446 réponses à ce sujet

[jla0644]

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

And yet Shepard will not die in the Destroy ending as opposed to the other endings if you had enough EMS. How do you explain that?

How do you know that isn't Shepard's dying breath?

It's just a bonus scene if you did enough and have high enough EMS. At this point Bioware could decide to do something with it, but imo they never intended for it to be anything that important.

Why does it only happen in Destroy? Easy, it's the only option where Shep isn't disintegrated by the Crucible.

except he would be nothing but an ashy smear if he was still on the citadel and a multimegaton blast erupted with him at the center of it. The blast at Hiroshima was only 100 kilotons in a 400 meter radius. This blast is several times more destructive in multitudes.

Then he magically falls from the Citadel down to Earth in a place with London's concrete.

You're speculating that Shepard's back on earth. You don't know where he/she is.

As for the explosion not obliterating him/her, I'd much rather see a plot hole then indoctrination. If Bioware wants him/her to survive, they can come up with something more plausible. But I believe Shep is dead or dying in every ending.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Valentia X wrote...

Why does Shepard have to be back in London?

The rubble sourounding Shepard in the breath scene following Destroy is quite clearly concrete a material which is almost completely absent on the Citadel. But if that is not enough the lines ins aid concrete has been directly compared with concrete from london and they match perfectly.

Also if Shepard was still on the Citadel following the explosion there he would mos likely be breathing vacuum.

[Icinix]

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


WOAH! wrong, Bioware intended for this scene to cause an upraor for a LONG time:

 

Sorry, but unless you were in the room with Mac Walters when he was brainstorming, or you've interviewed him and asked what he meant by all those different ideas, which ones he used, which ones were discarded, etc, etc, then you really have no idea what any of that means.

At the most "Shepard Alive -- sense of hope" could mean just that, giving a sense of hope to the player at the very end, since the rest of it was pretty damn depressing. But I don't see anything about indoctrination, hallucinations, or anything to suggest that the ending was not real.  

The references to Brave New World and Matrix would lean towards some aspect not being real, Symbolic as well written at the very top.

Lots of speculation. I think there is enough on there to suggest the idea is indeed being toyed with that whats happening may not be 100% truth.

[BatmanTurian]

Valentia X wrote...

Why does Shepard have to be back in London?

Concrete, wind, overturned mako, Shepard can't survive a multimegaton blast. The last is the most damning and can't be disputed.

[jla0644]

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sigh... you said "all those suggestions, hints, and clues can just as easily lead you somewhere else other than indoctrination."  and I'm asking "WHERE ELSE?"

Guns change from scene to scene yes... but NEVER in the middle of a scene, the gun assets were specifically loaded in the files under the destroy ending. It was intentional.

Almost every part of the end is asset reuse because the environment is being reconstructed from your memories. Legion tells you why machines do this in the Geth consensus mission.

Lol really? It leads to the ending that we got, not a speulative piece of fan fiction.

So if it was intentional, what does it mean? What's the signifigance of the gun changing?

IT is a literary interpretation not fan fiction. Know the meanings of terms before you use them.

lol @ literary interpretation

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

jla0644 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

And yet Shepard will not die in the Destroy ending as opposed to the other endings if you had enough EMS. How do you explain that?

How do you know that isn't Shepard's dying breath?

It's just a bonus scene if you did enough and have high enough EMS. At this point Bioware could decide to do something with it, but imo they never intended for it to be anything that important.

Why does it only happen in Destroy? Easy, it's the only option where Shep isn't disintegrated by the Crucible.

except he would be nothing but an ashy smear if he was still on the citadel and a multimegaton blast erupted with him at the center of it. The blast at Hiroshima was only 100 kilotons in a 400 meter radius. This blast is several times more destructive in multitudes.

Then he magically falls from the Citadel down to Earth in a place with London's concrete.

You're speculating that Shepard's back on earth. You don't know where he/she is.

As for the explosion not obliterating him/her, I'd much rather see a plot hole then indoctrination. If Bioware wants him/her to survive, they can come up with something more plausible. But I believe Shep is dead or dying in every ending.

If Shepard was dying we would see him breathing and then stop.

The device of seeing a seemingly dead body and then after a short while have it draw a single deep breath is an age old litterary device and it is very rare the person it is used on dies shortly after that breath.

[Cimeas]

Actually the last words of the game are arguably 'content' and 'OK'. Yes you could consider the 'OK' an interface element but then that whole screen would be an interface element as well.

[llbountyhunter]

jla0644 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

And yet Shepard will not die in the Destroy ending as opposed to the other endings if you had enough EMS. How do you explain that?

How do you know that isn't Shepard's dying breath?

It's just a bonus scene if you did enough and have high enough EMS. At this point Bioware could decide to do something with it, but imo they never intended for it to be anything that important.

Why does it only happen in Destroy? Easy, it's the only option where Shep isn't disintegrated by the Crucible.

except he would be nothing but an ashy smear if he was still on the citadel and a multimegaton blast erupted with him at the center of it. The blast at Hiroshima was only 100 kilotons in a 400 meter radius. This blast is several times more destructive in multitudes.

Then he magically falls from the Citadel down to Earth in a place with London's concrete.

You're speculating that Shepard's back on earth. You don't know where he/she is.

As for the explosion not obliterating him/her, I'd much rather see a plot hole then indoctrination. If Bioware wants him/her to survive, they can come up with something more plausible. But I believe Shep is dead or dying in every ending.

 

[balance5050]

jla0644 wrote...


As for the explosion not obliterating him/her, I'd much rather see a plot hole then indoctrination. If Bioware wants him/her to survive, they can come up with something more plausible. But I believe Shep is dead or dying in every ending.

"I'd much rather see a plot hole then indoctrination."

LOL! see, there's your problem, you'd rather see a plothole than a story device that comes from the actual lore. You're fighting an uphill battle on this one my friend.

[balance5050]

jla0644 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sigh... you said "all those suggestions, hints, and clues can just as easily lead you somewhere else other than indoctrination."  and I'm asking "WHERE ELSE?"

Guns change from scene to scene yes... but NEVER in the middle of a scene, the gun assets were specifically loaded in the files under the destroy ending. It was intentional.

Almost every part of the end is asset reuse because the environment is being reconstructed from your memories. Legion tells you why machines do this in the Geth consensus mission.

Lol really? It leads to the ending that we got, not a speulative piece of fan fiction.

So if it was intentional, what does it mean? What's the signifigance of the gun changing?

IT is a literary interpretation not fan fiction. Know the meanings of terms before you use them.

lol @ literary interpretation

Is it funny cause you don't know what it means?

[Raiil]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Why does Shepard have to be back in London?

The rubble sourounding Shepard in the breath scene following Destroy is quite clearly concrete a material which is almost completely absent on the Citadel. But if that is not enough the lines ins aid concrete has been directly compared with concrete from london and they match perfectly.

Also if Shepard was still on the Citadel following the explosion there he would mos likely be breathing vacuum.

There's plenty of concrete on the Citadel in the warehouse area, where you do Garrus's loyalty mission in Mass Effect 2, and getting blown into the warehouse district works just as easily as anything else. And BioWare already stated, I believe, that there are kinetic barriers that went up in the Citadel (it was something to do that went along with 'plot-relevant npcs in the Citadel are still alive). That would easily allow Shepard to survive.

And BioWare reuses assets all the time. Look at Dragon Age 2. <_<

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
But why was such plotholes not present on Tuchanka and Rannoch? because they ran out of time? A game is not made chronolgically.

Didn't the final hour app mention that they were struggling with making the ending as late as November?

And there is already poor writing in other areas of ME3. Such as Cerberus in the time span of 6 months becoming an empire, Shepard getting away with killing 300.0000 Batarians with no punishment.

[BatmanTurian]

jla0644 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

And yet Shepard will not die in the Destroy ending as opposed to the other endings if you had enough EMS. How do you explain that?

How do you know that isn't Shepard's dying breath?

It's just a bonus scene if you did enough and have high enough EMS. At this point Bioware could decide to do something with it, but imo they never intended for it to be anything that important.

Why does it only happen in Destroy? Easy, it's the only option where Shep isn't disintegrated by the Crucible.

except he would be nothing but an ashy smear if he was still on the citadel and a multimegaton blast erupted with him at the center of it. The blast at Hiroshima was only 100 kilotons in a 400 meter radius. This blast is several times more destructive in multitudes.

Then he magically falls from the Citadel down to Earth in a place with London's concrete.

You're speculating that Shepard's back on earth. You don't know where he/she is.

As for the explosion not obliterating him/her, I'd much rather see a plot hole then indoctrination. If Bioware wants him/her to survive, they can come up with something more plausible. But I believe Shep is dead or dying in every ending.

Then you're in denial. A person, whether they have armor and shields or not, would not be able to survive a multimegaton blast like that. You have no answer. Even if Shepard was in a Mass Effect field holding in oxygen, a) Shepard is at ground zero and the force of the explosion on the air around it would pop Shepard's lungs like baloons so Shepard would not even be able to take a breath, and c) even if Shepard was blown away from the blast into one of the wards, the force of the blast would make Shepard a greasy red smear..

[ArkkAngel007]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Why does Shepard have to be back in London?

The rubble sourounding Shepard in the breath scene following Destroy is quite clearly concrete a material which is almost completely absent on the Citadel. But if that is not enough the lines ins aid concrete has been directly compared with concrete from london and they match perfectly.

Also if Shepard was still on the Citadel following the explosion there he would mos likely be breathing vacuum.

Some of the rubble matches the facade elements of some of the London buildings as well, and you can see the shelving units from building interiors in that scene.  

Some use the Citadel can seal itself into compartments upon damage.  However, Shepard was directly next to the Crucible contact point, and would not have survived.

My question to the anti-crowd is: what the **** does it matter what other people think/believe?  It's not affecting you, or at least shouldn't be.  Disagreeing is one thing, but being hateful is just absurd and problematic.

[FatalX7.0]

My Shepard has dreams of ads that tell her to buy DLC?


THE FOURTH WALL.

HAS BEEN BROKEN.

*mindsplode*

[kumquats]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Yeah but how does he survive? Lets break this down, shall we?

The Starbrat pretty clearly implies that Shepard will die (The "even you are partly synthetic line), but Shepard dosent.

No, that's wrong. He says that Shepard is partly Synthetic, that means that some of his implants or whatever modification he has, will be destroyed.  

He says that Shepard will die in Control, that is what happens. The child says nothing about Synthesis.

I love the low ems control ending, the Starchild is so pissed off about winning, it's hilarious.

Sovereign must have been full of rage, when he indoctrinated Benezia and Saren. ^.^
**** my plan is working, so damn organics, how dare they let me win. *shakes fist*

[balance5050]

Valentia X wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Why does Shepard have to be back in London?

The rubble sourounding Shepard in the breath scene following Destroy is quite clearly concrete a material which is almost completely absent on the Citadel. But if that is not enough the lines ins aid concrete has been directly compared with concrete from london and they match perfectly.

Also if Shepard was still on the Citadel following the explosion there he would mos likely be breathing vacuum.

There's plenty of concrete on the Citadel in the warehouse area, where you do Garrus's loyalty mission in Mass Effect 2, and getting blown into the warehouse district works just as easily as anything else. And BioWare already stated, I believe, that there are kinetic barriers that went up in the Citadel (it was something to do that went along with 'plot-relevant npcs in the Citadel are still alive). That would easily allow Shepard to survive.

And BioWare reuses assets all the time. Look at Dragon Age 2. <_<

He was miles from the wing and the kinetic barriers would zap him if he did fall all the way over there.

The dragon age team is a completely different team than the ME team.

Modifié par balance5050, 18 mai 2012 - 05:24 .

[jla0644]

balance5050 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sigh... you said "all those suggestions, hints, and clues can just as easily lead you somewhere else other than indoctrination."  and I'm asking "WHERE ELSE?"

Guns change from scene to scene yes... but NEVER in the middle of a scene, the gun assets were specifically loaded in the files under the destroy ending. It was intentional.

Almost every part of the end is asset reuse because the environment is being reconstructed from your memories. Legion tells you why machines do this in the Geth consensus mission.

Lol really? It leads to the ending that we got, not a speulative piece of fan fiction.

So if it was intentional, what does it mean? What's the signifigance of the gun changing?

Noo.. the hints are actually pointing away from the endings we got.... Like the kill beam starting in the viper system (The Arrival) and the asset reuse meant to remind you of other part of the game, direct contradictions by the catalyst, etc.

The Predetor is considered Shepards default pistol unless he is doing a more renegade or scumbag action. The gun changes from a carnifex, typically used by bad guys, and the it changes to the good guy predetor once for the final shot in the destroy option. 

Because that's how you choose to see it.  Fine. I don't.

I think you guys are reading way too much into things that simply don't matter. I think the endings really are as bad as they see. I think it's filled with plot holes and Bioware didn't think we would care. Why is your interpretaion more valid than mine?

[SubAstris]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Funny how IT theorists can't see the wood for the trees here when they accuse those who opposed them of exactly the same thing.There is no good explanation why BW is lying here, it is just assumed by IT theorists to be the case because otherwise their theory would fall to pieces. But say it isn't true, then how can you trust BW on anything then? Are they really make an EC, or are they just lying aswell, IT theorists?

Where did we acuse Bioware of lying?

If you imply that we acuse Bioware of lying by picking apart the massive holes in the ending (look at my post above for one) then you need glasses.

We started by looking at things which did not fit and then we discussed how it could be possible, With the help of other in game hints centered mostly around the dreams that is what became the IT theory. It arose because there are massive holes in the ending which needed explaining, not by us acusing Bioware of lying.

Me knows what IT is 

[BatmanTurian]

jla0644 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sigh... you said "all those suggestions, hints, and clues can just as easily lead you somewhere else other than indoctrination."  and I'm asking "WHERE ELSE?"

Guns change from scene to scene yes... but NEVER in the middle of a scene, the gun assets were specifically loaded in the files under the destroy ending. It was intentional.

Almost every part of the end is asset reuse because the environment is being reconstructed from your memories. Legion tells you why machines do this in the Geth consensus mission.

Lol really? It leads to the ending that we got, not a speulative piece of fan fiction.

So if it was intentional, what does it mean? What's the signifigance of the gun changing?

IT is a literary interpretation not fan fiction. Know the meanings of terms before you use them.

lol @ literary interpretation

Yes, I had a discussion with someone like you last night. a literary interpretation is examining a story, it's plot, characters, scenes etc. for meaning and metaphor. It's similar to how some interpret art. Fan fiction is writing stories within another person's copyrighted universe such as www.fanfiction.net. If you don't know the difference, don't use the term.

[FatalX7.0]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Why does Shepard have to be back in London?

The rubble sourounding Shepard in the breath scene following Destroy is quite clearly concrete a material which is almost completely absent on the Citadel. But if that is not enough the lines ins aid concrete has been directly compared with concrete from london and they match perfectly.

Also if Shepard was still on the Citadel following the explosion there he would mos likely be breathing vacuum.

Some of the rubble matches the facade elements of some of the London buildings as well, and you can see the shelving units from building interiors in that scene.  

Some use the Citadel can seal itself into compartments upon damage.  However, Shepard was directly next to the Crucible contact point, and would not have survived.

My question to the anti-crowd is: what the **** does it matter what other people think/believe?  It's not affecting you, or at least shouldn't be.  Disagreeing is one thing, but being hateful is just absurd and problematic.

Have you not seen the IT supporters who insult non-IT supporters?

I don't like IT, I think it's dumb, therefore, I am too stupid to understand the amazingness of the truths and facts and must have it shoved down my throat every time I say something against it, whether it's hateful or not.


Both sides are douchefaces.

[jla0644]

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

And yet Shepard will not die in the Destroy ending as opposed to the other endings if you had enough EMS. How do you explain that?

How do you know that isn't Shepard's dying breath?

It's just a bonus scene if you did enough and have high enough EMS. At this point Bioware could decide to do something with it, but imo they never intended for it to be anything that important.

Why does it only happen in Destroy? Easy, it's the only option where Shep isn't disintegrated by the Crucible.

except he would be nothing but an ashy smear if he was still on the citadel and a multimegaton blast erupted with him at the center of it. The blast at Hiroshima was only 100 kilotons in a 400 meter radius. This blast is several times more destructive in multitudes.

Then he magically falls from the Citadel down to Earth in a place with London's concrete.

You're speculating that Shepard's back on earth. You don't know where he/she is.

As for the explosion not obliterating him/her, I'd much rather see a plot hole then indoctrination. If Bioware wants him/her to survive, they can come up with something more plausible. But I believe Shep is dead or dying in every ending.

Then you're in denial. A person, whether they have armor and shields or not, would not be able to survive a multimegaton blast like that. You have no answer. Even if Shepard was in a Mass Effect field holding in oxygen, a) Shepard is at ground zero and the force of the explosion on the air around it would pop Shepard's lungs like baloons so Shepard would not even be able to take a breath, and c) even if Shepard was blown away from the blast into one of the wards, the force of the blast would make Shepard a greasy red smear..

And all you're trying to do is fill in a plot hole with speculation. Knock yourself out, nothing wrong with that. I don't feel the need to do so. I don't that scene is important enough to worry myself over.

[balance5050]

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sigh... you said "all those suggestions, hints, and clues can just as easily lead you somewhere else other than indoctrination."  and I'm asking "WHERE ELSE?"

Guns change from scene to scene yes... but NEVER in the middle of a scene, the gun assets were specifically loaded in the files under the destroy ending. It was intentional.

Almost every part of the end is asset reuse because the environment is being reconstructed from your memories. Legion tells you why machines do this in the Geth consensus mission.

Lol really? It leads to the ending that we got, not a speulative piece of fan fiction.

So if it was intentional, what does it mean? What's the signifigance of the gun changing?

Noo.. the hints are actually pointing away from the endings we got.... Like the kill beam starting in the viper system (The Arrival) and the asset reuse meant to remind you of other part of the game, direct contradictions by the catalyst, etc.

The Predetor is considered Shepards default pistol unless he is doing a more renegade or scumbag action. The gun changes from a carnifex, typically used by bad guys, and the it changes to the good guy predetor once for the final shot in the destroy option. 

Because that's how you choose to see it.  Fine. I don't.

I think you guys are reading way too much into things that simply don't matter. I think the endings really are as bad as they see. I think it's filled with plot holes and Bioware didn't think we would care. Why is your interpretaion more valid than mine?

Not more valid at all, just fits in with the actual story, and gives bioware the benefit of the doubt, and explains the intent behind the strangeness that only seems apparent in the end. Not more valid, just more thorough and positive.

[llbountyhunter]

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sigh... you said "all those suggestions, hints, and clues can just as easily lead you somewhere else other than indoctrination."  and I'm asking "WHERE ELSE?"

Guns change from scene to scene yes... but NEVER in the middle of a scene, the gun assets were specifically loaded in the files under the destroy ending. It was intentional.

Almost every part of the end is asset reuse because the environment is being reconstructed from your memories. Legion tells you why machines do this in the Geth consensus mission.

Lol really? It leads to the ending that we got, not a speulative piece of fan fiction.

So if it was intentional, what does it mean? What's the signifigance of the gun changing?

Noo.. the hints are actually pointing away from the endings we got.... Like the kill beam starting in the viper system (The Arrival) and the asset reuse meant to remind you of other part of the game, direct contradictions by the catalyst, etc.

The Predetor is considered Shepards default pistol unless he is doing a more renegade or scumbag action. The gun changes from a carnifex, typically used by bad guys, and the it changes to the good guy predetor once for the final shot in the destroy option. 

Because that's how you choose to see it.  Fine. I don't.

I think you guys are reading way too much into things that simply don't matter. I think the endings really are as bad as they see. I think it's filled with plot holes and Bioware didn't think we would care. Why is your interpretaion more valid than mine?

much better.

and were not saying IT is true- just that its a plausible theory. the evidence favors IT.

[Tirian Thorn]

Nothing that has come out so far proves or disproves the Indoctrination Theory. 

Whether the ending/s are real or a hallucination or something else will hopefully be concluded when EC comes out. 

Bioware has NOT confirmed, nor denied indoctrination theory. They have also not confirmed that the endings should
be taken literally. 
Bioware wanted and wants speculation from the fans. They wanted passion and they wanted all of “this.” And they’ve said they wanted the ending to be polarizing.  I do think that they were unprepared for some of the backlash they did receive, but it’s all press, it’s all publicity. This is exactly what they wanted.  

So I’m sorry if you dislike the Indoctrination Theory, but right now, it’s just as valid a theory as anything else. There is no direct or concrete evidence to prove or disprove it. The theory is based upon a pile of circumstantial evidence. And if based on that evidence you believe, great. If based on that evidence you still don’t think Indoctrination theory is true, that’s fine as well.