328 réponses à ce sujet

[IndridColdx]

Sal86 wrote...

If you're talking about the door in particular, it's not exactly 'locked'. The door itself does open, the red square just stays hovering there, in mid-air. This one I can chalk up as a glitch personally.

The whole thing with the kid though, that is pretty damn weird.

I agree, could be a glitch.  

[liggy002]

What's even more interesting about the kid running into the building is the fact that Bioware distracts us with the husks and Anderson telling us to shoot them. It's as if Bioware doesn't want us to see this on the initial playthough so we will have to dig for it come speculation time. You've really got to wonder about that.

Also, why don't the husks attack Shepard at the building? I found that kind of strange that they ignored him at first. Perhaps they were being controlled by the kid to make Shepard believe he was helpless.

[Taboo]

Or it's terrible writing. It happens. Jesus Christ people.

Continuity errors and plot holes.

That's what it is.

[liggy002]

IndridColdx wrote...

Sal86 wrote...

If you're talking about the door in particular, it's not exactly 'locked'. The door itself does open, the red square just stays hovering there, in mid-air. This one I can chalk up as a glitch personally.

The whole thing with the kid though, that is pretty damn weird.

I agree, could be a glitch.  

So it's a glitch that they are intentionally trying to distract us from seeing?  It holds more water than that.

[Taboo]

It holds nothing.

It's just like the helicopter at the bottom left of the screen if The Shining is framed improperly.

IT'S AN ERROR.

[Humakt83]

If you've missed this, I wonder what else you have missed.

This should allow you to catch up:
http://masseffectind...on.blogspot.fi/

Taboo-XX wrote...

It holds nothing.

It's just like the helicopter at the bottom left of the screen if The Shining is framed improperly.

IT'S AN ERROR.

 

Who are you trying to assure here? Yourself?

Modifié par Humakt83, 01 juin 2012 - 06:36 .

[liggy002]

Makrys wrote...

Regardless, even if the kid was real during this scene, it does nothing to disprove the IT. In fact, it almost makes even more sense. It would just be a slightly different take on him. For example... the Reapers killed this child and they know Shepard saw it, so they use the form of this child in his dreams to break Shepard's will. It would be just another plausible view of the star child. So arguing that this scene is somehow evidence against the IT is pointless.

That kid isn't real.  I strongly think that he is a Reaper illusion.

[squee365]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Or it's terrible writing. It happens. Jesus Christ people.

Continuity errors and plot holes.

That's what it is.

How come the "terrible writing" argument only ever pertains to IT theory related topics?
I've never heard anyone point out continuity errors for something like...Tuchanka or...Rannoch, or the Cerberus Coup. 

[Tom Lehrer]

liggy002 wrote...

Makrys wrote...

Regardless, even if the kid was real during this scene, it does nothing to disprove the IT. In fact, it almost makes even more sense. It would just be a slightly different take on him. For example... the Reapers killed this child and they know Shepard saw it, so they use the form of this child in his dreams to break Shepard's will. It would be just another plausible view of the star child. So arguing that this scene is somehow evidence against the IT is pointless.

That kid isn't real.  I strongly think that he is a Reaper illusion.

If Shepard is at the point that the Reapers can make him see things while awake the game would have been about helping the Reapers not killing them

[Mobius-Silent]

IndridColdx wrote...
It seems to me that Bioware almost HAS to go with the Indoctrination Theory or some rendition of it, otherwise they are making one of the most colossal mistakes they can possibly make in probably the biggest game they have ever created.

I completely _utterly_ disagree, I think that I.T. is the biggest mistate the Bioware could make. I'm convinced that I.T. is like a Rorschach ink blot test in that there is nothing there to see but once you force yourself to see something you generally can't unsee it but it says more about the person than the content of the test. There is _nothing_ of substance to I.T. all it does is _remove_ the ending, it doesn't provide an ending. Disappointed fans can believe whatever is in the _huge gaping hole_ that I.T. would leave is precisely what they would want so it has broad appeal without having to actually having to do any of the difficult work of actually resolving the plot.

There is not a single shred of "evidence" for I.T. that does not have a more plausible explanation according to Occam's razor. Feel free to challenge me on anything if it helps, it's only laziness and a dislike of my voice that has stopped me doing a "this is not evidence" video to provide a daily show-like counterpoint to I.T.s Fox News-esqe "proof" videos.

I really _really_ dislike the ending on so many levels, but I'd rather see Bioware try to make it right themselves that use terrible _terrible_ fanfic, because then ME fans will really have became as bad as the gaming media made us out to be.

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 01 juin 2012 - 06:38 .

[nightcobra]

if it was just lazyness they could have just not put the kid running into the door thing, the kid wasn't even a 2d placeholder like the other people running away, they've put the kid's 3d model and animated him running into a door on a place you could easily miss.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 01 juin 2012 - 06:39 .

[Taboo]

squee365 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Or it's terrible writing. It happens. Jesus Christ people.

Continuity errors and plot holes.

That's what it is.

How come the "terrible writing" argument only ever pertains to IT theory related topics?
I've never heard anyone point out continuity errors for something like...Tuchanka or...Rannoch, or the Cerberus Coup. 

Cerberus Coup- Why does Kai Leng not kill Bailey? He flees from him.

There is bad writing everywhere in the game, but the Indoc people do nothing but assign meaning to it. Interpreting it that way is FINE but calling it a theory? Utter nonsense.

[squee365]

Taboo-XX wrote...



Cerberus Coup- Why does Kai Leng not kill Bailey? He flees from him.

I dont think Kai Leng has a confrontation with Bailey at all. 
-.-

Modifié par squee365, 01 juin 2012 - 06:41 .

[Taboo]

squee365 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...



Cerberus Coup- Why does Kai Leng not kill Bailey? He flees from him.

I dont think Kai Leng has a confrontation with Bailey at all. 
-.-

He's RIGHT outside. That's my point.

You claim to have evidence. You do not. You have an interpretation.

You are no different than someone who hunts Bigfoot.

[nightcobra]

squee365 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...



Cerberus Coup- Why does Kai Leng not kill Bailey? He flees from him.

I dont think Kai Leng has a confrontation with Bailey at all. 
-.-

pretty much, it's assumed that kai leng made a hasty retreat while shepard was talking with the virmire survivor and the council, there was enough time for him to do so.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 01 juin 2012 - 06:44 .

[Xellith]

edit: nvm reread

Modifié par Xellith, 01 juin 2012 - 06:46 .

[squee365]

Just admit it:
Any if not all "plot holes" and "continuity errors" can be interpreted through the IT theory. Thats why we latch on to it. If it annoys you so much just avoid all IT related topics, its not like they're hidden. All the IT threads are very obvious.

[macrocarl]

When Shep is looking in the vent talking to the kid (after the garden roof apartment thing gets blown up) Shep looks away and you hear the trademark farty Reaper noise that IT'ers have connected with failed Indoc attempts. I don't remember where that info was from (probably one of the ME books) but it's thought that that is the moment the kid is not real and Shep is being directly assaulted with Reaper indoc.
What makes it a wee inconclusive is there's lots of Reaper noises going on at the time of the attack. I tend to agree with the the interpretation myself!

[Mobius-Silent]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Makrys wrote...

Regardless, even if the kid was real during this scene, it does nothing to disprove the IT. In fact, it almost makes even more sense. It would just be a slightly different take on him. For example... the Reapers killed this child and they know Shepard saw it, so they use the form of this child in his dreams to break Shepard's will. It would be just another plausible view of the star child. So arguing that this scene is somehow evidence against the IT is pointless.

That kid isn't real.  I strongly think that he is a Reaper illusion.

If Shepard is at the point that the Reapers can make him see things while awake the game would have been about helping the Reapers not killing them

There is a much more simple explaination to The Catalyst's form that is foreshadowed in ME2 (Overlord) and ME3 (The Geth consensus)

The Catalyst is an A.I. and it is communicating with Shepard directly, much like the Overlord amalgam. What Shepard sees is simply what his mind makes of the presence of the Catalys "Entity" (Much the way Shepard gives form to the Quarian recordings) So his/her subconscious uses the most recent shape used to represent his/her guilt and fear-of-the-unknown, the child he/she had been having nightmares about. This also explains the voice overlays because Shepard isn't "hearing" the voice, it's coming direct.

Foreshadowed, literal and uses existing concepts, minimal assumptions needed.

[nightcobra]

snip

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 01 juin 2012 - 09:19 .

[squee365]

macrocarl wrote...

When Shep is looking in the vent talking to the kid (after the garden roof apartment thing gets blown up) Shep looks away and you hear the trademark farty Reaper noise that IT'ers have connected with failed Indoc attempts. I don't remember where that info was from (probably one of the ME books) but it's thought that that is the moment the kid is not real and Shep is being directly assaulted with Reaper indoc.
What makes it a wee inconclusive is there's lots of Reaper noises going on at the time of the attack. I tend to agree with the the interpretation myself!

Before we even knew the ending and the whole catalyst shindig, and all we played was the demo, people thought the kid was not real. So its not like we grasped for straws the moment we saw the horrible ending, we speculated the same thing before it even happened. 

[Makrys]

jijeebo wrote...

Makrys wrote...

Regardless, even if the kid was real during this scene, it does nothing to disprove the IT. In fact, it almost makes even more sense. It would just be a slightly different take on him. For example... the Reapers killed this child and they know Shepard saw it, so they use the form of this child in his dreams to break Shepard's will. It would be just another plausible view of the star child. So arguing that this scene is somehow evidence against the IT is pointless.

- Claim something is evidence of IT
- People point out that it isn't
- Claim that that makes it better evidence of IT
- ????
- PROFIT!!!


P.S. if people hadn't pointed out that the kid is probably real, we wouldn't have given you an alternative that "almost makes even more sense"... So this argument was far from pointless no?

Hardly. Considering I've already thought before about the notion that he may be real, I just never believed it. I was simply pointing out that if you want to make that argument, it does nothing to disprove the IT, and in fact can also be seen as just an alternate view of the star child within the IT.

[Lmaoboat]

Wow, there's still Indoctrination Theorists? Harold Camping's got nothing on you guys.

[nightcobra]

Lmaoboat wrote...

Wow, there's still Indoctrination Theorists? Harold Camping's got nothing on you guys.

we've never left, we're always watching, waiting....

[RavenEyry]

Lmaoboat wrote...

Wow, there's still Indoctrination Theorists? Harold Camping's got nothing on you guys.

I'd have thought the many threads about it would have clued you in before now.