496 réponses à ce sujet

[Jackums]

jijeebo wrote...

I'd rather have a crappy ending than no ending.

[RebelReya]

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

You do realize that what you are describing is pretty much just a slightly different version of IT and just making a different interpretation out of the "visions" you see when you choose, right?

Not really. It explains things without retconing them. I asked they thought it belong on it's own. It makes alot of sense where IT does not, and they agreed it similar, but not the same. IT can't explain everything, I thought I'd try. Seriouly, give it a read before you judge.

I did read it.


The only real quantifiable differences I see is:

-It takes place in Harbinger's head versus Shepard's head.

-The visions like the Normandy have a more metaphorical meaning.  (A more traditional IT'er would simply just say that the scenes you see after you choose are just the vestiges of Shepard's hope playing out in his mind)



Believe it or not, you're an IT'er and just don't know it.

The only question I need ask is:

To what end would Harbinger want to do this?

If you want to look at it simply, your welcome to. But neither myself nor the IT thread agree.

No, he wouldn't, but he failed to indoctrinate Shepard, and lost control.

Not all IT'ers agree on all the specifics.  We do tend to have a different view at looking at things.  We're not the hive mind cult anti-IT'ers make us out to be.

I never said anything about cults or hiveminds. The theory is based on an interpresations that are also not taking the end at face value, alot of pro-enders had similar ideas. That doesn't make them the same as IT. According to HT Shepard has to overcome indoctrinatin to get to the choice. I'd more likely call it anti-indoc theory.

And I won't be Indoctrinated into IT!

Modifié par RebelReya, 04 juin 2012 - 06:28 .

[Leafs43]

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

You do realize that what you are describing is pretty much just a slightly different version of IT and just making a different interpretation out of the "visions" you see when you choose, right?

Not really. It explains things without retconing them. I asked they thought it belong on it's own. It makes alot of sense where IT does not, and they agreed it similar, but not the same. IT can't explain everything, I thought I'd try. Seriouly, give it a read before you judge.

I did read it.


The only real quantifiable differences I see is:

-It takes place in Harbinger's head versus Shepard's head.

-The visions like the Normandy have a more metaphorical meaning.  (A more traditional IT'er would simply just say that the scenes you see after you choose are just the vestiges of Shepard's hope playing out in his mind)



Believe it or not, you're an IT'er and just don't know it.

The only question I need ask is:

To what end would Harbinger want to do this?

If you want to look at it simply, your welcome to. But neither myself nor the IT thread agree.

No, he wouldn't, but he failed to indoctrinate Shepard, and lost control.

Not all IT'ers agree on all the specifics.  We do tend to have a different view at looking at things.  We're not the hive mind cult anti-IT'ers make us out to be.

I never said anything about cults or hiveminds. The theory is based on an interpresations that are also not taking the end at face value, alot of por-enders had similar ideas. That doesn't make them the same as IT. According to HT Shepard has to overcome indoctrinatin to get to the choice. I'd more likely call it anti-indoc theory.

And I won't be Indoctrinated into IT!

Your theory pretty much agrees with ~90% of the IT.


But if you wanna be a hipster about it....

[Ageless Face]

Leafs43 wrote...


I've been here a long time, I have yet to see any of these other theories you speak about.

Try looking harder. There are exsiting. And most of them are not built by anti-enders or pepole who say the catalyst is lying. If you tried to look there, then your'e not going to find anything.

[Leafs43]

HagarIshay wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...


I've been here a long time, I have yet to see any of these other theories you speak about.

Try looking harder. There are exsiting. And most of them are not built by anti-enders or pepole who say the catalyst is lying. If you tried to look there, then your'e not going to find anything.

If they are everywhere I am sure you won't mind linking a few.

[Aiyie]

HagarIshay wrote...

Aiyie wrote...


some IT supporters go a bit far, no denying that.

but to be fair...

the only alternative to IT that I've ever seen offered basically boils down to "Bioware screwed up!  I hate Bioware and Mass Effect is dead to me now!"

personally, since it seems that the only two options are either accept accept IT or accept that the devs messed up, i'll go with the option that doesn't leave me as a bitter shell of a gamer.

There is not only the IT or BioWare messed up. There are a lot of good theories out there. IT just happens to be the biggest with the most supporters. It a brilliant theory, it's true, but It's not the only one. And some of the theories are actually basing themselves on the ending AND the series. It can work together, with a little open mind .

any chance you could point me to these alternative ending interpretations?  im having trouble finding them anywhere.

i like IT because, so far, its the ending interpretation that has the fewest unexplainable loopholes, when examined from within the constraints of the game's setting.

on the same hand though, i dislike IT because the only other alternative ive yet seen, that the dev's simply screwed up, is the most plausible when examined from a meta-game standpoint.

so, like i said, if there are any alternatives to those two options, please tell me, that way i can re-examine the evidence presented to me and adjust my interpretation of the ending accordingly.

im more than happy to change my stance, if presented with evidence that supports doing so... i just haven't seen anyone build a substantial enough case to do so yet.

[Arian Dynas]

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

You do realize that what you are describing is pretty much just a slightly different version of IT and just making a different interpretation out of the "visions" you see when you choose, right?

Not really. It explains things without retconing them. I asked they thought it belong on it's own. It makes alot of sense where IT does not, and they agreed it similar, but not the same. IT can't explain everything, I thought I'd try. Seriouly, give it a read before you judge.

I did read it.


The only real quantifiable differences I see is:

-It takes place in Harbinger's head versus Shepard's head.

-The visions like the Normandy have a more metaphorical meaning.  (A more traditional IT'er would simply just say that the scenes you see after you choose are just the vestiges of Shepard's hope playing out in his mind)



Believe it or not, you're an IT'er and just don't know it.

The only question I need ask is:

To what end would Harbinger want to do this?

If you want to look at it simply, your welcome to. But neither myself nor the IT thread agree.

No, he wouldn't, but he failed to indoctrinate Shepard, and lost control.

Not all IT'ers agree on all the specifics.  We do tend to have a different view at looking at things.  We're not the hive mind cult anti-IT'ers make us out to be.

I never said anything about cults or hiveminds. The theory is based on an interpresations that are also not taking the end at face value, alot of por-enders had similar ideas. That doesn't make them the same as IT. According to HT Shepard has to overcome indoctrinatin to get to the choice. I'd more likely call it anti-indoc theory.

And I won't be Indoctrinated into IT!

Your theory pretty much agrees with ~90% of the IT.


But if you wanna be a hipster about it....

Look Jack, as an IDTer myself, I personally discount this theory of Rebel Raya's myself, for reasons I explained to her.

That does not however excuse you to act like an **** about it.

If you can't be polite, then why not get off the internet, and go watch an episode or two of Jersey Shore or whatever it is you like on television and then come back, refreshed and pleasant, willing to at least be civil about arguing over a videogame.

This is your first and only warning from me, after this point I get as nasty as you choose to. Capisce?

                8=/=D
"Don't be a Dick" - Wil Wheaton

[Leafs43]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

You do realize that what you are describing is pretty much just a slightly different version of IT and just making a different interpretation out of the "visions" you see when you choose, right?

Not really. It explains things without retconing them. I asked they thought it belong on it's own. It makes alot of sense where IT does not, and they agreed it similar, but not the same. IT can't explain everything, I thought I'd try. Seriouly, give it a read before you judge.

I did read it.


The only real quantifiable differences I see is:

-It takes place in Harbinger's head versus Shepard's head.

-The visions like the Normandy have a more metaphorical meaning.  (A more traditional IT'er would simply just say that the scenes you see after you choose are just the vestiges of Shepard's hope playing out in his mind)



Believe it or not, you're an IT'er and just don't know it.

The only question I need ask is:

To what end would Harbinger want to do this?

If you want to look at it simply, your welcome to. But neither myself nor the IT thread agree.

No, he wouldn't, but he failed to indoctrinate Shepard, and lost control.

Not all IT'ers agree on all the specifics.  We do tend to have a different view at looking at things.  We're not the hive mind cult anti-IT'ers make us out to be.

I never said anything about cults or hiveminds. The theory is based on an interpresations that are also not taking the end at face value, alot of por-enders had similar ideas. That doesn't make them the same as IT. According to HT Shepard has to overcome indoctrinatin to get to the choice. I'd more likely call it anti-indoc theory.

And I won't be Indoctrinated into IT!

Your theory pretty much agrees with ~90% of the IT.


But if you wanna be a hipster about it....

Look Jack, as an IDTer myself, I personally discount this theory of Rebel Raya's myself, for reasons I explained to her.

That does not however excuse you to act like an **** about it.

If you can't be polite, then why not get off the internet, and go watch an episode or two of Jersey Shore or whatever it is you like on television and then come back, refreshed and pleasant, willing to at least be civil about arguing over a videogame.

This is your first and only warning from me, after this point I get as nasty as you choose to. Capisce?

                8=/=D
"Don't be a Dick" - Wil Wheaton

Who pissed in your cornflakes?

We were having a civil discussion.  

You are the one with the problem.


Oh and you're going to get nasty...over the internet.  I am scared.


Why don't you just take your diarhea spewing attitude and shove it.

Modifié par Leafs43, 04 juin 2012 - 06:40 .

[Thaa_solon]

I see the taint of indoctrination runs deep in this thread.

[Seboist]

Leafs43 wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

Zardoc wrote...

What I don't get about IT supporters (maybe not all, but a whole lot of them) is how they think their THEORY = THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. You remind me of religious zealots.

some IT supporters go a bit far, no denying that.

but to be fair...

the only alternative to IT that I've ever seen offered basically boils down to "Bioware screwed up!  I hate Bioware and Mass Effect is dead to me now!"

personally, since it seems that the only two options are either accept accept IT or accept that the devs messed up, i'll go with the option that doesn't leave me as a bitter shell of a gamer.

I pretty much take your stance.

I don't buy the "Bioware screwed up" stance to be all that credible to begin with.  Because even when a piece of work fails, you still have to take it at face value.  Ask any Star Wars fan about midochlorians.

Plus it doesn't hurt that IT actually does make sense when you get into the nitty gritty.

I'm sure 9/11 "Truther" whackjobs think the same of their "theories".

[RebelReya]

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

You do realize that what you are describing is pretty much just a slightly different version of IT and just making a different interpretation out of the "visions" you see when you choose, right?

Not really. It explains things without retconing them. I asked they thought it belong on it's own. It makes alot of sense where IT does not, and they agreed it similar, but not the same. IT can't explain everything, I thought I'd try. Seriouly, give it a read before you judge.

I did read it.


The only real quantifiable differences I see is:

-It takes place in Harbinger's head versus Shepard's head.

-The visions like the Normandy have a more metaphorical meaning.  (A more traditional IT'er would simply just say that the scenes you see after you choose are just the vestiges of Shepard's hope playing out in his mind)



Believe it or not, you're an IT'er and just don't know it.

The only question I need ask is:

To what end would Harbinger want to do this?

If you want to look at it simply, your welcome to. But neither myself nor the IT thread agree.

No, he wouldn't, but he failed to indoctrinate Shepard, and lost control.

Not all IT'ers agree on all the specifics.  We do tend to have a different view at looking at things.  We're not the hive mind cult anti-IT'ers make us out to be.

I never said anything about cults or hiveminds. The theory is based on an interpresations that are also not taking the end at face value, alot of por-enders had similar ideas. That doesn't make them the same as IT. According to HT Shepard has to overcome indoctrinatin to get to the choice. I'd more likely call it anti-indoc theory.

And I won't be Indoctrinated into IT!

Your theory pretty much agrees with ~90% of the IT.


But if you wanna be a hipster about it....

Ha! Nice!
But the halluciantion part of IT is one of my biggest problems with IT. Whenever theirs a video it's only talked about
it as a haluciation. Where is it referanced that indoc causes hallucinations or dreams? Whenever Christ Preistly does a poll on HTL it specifically references hallucinations/dreams. I think that's the part that IT has wrong, and it's kind of an important part of IT.

... but i'd call it 75% at the most.

[ArkkAngel007]

What I don't get is why either side can't just STFU and leave it be, and talk amongst themselves.

"Hey, I don't get these IT haters. Let me post something to stir the **** pot."

"Hey, I don't get these IT followers. Let me post something to stir the **** pot."

[Ageless Face]

Leafs43 wrote...


If they are everywhere I am sure you won't mind linking a few.

RebelReya gave his/her theory to what happened.


http://social.biowar.../index/12261111 

Shepard was on the crucible.

http://social.biowar...12007150-1.html 

Liara is the one that was indoctrinated.

http://social.biowar.../index/10676720 

The brilliant IT (intoxication theory). Can still happen...

http://social.biowar...ndex/10761785/1 

Why the catalyst's logic is right.

And the theory of the "space grandpa forgot to take his meds" Don't remember where it is now though...



There are many threads that also say why Synthesis, Control and Destroy can happen and why they are not so bad even with the current ending.
Write the word and I will also give them to you.

There are also many posts of people (that I don't remember where they are now obviously) that have some quite insightfull things about them. 

There is also a post of mine that I can give you a theory as to why soverign and the catalyst are speaking deflecting one another. It's actually not so baseless as I first thought it was. There are some things in the codex that are proving what I wrote (and yes, I'm very proud of that). It's probobly not true, but can still happen...

Modifié par HagarIshay, 04 juin 2012 - 06:51 .

[balance5050]

Seboist wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

Zardoc wrote...

What I don't get about IT supporters (maybe not all, but a whole lot of them) is how they think their THEORY = THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. You remind me of religious zealots.

some IT supporters go a bit far, no denying that.

but to be fair...

the only alternative to IT that I've ever seen offered basically boils down to "Bioware screwed up!  I hate Bioware and Mass Effect is dead to me now!"

personally, since it seems that the only two options are either accept accept IT or accept that the devs messed up, i'll go with the option that doesn't leave me as a bitter shell of a gamer.

I pretty much take your stance.

I don't buy the "Bioware screwed up" stance to be all that credible to begin with.  Because even when a piece of work fails, you still have to take it at face value.  Ask any Star Wars fan about midochlorians.

Plus it doesn't hurt that IT actually does make sense when you get into the nitty gritty.

I'm sure 9/11 "Truther" whackjobs think the same of their "theories".

Please stop with that, a literary analysis is not the same thing as a conspiracy, grow up.

[Leafs43]

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

RebelReya wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

You do realize that what you are describing is pretty much just a slightly different version of IT and just making a different interpretation out of the "visions" you see when you choose, right?

Not really. It explains things without retconing them. I asked they thought it belong on it's own. It makes alot of sense where IT does not, and they agreed it similar, but not the same. IT can't explain everything, I thought I'd try. Seriouly, give it a read before you judge.

I did read it.


The only real quantifiable differences I see is:

-It takes place in Harbinger's head versus Shepard's head.

-The visions like the Normandy have a more metaphorical meaning.  (A more traditional IT'er would simply just say that the scenes you see after you choose are just the vestiges of Shepard's hope playing out in his mind)



Believe it or not, you're an IT'er and just don't know it.

The only question I need ask is:

To what end would Harbinger want to do this?

If you want to look at it simply, your welcome to. But neither myself nor the IT thread agree.

No, he wouldn't, but he failed to indoctrinate Shepard, and lost control.

Not all IT'ers agree on all the specifics.  We do tend to have a different view at looking at things.  We're not the hive mind cult anti-IT'ers make us out to be.

I never said anything about cults or hiveminds. The theory is based on an interpresations that are also not taking the end at face value, alot of por-enders had similar ideas. That doesn't make them the same as IT. According to HT Shepard has to overcome indoctrinatin to get to the choice. I'd more likely call it anti-indoc theory.

And I won't be Indoctrinated into IT!

Your theory pretty much agrees with ~90% of the IT.


But if you wanna be a hipster about it....

Ha! Nice!
But the halluciantion part of IT is one of my biggest problems with IT. Whenever theirs a video it's only talked about
it as a haluciation. Where is it referanced that indoc causes hallucinations or dreams? Whenever Christ Preistly does a poll on HTL it specifically references hallucinations/dreams. I think that's the part that IT has wrong, and it's kind of an important part of IT.

... but i'd call it 75% at the most.

Hallucination is really only a simple description what is going on with IT.


I mean you have inner and outer concious acts going on in an unconcious mind.  I don't think the english language has really a term for it that I am aware of.  I always took IT's "hallucination" kind of the the Matrix's "jacking in" where it's an environment put in place by Harbinger that is recognized by Shepard's mind and allowing Shepard to play it out with certain controls and parameters in place.


That really isn't all the different than say the geth consensus other than data location.

[Seboist]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

What I don't get is why either side can't just STFU and leave it be, and talk amongst themselves.

"Hey, I don't get these IT haters. Let me post something to stir the **** pot."

"Hey, I don't get these IT followers. Let me post something to stir the **** pot."

It's quite easy to "get" the IT followers. Simply put, they're self-deluded fanboys who desperately want to believe the same pulp schlock writing hacks who among other things completely invalidated ME1's plot and came up with the mind boggingly moronic crucible plot are capable of even considering anything sophisticated and subtle,let alone put it into action.

[balance5050]

Thaa_solon wrote...

I see the taint of indoctrination runs deep in this thread.

It runs deep in all of BSN because it runs deep in the actual mass effect games....

[Leafs43]

HagarIshay wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...


If they are everywhere I am sure you won't mind linking a few.

RebelReya gave his/her theory to what happened.


http://social.biowar.../index/12261111 

Shepard was on the crucible.

http://social.biowar...12007150-1.html 

Liara is the one that was indoctrinated.

http://social.biowar.../index/10676720 

The brilliant IT (intoxication theory). Can still happen...

http://social.biowar...ndex/10761785/1 

Why the catalyst's logic is right.

And the theory of the "space grandpa forgot to take his meds" Don't remember where it is now though...



There are many threads that also say why Synthesis, Control and Destroy can happen even with the current ending.
Write the word and I will also give them to you.

There are also many posts of people (that I don't remember where they are now obviously) that have some quite insightfull things about them. 

There is also a post of mine that I can give you a theory as to why soverign and the catalyst are speaking deflecting one another. It's actually not so baseless as I first thought it was. There are some things in the codex that are proving what I wrote (and yes, I'm very proud of that). It's probobly not true, but can still happen...

Crucible was actually proved wrong.  I mean you can tell it's wrong by the screenshots alone.

Intoxication theory was made as a joke.

Liara's Indoctrination is new so I haven't had time to read it.

[DieHigh2012]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

What I don't get is why either side can't just STFU and leave it be, and talk amongst themselves.

"Hey, I don't get these IT haters. Let me post something to stir the **** pot."

"Hey, I don't get these IT followers. Let me post something to stir the **** pot."

That made me laugh, it's just so true it's funny.

[Seboist]

balance5050 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Aiyie wrote...

Zardoc wrote...

What I don't get about IT supporters (maybe not all, but a whole lot of them) is how they think their THEORY = THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. You remind me of religious zealots.

some IT supporters go a bit far, no denying that.

but to be fair...

the only alternative to IT that I've ever seen offered basically boils down to "Bioware screwed up!  I hate Bioware and Mass Effect is dead to me now!"

personally, since it seems that the only two options are either accept accept IT or accept that the devs messed up, i'll go with the option that doesn't leave me as a bitter shell of a gamer.

I pretty much take your stance.

I don't buy the "Bioware screwed up" stance to be all that credible to begin with.  Because even when a piece of work fails, you still have to take it at face value.  Ask any Star Wars fan about midochlorians.

Plus it doesn't hurt that IT actually does make sense when you get into the nitty gritty.

I'm sure 9/11 "Truther" whackjobs think the same of their "theories".

Please stop with that, a literary analysis is not the same thing as a conspiracy, grow up.

I can "interpret" Friday the 13th as being a metaphor for how premarital sex ruins lives but that doesn't mean it's not something I pulled out of my ass and that it isn't a horror fluff flick.

[balance5050]

Leafs43 wrote...

Hallucination is really only a simple description what is going on with IT.


I mean you have inner and outer concious acts going on in an unconcious mind.  I don't think the english language has really a term for it that I am aware of.  I always took IT's "hallucination" kind of the the Matrix's "jacking in" where it's an environment put in place by Harbinger that is recognized by Shepard's mind and allowing Shepard to play it out with certain controls and parameters in place.


That really isn't all the different than say the geth consensus other than data location.

It's true, I.T. actually uses all the narrative themes of the series and doesn't turn it's back on them, unlike the endings at face value.

Modifié par balance5050, 04 juin 2012 - 06:53 .

[Ageless Face]

balance5050 wrote...

It runs deep in all of BSN because it runs deep in the actual mass effect games....

Well, that depends if you believe it or not. 

[balance5050]

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

It runs deep in all of BSN because it runs deep in the actual mass effect games....

Well, that depends if you believe it or not. 

No, indoctrination is in the game of Mass Effect, it has its own codex entry and entire plotlines center around it. To not consider IT is to not consider the Reaper's most useful weapon.

Modifié par balance5050, 04 juin 2012 - 06:58 .

[balance5050]

Seboist wrote...

I can "interpret" Friday the 13th as being a metaphor for how premarital sex ruins lives but that doesn't mean it's not something I pulled out of my ass and that it isn't a horror fluff flick.

Correct.

[Seboist]

balance5050 wrote...

Seboist wrote...

I can "interpret" Friday the 13th as being a metaphor for how premarital sex ruins lives but that doesn't mean it's not something I pulled out of my ass and that it isn't a horror fluff flick.

Correct.

So, you're coming to terms with ME3 being bottom of the barrel pulp schlock that has as much depth as a children's inflatable pool? Good man.