, but rather the "final boss" of ME3, as intended by Bioware, masquerading as a bad ending. 

[Xellith]

I dont believe the mainstream dream indoc theory. But I do have my own ideas and version of indoc in my sig.

[HellishFiend]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

speaking of sounds....



at 3:18, i don't remember any reaper sounding like that. almost seems like a communication noise like the geth.

Yeah, that one is very weird. Difficult to figure out. 

[Turbo_J]

HellishFiend wrote...

Thanks! I'll work some of these in there.

I noticed that too. The tone of the two answers are very different. Like you say, paragon seems weak-willed and vulnerable, renegade seems confident and strong. It's possible that this along with similar choices earlier in the game could affect the view pop and possibly even the Indoc attempt as a whole.

Turbo_J wrote...  

Liara and the Crucible: On my first playthrough, I was convinced it was a trap and Liara may be indoctrinated. It was far too easy. 

I agree. The closer I look at Liara's behavior, especially on Mars, the more suspicious it seems. Did you catch those two sideways glances she gives to the VS? It's like if she feels threatened. We even see a similar sideways glance from Anderson after the "I was born in London.." line.

I took the glances as double meaning for people who may have had the LI confrontation in ME1 or some other kind of jealousy. Liara is a predator. Anyone who has not seen this since the very first game wasn't looking to hard. I'm not saying that she's a preditor in a bad way, but there could be that too; at least in ME3. She's obsessive, but also driven and when she wants something she does not give up easily.

As for the Anderson in London thing. I started to suspect it was a call out to Shep. A warning of some type. Hackett does the same thing when talking to Shep and Anderson... but who is warning who about who/what at that point I have no freakin idea.

Another thing I wanted to point out... you never see the beam to earth from the citadel. You hear a bling noise as if something turned on once it's closed, but no actual beam is ever seen. The Citadel is also parallel to the planet. The beam would, if anything, contact the surface at a steep angle or pass through the atmosphere and head back out into space.

You only hear about this beam you need to get to from Anderson at the last minute. How long was he in London for? He couldn't tell you all this earlier, before you hit the Sol relay? Oh, no... that would make it to easy for Shep to say F that, I'm going to Ilos.

[Big Bad]

HagarIshay wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...


IT does have its extremists, but none of them post in this topic regularly, so you can always come here for objective information about IT. 

Usually I see a lot of posts by extrimsts. Though It's basically four people that write everywhere.

Though I see not only the exrimsts that seem to believe that only destroy is right. I just wanted to ask if it's really THAT important for the IT supporters.

Ashamed to say that I'm glad you don't think it is too important.

I don't think that choosing control or synthesis should result in a criticial mission failure, but I do think that those two options are "wrong" in the sense that they are inconsistent with the major themes of the series (and I even picked synthesis during my first and only playthrough of the end!).  But I think the same thing about the basis of the whole decision scenario to begin with, so your mileage may vary. 

Edit:  I have no idea what will happen after each of the three choices if IT is right, but I hope it is something cool and unexepected!

Modifié par Big Bad, 17 juin 2012 - 05:16 .

[byne]

paxxton wrote...

@byne: Hey! A new theory has been proposed! Check it out. I think you will dislike it.

NEW!!! Reaper-induced Shepard's Dream Theory (RSDT) http://social.biowar...32/827#12611367

So, if I'm understanding it right, you're saying the entire game after Vancouver is a hallucination?

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

Saying every awesome moment throughout the game didnt happen is a million times worse.

[paxxton]

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

@byne: Hey! A new theory has been proposed! Check it out. I think you will dislike it.

NEW!!! Reaper-induced Shepard's Dream Theory (RSDT) http://social.biowar...32/827#12611367

So, if I'm understanding it right, you're saying the entire game after Vancouver is a hallucination?

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

Saying every awesome moment throughout the game didnt happen is a million times worse.

But even IT states that the Anderson/Shepard chat didn't happen. My theory treats the whole story as a dream directed at conditioning Shepard to do what the Reapers want by making him think it's the right way to go after he's awake.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 juin 2012 - 05:16 .

[HellishFiend]

byne wrote...

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

I'm biased because I love symbolism, but I think that if "Admiral Anderson" is really Shepard's willpower, that final conversation with him is even more emotionally powerful than if it were the real Anderson. Just my opinion though. 

"It feels like years since I just.....sat down..." 

That line just brings all of Shepard's struggles flooding back like a tidal wave of memories. For me, at least. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 17 juin 2012 - 05:18 .

[byne]

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

@byne: Hey! A new theory has been proposed! Check it out. I think you will dislike it.

NEW!!! Reaper-induced Shepard's Dream Theory (RSDT) http://social.biowar...32/827#12611367

So, if I'm understanding it right, you're saying the entire game after Vancouver is a hallucination?

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

Saying every awesome moment throughout the game didnt happen is a million times worse.

But even IT states that the Anderson/Shepard chat didn't happen. My theory treats the whole story as a dream directed at conditioning Shepard to do what the Reapers want by making him think it's the right way to go after he's awake.

I know. I said that in my post.

[byne]

HellishFiend wrote...

byne wrote...

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

I'm biased because I love symbolism, but I think that if "Admiral Anderson" is really Shepard's willpower, that final conversation with him is even more emotionally powerful than if it were the real Anderson. Just my opinion though. 

Maybe the chat we got in game is the one with Shep's willpower saying what Shep imagines he'd say, and the longer, cut version will be included in reality with the EC.

[nightcobra]

Big Bad wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...


IT does have its extremists, but none of them post in this topic regularly, so you can always come here for objective information about IT. 

Usually I see a lot of posts by extrimsts. Though It's basically four people that write everywhere.

Though I see not only the exrimsts that seem to believe that only destroy is right. I just wanted to ask if it's really THAT important for the IT supporters.

Ashamed to say that I'm glad you don't think it is too important.

I don't think that choosing control or synthesis should result in a criticial mission failure, but I do think that those two options are "wrong" in the sense that they are inconsistent with the major themes of the series (and I even picked synthesis during my first and only playthrough of the end!).  But I think the same thing about the basis of the whole decision scenario to begin with, so your mileage may vary. 

Edit:  I have no idea what will happen after each of the three choices if IT is right, but I hope it is something cool and unexepected!

i'm up for using the crucible as a glorified battering ram against harbinger and any reaper in its way:whistle:


you can't tell me harby would expect that^_^

[HellishFiend]

byne wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

byne wrote...

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

I'm biased because I love symbolism, but I think that if "Admiral Anderson" is really Shepard's willpower, that final conversation with him is even more emotionally powerful than if it were the real Anderson. Just my opinion though. 

Maybe the chat we got in game is the one with Shep's willpower saying what Shep imagines he'd say, and the longer, cut version will be included in reality with the EC.

My headcanon right now is that "Admiral Anderson" aka Shepard's willpower is fully subconscious, meaning it isnt affected by Shepard's imagination or conscious thought processes.

"It feels like years since I just.....sat down..." 

Visualizing that line coming from Shepard's subsoncious just brings all of Shepard's struggles flooding back like a tidal wave of memories. For me, at least. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 17 juin 2012 - 05:22 .

[paxxton]

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

@byne: Hey! A new theory has been proposed! Check it out. I think you will dislike it.

NEW!!! Reaper-induced Shepard's Dream Theory (RSDT) http://social.biowar...32/827#12611367

So, if I'm understanding it right, you're saying the entire game after Vancouver is a hallucination?

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

Saying every awesome moment throughout the game didnt happen is a million times worse.

But even IT states that the Anderson/Shepard chat didn't happen. My theory treats the whole story as a dream directed at conditioning Shepard to do what the Reapers want by making him think it's the right way to go after he's awake.

I know. I said that in my post.

Oh, I must have read it inattentively.  Anyway, real dreams are sometimes awesome and still people once they are awake have to realize that they weren't real.

[Turbo_J]

HellishFiend wrote...

byne wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

byne wrote...

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

I'm biased because I love symbolism, but I think that if "Admiral Anderson" is really Shepard's willpower, that final conversation with him is even more emotionally powerful than if it were the real Anderson. Just my opinion though. 

Maybe the chat we got in game is the one with Shep's willpower saying what Shep imagines he'd say, and the longer, cut version will be included in reality with the EC.

My headcanon right now is that "Admiral Anderson" aka Shepard's willpower is fully subconscious, meaning it isnt affected by Shepard's imagination or conscious thought processes.

"It feels like years since I just.....sat down..." 

Visualizing that line coming from Shepard's subsoncious just brings all of Shepard's struggles flooding back like a tidal wave of memories. For me, at least. 

I thought that 'cut' version wasn't actually cut, but plays for non-romanced Sheps?

Modifié par Turbo_J, 17 juin 2012 - 05:24 .

[byne]

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

byne wrote...

paxxton wrote...

@byne: Hey! A new theory has been proposed! Check it out. I think you will dislike it.

NEW!!! Reaper-induced Shepard's Dream Theory (RSDT) http://social.biowar...32/827#12611367

So, if I'm understanding it right, you're saying the entire game after Vancouver is a hallucination?

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

Saying every awesome moment throughout the game didnt happen is a million times worse.

But even IT states that the Anderson/Shepard chat didn't happen. My theory treats the whole story as a dream directed at conditioning Shepard to do what the Reapers want by making him think it's the right way to go after he's awake.

I know. I said that in my post.

Oh, I must have read it inattentively.  Anyway, real dreams are sometimes awesome and still people once they are awake have to realize that they weren't real.

I've been up for 24 hours straight, and you're the one reading inattentively?

That doesnt seem right.

[nightcobra]

byne wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

byne wrote...

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

I'm biased because I love symbolism, but I think that if "Admiral Anderson" is really Shepard's willpower, that final conversation with him is even more emotionally powerful than if it were the real Anderson. Just my opinion though. 

Maybe the chat we got in game is the one with Shep's willpower saying what Shep imagines he'd say, and the longer, cut version will be included in reality with the EC.

if IT turns out to be true and that anderson was shepard's willpower, and after the reapers are defeated  shepard gives a big hug to anderson, relieved to see the old dog is still kicking.

*if you hugged him before on the shuttle in "priority: earth", anderson would warmingly ask you "didn't we do this already?" *

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 17 juin 2012 - 05:26 .

[byne]

Turbo_J wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

byne wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

byne wrote...

You're right, I dont particularly like it. One thing that bugs me about IT is that Anderson's chat with Shep on the Citadel didnt actually happen.

I'm biased because I love symbolism, but I think that if "Admiral Anderson" is really Shepard's willpower, that final conversation with him is even more emotionally powerful than if it were the real Anderson. Just my opinion though. 

Maybe the chat we got in game is the one with Shep's willpower saying what Shep imagines he'd say, and the longer, cut version will be included in reality with the EC.

My headcanon right now is that "Admiral Anderson" aka Shepard's willpower is fully subconscious, meaning it isnt affected by Shepard's imagination or conscious thought processes.

"It feels like years since I just.....sat down..." 

Visualizing that line coming from Shepard's subsoncious just brings all of Shepard's struggles flooding back like a tidal wave of memories. For me, at least. 

I thought that 'cut' version wasn't actually but, but plays for non-romanced Sheps?

Thats a rumor I've heard that no one has ever substantiated.

Plus, talking about settling down and having children only when Shepard is not in a relationship makes pretty much no sense.