55528 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

EpyonX3 wrote...

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.

I would too. I'd still love to see huskie-shepard. But i'm guessing the incomplete-game rage would have been stronger.

[M Hedonist]

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'.

Well, I could understand that argument if it was just a few things about the ending that can be explained with that. But there's so many odd and surreal things about the ending, I find it highly improbable that all of these were unintentional. The whole ending sequence just feels so surreal to me, I can't believe Bioware didn't intend it to be that way.

[Southerndoom]

I always thought from the first time i played through the ending that something wasnt right
or there was more to the ending.

To those asking what would happen if IT is real.

They have a chance to have some really badass endings and they could do it all with
cenematics.

You choose control.The reapers have you now.In this ending Shepard convince the fleet he now has control
of the reapers.Everyone stands down and are then blindsided by the reapers with a now indoctinated shep.
Without the hero of the alliance/the crucible the war lost.Reapers destroy all life this cycle game over.

You choose synthesis.Possibly the hardest one to make something out of.In synthesis id write it to where
it causes humanity to be harvested and the reapers leave.We "evolve" just not in the way shep had in mind!

You choose Destory.Shep has broken free of the indoctrination long enough to fire the crucible
destroying the reapers saving the galaxy but at a heavy cost.


At least thats what i would do after thinking a little on it.Could make for some really cool and very unexpected
endings....

[Robhuzz]

Sauruz wrote...

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.

I always thought it was weird how both Anderson and TIM always looked at you during that conversation, even when they're talking to each other. There is just something odd about it. Add it to the overly long list of other surreal oddities in the ending.
I just refuse to believe they created something so surreal by accident.

One or two odd things I am willing to believe but there's no way they added all of that by accident. How the camera deliberately zooms in on Anderson when he says 'Listen to yourself! You're indoctrinated!' as well as the deliberate camera zoom on Shepard when he grabs his side and it shows fresh blood on his hand after he shot Anderson. BioWare deliberately showed us those scenes. There's no way that was accidental.

[The Invisible Commando]

byne wrote...

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.

If they went with IT, it would be fan appeasement. "Okay lets roll with your ending and make you happy." . We all see that Bioware does not like being told their ending ideas suck. To roll with IT is like saying "yes we did not make a real ending"

The child was always some attempt at poetry that Shepard is hurting inside that he can't save everyone. The StarBrat is a Reaper using his weakness against him. Yes its not great writing, but I get it.

[Ravereth]

Hey... wait, what about this whole saving organics stuff?

Modifié par Ravereth, 14 mai 2012 - 06:44 .

[EpyonX3]

SS2Dante 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.

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?

You could say the game is incomplete in either situation since they all lead to the reapers being alive in all three. At least with two options leading to you actually failing would make it less of an issue.

I don't know of this cube map. I've been away from this stuff for the last few days. I'll try flycamming the normandy. This is the last scene on the jungle planet right?

[balance5050]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

If they went with IT, it would be fan appeasement. "Okay lets roll with your ending and make you happy." . We all see that Bioware does not like being told their ending ideas suck. To roll with IT is like saying "yes we did not make a real ending"

The child was always some attempt at poetry that Shepard is hurting inside that he can't save everyone. The StarBrat is a Reaper using his weakness against him. Yes its not great writing, but I get it.

You're missing the point that it COULD be, that bioware intended to indoctrinate us, most of us here believe that if IT is real, it was Biowares idea all along.

Modifié par balance5050, 14 mai 2012 - 06:46 .

[EpyonX3]

Ravereth wrote...

Hey... wait, what about this whole saving organics stuff?

I always thought the reapers were simply making sure that there can never be a rival to them. Or that the needed organics to fuel them and multiply, therefore, harvesting them when their populations are largest.

Then I played the ending.

[byne]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

If they went with IT, it would be fan appeasement. "Okay lets roll with your ending and make you happy." . We all see that Bioware does not like being told their ending ideas suck. To roll with IT is like saying "yes we did not make a real ending"

The child was always some attempt at poetry that Shepard is hurting inside that he can't save everyone. The StarBrat is a Reaper using his weakness against him. Yes its not great writing, but I get it.

Its not like I'm saying they'd admit it if it werent their original plan. They'd just say 'good job figuring it out you guys!' and then run with it.

Plus, since when has Bioware ever shied away from fan appeasement? That was the entire reason for Garrus and Tali romances in ME2.

[balance5050]

Ravereth wrote...

Hey... wait, what about this whole saving organics stuff?

She would know too, she was partially made with reaper tech/code.

Modifié par balance5050, 14 mai 2012 - 06:48 .

[M Hedonist]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

If they went with IT, it would be fan appeasement. "Okay lets roll with your ending and make you happy." . We all see that Bioware does not like being told their ending ideas suck. To roll with IT is like saying "yes we did not make a real ending"

The child was always some attempt at poetry that Shepard is hurting inside that he can't save everyone. The StarBrat is a Reaper using his weakness against him. Yes its not great writing, but I get it.

How do you know that IT is wrong and your headcanon is right? Maybe Bioware always intended IT. Your headcanon isn't much less baseless than IT.
Besides, how did the Reaper know Shepard was "hurting inside" about that child?
I found a plot hole in your headcanon.

[ExtendedCut]

byne wrote...


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.

I totally agree.  Good point, byne.  Even if BW doesn't monitor these threads post-for-post, you can bet that they know exactly what the overall fan-based opinion of what the ending is and what it could/should be.

BW is being vague on purpose about the EC, although we don't know exaclty why at this point. 

Personally, I don't care if IT was never in their original plans, and we will likely never know anyway.  But I think it is fairly obvious that IT is better than a face-value ending that claims "artistic integrity".

[Ownaholic]

Ravereth wrote...

Hey... wait, what about this whole saving organics stuff?

Thanks for finding that. That is exactly the scene I was looking for to support what I was saying in the documentary. "The goal of all organics is self-preservation, and therefore their beliefs are reflected onto any Synthetics they create".
Thus, we get the Control (the second best option for the Reapers), and Synthesis (the ultimate goal of the reapers).

[Deputy Secretary of Awesome]

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 understand the desire for IT to have been revealed with a complete ending in ME3 itself, but I think there's a good reason why that wasn't done.

If you go through the "ending" and then either become indoctrinated or reject it, and it is revealed in the subsequent scene, then the totality of every player's reaction will have simply been "Oh. That's interesting. On with the rest of the ending."

I think they purposely left the "ending" ambiguous and yes, incomplete, in order for people to question what was going on, to think critically, to examine and debate and try to interpret what had happened. They're giving us sufficient time to experience on our own the full implications of the indoctrination and uncover the evidence ourselves.

For me, this is something I've really enjoyed, and I'm looking forward to the EC. However, I can understand why a lot of people felt this was strange and unnerving, because it was, it just took us time to puzzle out. Without giving us that time to think for ourselves, we would have essentially just been told what was happening to us, instead of discovering it for ourselves.

Personally, I find the latter more enriching.

[balance5050]

 Why does TIM say "I've spent my whole life trying to understand the reapers" if Mass Effect 1 happened only a few years ago?

Modifié par balance5050, 14 mai 2012 - 06:51 .

[MaximizedAction]

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.

www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx

"What we’re doing with Mass Effect 3 that’s a little bit different than what we’ve done before is exploring the idea of getting the player to understand and feel what Commander Shepard is experiencing versus just reacting to other characters."

So by telling the player that he was indeed undergoing indoctrination would destroy a link between the player and Shepard that BW tried to establish.

In the KOTOR days a twist without explaining it would indeed have been fatal because then the game would've been released and finished without a proper story wrap up.
But in DLC days you have new possibilities for designing your story progression. And you could not do that with Expansion packs in the old days, because they cannot be given to the player for free...DLC can.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 14 mai 2012 - 06:53 .

[DJBare]

EpyonX3 wrote...


I always thought the reapers were simply making sure that there can never be a rival to them. Or that the needed organics to fuel them and multiply, therefore, harvesting them when their populations are largest.

Then I played the ending.

This was my thought also, the real threat of synthetics is to the reapers themselves, synthetics cannot be indoctrinated, and before anyone says anything, the heretics were not controlled, they "chose" to follow Sovereign believing him to be some kind of god.

Modifié par DJBare, 14 mai 2012 - 06:52 .

[SS2Dante]

EpyonX3 wrote...

SS2Dante 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.

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?

You could say the game is incomplete in either situation since they all lead to the reapers being alive in all three. At least with two options leading to you actually failing would make it less of an issue.

I don't know of this cube map. I've been away from this stuff for the last few days. I'll try flycamming the normandy. This is the last scene on the jungle planet right?

Yeah, it's just a bizarre cubemap in the jungle section, it shows what looks like Earth vancouver. Just curious to see if they misplaced it or if it was for testing or what.

[byne]

DJBare wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


I always thought the reapers were simply making sure that there can never be a rival to them. Or that the needed organics to fuel them and multiply, therefore, harvesting them when their populations are largest.

Then I played the ending.

This was my thought also, the real threat of synthetics is to the reapers themselves, synthetics cannot be indoctrinated, and before anyone says anything, the heretics were not controlled, they "chose" to follow Sovereign believing him to be some kind of god.

But that was because Sovereign indoctrinated them with a virus of some sort that made them think differently.

So yeah, they chose to follow him, but only because he changed how they made decisions.

[ExtendedCut]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

If they went with IT, it would be fan appeasement. "Okay lets roll with your ending and make you happy." . We all see that Bioware does not like being told their ending ideas suck. To roll with IT is like saying "yes we did not make a real ending"

The child was always some attempt at poetry that Shepard is hurting inside that he can't save everyone. The StarBrat is a Reaper using his weakness against him. Yes its not great writing, but I get it.

Not meaning to pile-on to my last post, but personally, I'm interested in a good story.  I'm not worried about Bioware's self-confidence or feelings about their product.  Should we settle for a poor story because the author wants it done his way?  Or should we ask for and/or suggest a better story?

As I have said in many previous posts - I don't think that question NEEDS an answer, because I trust Bioware's creativity and originality, hence my belief in IT.

Modifié par ExtendedCut, 14 mai 2012 - 06:54 .

[IronSabbath88]

I still stand by what I've always said.

BioWare had truly planned this from the start. Everything fits far too well together to be anything but that. The fact that there are people who are actually telling me BioWare left those telling signs of the dream sequences and all the hints of possible indoctrination in the game just to not do anything with them is absurd, from a story standpoint.

People hate the term "artistic integrity", "artistic vision" and what have you. But what the IT truly is and always has been is an artistic vision. Changing the ending completley to disregard everything we saw would erradicate the entire process of player indoctrination and would eliminate the entire point of BioWare's intention with the ending.

Notice people have stopped believing in this theory? They've given up hope, which is exactly what BioWare has seemingly been trying to do, kill off this theory so that they can still drop the bombshell when EC releases.

"clarity and closure" Enough said.

[DJBare]

byne wrote...

DJBare wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


I always thought the reapers were simply making sure that there can never be a rival to them. Or that the needed organics to fuel them and multiply, therefore, harvesting them when their populations are largest.

Then I played the ending.

This was my thought also, the real threat of synthetics is to the reapers themselves, synthetics cannot be indoctrinated, and before anyone says anything, the heretics were not controlled, they "chose" to follow Sovereign believing him to be some kind of god.

But that was because Sovereign indoctrinated them with a virus of some sort that made them think differently.

So yeah, they chose to follow him, but only because he changed how they made decisions.

Where was this cited?, Legion specifically tells you the heretics made the choice to leave the consesus.

[Nauks]

balance5050 wrote...

 Why does TIM say "I've spent my whole life trying to understand the reapers" if Mass Effect 1 happened only a few years ago?

He's been trying to understand them ever since he got his eyes from that Reaper device in the First Contact War, what's that like 30ish years?

[EpyonX3]

DJBare wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


I always thought the reapers were simply making sure that there can never be a rival to them. Or that the needed organics to fuel them and multiply, therefore, harvesting them when their populations are largest.

Then I played the ending.

This was my thought also, the real threat of synthetics is to the reapers themselves, synthetics cannot be indoctrinated, and before anyone says anything, the heretics were not controlled, they "chose" to follow Sovereign believing him to be some kind of god.

But there were pockets of geth "loaded with reaper code." They would have been synthetic husks eventually.