446 réponses à ce sujet

[The Protheans]

This changes nothing,
I.T is the way it ends.

[balance5050]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

Icinix wrote...

BioWare has had some very good twists in their games in the past. KOTOR could lead to most of your squad turning on you and you being forced to kill them a short time before the final stages. DAO could see a similar thing occur and DA2 has one of your squad commmit an amazingly bad act that you could then forgive him or stab him for.

This ****** poor theory you're referring to is well in line with what BioWare has done in the past, is a deep seated theme within the game, brought up and hinted at repeatedly, that has enough weight to have merit and the best part about this theory, its' based on the idea its making the player believe they're not. Making the player feel something their avatar is feeling. Which is something that was brought up at several stages during the marketing of Mass Effect.

The key difference hear being that these twists are in game and the truth is handed to us on a sliver platter. IT needs 84 minute long videos just to make it sound halfway plausible. I dont even think half the guys who wrote these twists even work for BioWare anymore.

As for their marketing promises. Remember what was said about the Rachni? The temporary squadmates? The trial on Earth? The smaller squad for more in depth character development? Worst of all 'your choices matter'.

Right, so all we can trust is ingame evidence.... I.T. all the way?

[jla0644]

balance5050 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...


True, and all those suggestions, hints, and clues can just as easily lead you somewhere else other than indoctrination. I know you guys are fond of saying that your theory is the only way to make sense of things, but it simply isn't true. Every single person that doesn't believe it is proof of that. Your "evidence" is not as obvious as you like to think it is.

Where ELSE could the evidence POSSIBLY lead? If it "easily" points to other things, you should be able to say ONE thing that fits with the story and themes just as easily as I.T..

You'll have to be more specific. But it's probably pretty safe to assume that where you might see evidence, I see you reading way too much into something that doesn't really mean anything. 

The gun changes from a predator to a carnifex?  Don't care, that's been happening since ME1.

The plants at the end are labeled "dream foliage"? Don't care, meaningless, if a "clue" is buried someplace where many players will never see it, it's not much of a clue.

[Icinix]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

Icinix wrote...

BioWare has had some very good twists in their games in the past. KOTOR could lead to most of your squad turning on you and you being forced to kill them a short time before the final stages. DAO could see a similar thing occur and DA2 has one of your squad commmit an amazingly bad act that you could then forgive him or stab him for.

This ****** poor theory you're referring to is well in line with what BioWare has done in the past, is a deep seated theme within the game, brought up and hinted at repeatedly, that has enough weight to have merit and the best part about this theory, its' based on the idea its making the player believe they're not. Making the player feel something their avatar is feeling. Which is something that was brought up at several stages during the marketing of Mass Effect.

The key difference hear being that these twists are in game and the truth is handed to us on a sliver platter. IT needs 84 minute long videos just to make it sound halfway plausible. I dont even think half the guys who wrote these twists even work for BioWare anymore.

As for their marketing promises. Remember what was said about the Rachni? The temporary squadmates? The trial on Earth? The smaller squad for more in depth character development? Worst of all 'your choices matter'.

Those twists were done before DLC came to the fore - see the other thing with endings expanded in DLC is it also helps cut in on that used game trade. People won't want to trade in their games if there is a chance they'll get better endings.

As for the 84 minute videos, nah it doesn't need those. I've been an IT theoriest (a little redundant there but bare with me) since the idea the child was not real in the Earth video trailer way back last year. Way back then the idea was being thrown around the ME3 would have to deal with indoctrination at some stage. Its brought up to often, was the entire reason for ME1, was a huge question mark over the protagonist in ME2 and is thrown around a lot in ME3 but never really shown. As for the people who leave, writers have come and gone constantly in BioWare games. I wouldn't think that would stop them.

Yeah sure the marketing doesn't seem to fit in with what we got, but if there is more yet to come, it might well do.

Once again, don't get me wrong, I really think BioWare dropped the ball a lot in ME3 - but in spite of that (and not because of it) I believe more so that there is something kooky going on with the ending.

[BatmanTurian]

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...


True, and all those suggestions, hints, and clues can just as easily lead you somewhere else other than indoctrination. I know you guys are fond of saying that your theory is the only way to make sense of things, but it simply isn't true. Every single person that doesn't believe it is proof of that. Your "evidence" is not as obvious as you like to think it is.

Where ELSE could the evidence POSSIBLY lead? If it "easily" points to other things, you should be able to say ONE thing that fits with the story and themes just as easily as I.T..

You'll have to be more specific. But it's probably pretty safe to assume that where you might see evidence, I see you reading way too much into something that doesn't really mean anything. 

The gun changes from a predator to a carnifex?  Don't care, that's been happening since ME1.

The plants at the end are labeled "dream foliage"? Don't care, meaningless, if a "clue" is buried someplace where many players will never see it, it's not much of a clue.

The gun change happens mid-cutscene, which is not a bug and must be specifically coded in to happen. Therefore, it is intentional.

As for Dream foliage, yeah, that's still up in the air.

[balance5050]

jla0644 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jla0644 wrote...


True, and all those suggestions, hints, and clues can just as easily lead you somewhere else other than indoctrination. I know you guys are fond of saying that your theory is the only way to make sense of things, but it simply isn't true. Every single person that doesn't believe it is proof of that. Your "evidence" is not as obvious as you like to think it is.

Where ELSE could the evidence POSSIBLY lead? If it "easily" points to other things, you should be able to say ONE thing that fits with the story and themes just as easily as I.T..

You'll have to be more specific. But it's probably pretty safe to assume that where you might see evidence, I see you reading way too much into something that doesn't really mean anything. 

The gun changes from a predator to a carnifex?  Don't care, that's been happening since ME1.

The plants at the end are labeled "dream foliage"? Don't care, meaningless, if a "clue" is buried someplace where many players will never see it, it's not much of a clue.

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.

[jla0644]

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.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

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?

Goes back to a high EMS. You preformed well and therefor unlock a better version of destroy. One where Shepard can survive. Sure the system is not a perfect translation of the ME2 system because I doubt Bioware would have the system work the precise same way, they wanted Shepard being able to survive to be a major achievment.

I always interpretated that EMS was meant to be what represented our preformance during the final mission as it was what was responsible for unlocking better endings and possibly make it so everyone of our squad goes through unscathed. Feel free to disagree with me here.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

The key difference hear being that these twists are in game and the truth is handed to us on a sliver platter. IT needs 84 minute long videos just to make it sound halfway plausible. I dont even think half the guys who wrote these twists even work for BioWare anymore.

As for their marketing promises. Remember what was said about the Rachni? The temporary squadmates? The trial on Earth? The smaller squad for more in depth character development? Worst of all 'your choices matter'.

The hints that you were Revan in KOTOR were spread out across the game, yet few pierced them together before the revelation where they became clear in hindsight. A twist is not a twist if it is handed to you on silver platter.

And just so you know the Rachni can still have thier moment in the IT. I personally came up with plausible way they could be important in the ending.

To do this short, we know the Rachni queen can interact with the mind of a living creature (asari in ME2) and that it is immune to Indoctrination (ME3) so having spared the Rachni queen could under the IT become a fail safe of sorts where the Rachni queen interacts with Shepards mind to save him from Indoctrination should your choice lead you to succumb to it. The downside here could be that the queen is killed in the proces of getting close enough to save Shepard. How is that for Rachni importance?

As for our choices mattering. Well they did matter throughout the game (do you know how many outcomes curing the Genophage can have depending on your past choices? Hint, it is alot.

But the EC can still add closure and potential for a choices to matter in the ending.

[BatmanTurian]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

Icinix wrote...

BioWare has had some very good twists in their games in the past. KOTOR could lead to most of your squad turning on you and you being forced to kill them a short time before the final stages. DAO could see a similar thing occur and DA2 has one of your squad commmit an amazingly bad act that you could then forgive him or stab him for.

This ****** poor theory you're referring to is well in line with what BioWare has done in the past, is a deep seated theme within the game, brought up and hinted at repeatedly, that has enough weight to have merit and the best part about this theory, its' based on the idea its making the player believe they're not. Making the player feel something their avatar is feeling. Which is something that was brought up at several stages during the marketing of Mass Effect.

The key difference hear being that these twists are in game and the truth is handed to us on a sliver platter. IT needs 84 minute long videos just to make it sound halfway plausible. I dont even think half the guys who wrote these twists even work for BioWare anymore.

As for their marketing promises. Remember what was said about the Rachni? The temporary squadmates? The trial on Earth? The smaller squad for more in depth character development? Worst of all 'your choices matter'.

If you want truth handed to you on a silver platter, you should play COD. Mass Effect has always been an intellectual story, not just straightforward action. There were many times Shepard was tricked by in-game characters. There are also many times that players are left with ambiguous and dubious choices to make.

As for the marketing promises, the game isn't over until they stop delivering DLC.

[balance5050]

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.

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

 

[jla0644]

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?

[Pottumuusi]

Of course IT isn't true. It's just that it says something about your ending when "it was just a dream" legitimately makes more sense than it does.

[Icinix]

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?

A lot of ideas have been thrown around - when taking stronger forceful stances, shooting wrex mordin etc the carnifex is used in cutscenes. But when freeing the Rachni queen, TIM shooting himself (freeing himself from Reaper control) Predator is used.

Look sure, it seems like clutching at straws - but it does happen. There does seem to be specific lines written to load the gun OVER the Carnifex when the explosion hits Shepard.

Yes its crazy, but its there.

[BatmanTurian]

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.

[SubAstris]

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?

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Lizardviking 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?

Goes back to a high EMS. You preformed well and therefor unlock a better version of destroy. One where Shepard can survive. Sure the system is not a perfect translation of the ME2 system because I doubt Bioware would have the system work the precise same way, they wanted Shepard being able to survive to be a major achievment.

I always interpretated that EMS was meant to be what represented our preformance during the final mission as it was what was responsible for unlocking better endings and possibly make it so everyone of our squad goes through unscathed. Feel free to disagree with me here.

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.

Then Shepard also take a small explosion to the face (destroying the tube) and then a massive explosion which is wider than the presidium ring (the ring is 7.2 km in diameter.) To put it shortly a explosion of that size lies at the lowest in the Gigaton range and Shepard is near ground zero without a functional Space suit or kinetic barriers. He should be vaporized from the heat alone of such an explosion.

Then comes orbital reentry and impact on Earth (the rubble around him the breah scene has been directly compared to the concrete of London) and then he takes a breath...

Explain that entire train of events. Shepard is good, but he is not god.

[Raiil]

Why does Shepard have to be back in London?

[jla0644]

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.  

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Lizardviking 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?

Goes back to a high EMS. You preformed well and therefor unlock a better version of destroy. One where Shepard can survive. Sure the system is not a perfect translation of the ME2 system because I doubt Bioware would have the system work the precise same way, they wanted Shepard being able to survive to be a major achievment.

I always interpretated that EMS was meant to be what represented our preformance during the final mission as it was what was responsible for unlocking better endings and possibly make it so everyone of our squad goes through unscathed. Feel free to disagree with me here.

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.

Then Shepard also take a small explosion to the face (destroying the tube) and then a massive explosion which is wider than the presidium ring (the ring is 7.2 km in diameter.) To put it shortly a explosion of that size lies at the lowest in the Gigaton range and Shepard is near ground zero without a functional Space suit or kinetic barriers. He should be vaporized from the heat alone of such an explosion.

Then comes orbital reentry and impact on Earth (the rubble around him the breah scene has been directly compared to the concrete of London) and then he takes a breath...

Explain that entire train of events. Shepard is good, but he is not god.

I have no explaination for that because what you mentioned is plothole #19842.

The sheer amount of plotholes is one reason why the endings suck.

[balance5050]

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. 

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

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.

[BatmanTurian]

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.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Lizardviking wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Lizardviking 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?

Goes back to a high EMS. You preformed well and therefor unlock a better version of destroy. One where Shepard can survive. Sure the system is not a perfect translation of the ME2 system because I doubt Bioware would have the system work the precise same way, they wanted Shepard being able to survive to be a major achievment.

I always interpretated that EMS was meant to be what represented our preformance during the final mission as it was what was responsible for unlocking better endings and possibly make it so everyone of our squad goes through unscathed. Feel free to disagree with me here.

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.

Then Shepard also take a small explosion to the face (destroying the tube) and then a massive explosion which is wider than the presidium ring (the ring is 7.2 km in diameter.) To put it shortly a explosion of that size lies at the lowest in the Gigaton range and Shepard is near ground zero without a functional Space suit or kinetic barriers. He should be vaporized from the heat alone of such an explosion.

Then comes orbital reentry and impact on Earth (the rubble around him the breah scene has been directly compared to the concrete of London) and then he takes a breath...

Explain that entire train of events. Shepard is good, but he is not god.

I have no explaination for that because what you mentioned is plothole #19842.

The sheer amount of plotholes is one reason why the endings suck.

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

[balance5050]

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.  

All I'm saying is they were stewing over this idea since early development. they've always knew they were going to show a scene with him alive even though he was supposed to be dead.