151 réponses à ce sujet

[RavenEyry]

Rhayak wrote...

2) Because you're not indoctrinated.

Indoctrination is slow and gradual. Now, unless the Reapers invented some new sort of rapid indoctrination just for you, you can't be indoctrinated at the end if they don't begin working on you way before Thessia.

It started in arrival or earlier. I never denied it was a slow process. I don't see how a VI made by a race that had a major problem with being infiltrated by indoctrinated agents not detecting the influence of indoctrination on Shepard is a hole.

[CoolioThane]

Rhayak wrote...

The Stargazer scene happens because you have destroyed/controlled/married the Reapers. FOR REAL. It changes in Reject to address the fact that only the next cycle manages to do that. So in the next cycle, we have grandma instead of grandpa. There, explained. 

If you come up with a theory that assumes everything DID NOT HAPPEN, then she Stargazer scene alone is a pretty huge hole to ponder on.

No. The stargazer isn't part of the main narrative. It can fit whatever happens with the endings. If IT were to come true the scenes would still fit.

Reject is different, because what if we refuse and IRL with IT we lose the war? It still fits. 

[OchreJelly]

It also doesn't directly disprove the Harbinger Is Made Of Chocolate theory. We never seen Harby's insides, and he always looks *so* delicious, so he has to be made of chocolate.

My prediction is that the species that made Harby is actually just Augustus Gloop from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

My (highly combative) point is that if you really want a fanmade interpretation to be true, nothing will change your mind. I'm not sure that's a good or bad thing, but everyone's entitled to their own experience.

[DextroDNA]

Simple answer - common sense.
Bioware had their chance with the EC to implement the IT, but nearly every piece of "IT Evidence" was addressed and explained. Why would Bioware release the Extended Cut, not include the IT, then release ANOTHER ending DLC (which they said they won't) for the IT. It's common sense to realise that Bioware didn't want to incorporate the Indoctrination Theory and they won't in future. It really is stupid to believe in it now.
But I suppose you can interpret the endings however you want, but don't go around saying; "AMG THE IT IS STILL TRUE SO MUCH EVIDENCE IT IS TRUE **** EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES!"

Like I said, common sense. I believed in the IT before the EC too, Bioware had their chance to GREATLY redeem the ending - and they missed it. But if I'm honest - the EC was satisfying. I chose Destroy and I was told everything that was destroyed was rebuilt and my Shepard survived. That means the Mass Relays, the Citadel, the Geth are all rebuilt (maybe not the Geth). I don't see any need for the IT now. The new endings are pretty damn good to be honest, I just wish people would stop ****ing now. We got our clarification, we got our happy ending if you chose correctly. Deal with it. The series is amazing and the new endings are satisfactory.

[Rhayak]

RavenEyry wrote...
It started in arrival or earlier. I never denied it was a slow process. I don't see how a VI made by a race that had a major problem with being infiltrated by indoctrinated agents not detecting the influence of indoctrination on Shepard is a hole.

If the Prothean had problems with indoctrinated agents, one would think they would have developed some pretty terrific anti-indoctrination measures, no?

Hell, their IV system is so advanced it can even detect indoctrination in non-Prothean species (Kai Leng), as well as track the global progress of the current Reapers' cycle.

If you think the Indoctrination began even before Arrival, then there's no way in hell Vendetta could not have detected it on you as well, while immediately sensing it in Kai Leng.

There is just no way.

[Rhayak]

CoolioThane wrote...
No. The stargazer isn't part of the main narrative. It can fit whatever happens with the endings. If IT were to come true the scenes would still fit.

Reject is different, because what if we refuse and IRL with IT we lose the war? It still fits. 

Actually, the only scene that would fit IT is the Reject one. 

Shepard is indoctrinated and therefore defeated, and the cycle continues. Leading to the Reject stargazer.

[CoolioThane]

NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS EXPLAINED AWAY IN FACT MOST OF IT STILL STANDS PLUS THE NEW STUFF THEY ADDED WHY ARE YOU SO IGNORANT TO THIS

[Kataphrut94]

The problem I always had with IT is that until EC, the only way to unlock the supposed "Shepard beats indoctrination" ending was to pick destroy and do the multiplayer. Anybody who didn't do either of those things basically gets a giant middle finger. It comes down to the fact that IT is fan-fiction and for all the bleating and wailing, Bioware are simply better writers and game-designers than any of the people who came up with that theory.

But even if they did make Indoctrination canon, how would that be any better? As Benezia, Saren and TIM have all shown us, once indoctirnation has settled in, it's permanant. TIM and Saren could only save themselves by committing suicide and Benezia slipped right back into madness after about a minute. If Shepard is indoctrinated, then (assuming he doesn't bleed to death first) there is literally no way to win.

The allied forces are still being decimated, TIM's still in the Citadel control room gibbering like a mad idiot, Anderson probably died unceremoniously in Harbinger's blast and the Crucible isn't going anywhere any time soon. People are so desperate to find a way to retcon out the goddamn Catalyst, they're willing to completely cheapen the entire trilogy for the sake of a nihlistic tragedy.

As for how the EC disproves the indoctrination theory? By lowering the EMS for the Shepard survives scene and making Control and Synthesis actually seem like appealing choices, they've removed the need for the coping mechanism. IT only existed because people were so dead set on destroying the Reapers, they basically wrapped themselves in a warm, comfortable blanket of denial when they realised they'd have to pay for it with an entire species and one good friend. EC makes it easier for people who pick Destroy to own that sacrifice without needing to feel as if it never happened and people who wanted to avoid it don't have to feel ashamed for finding another option, since all of them are now equally valid.

[CoolioThane]

Rhayak wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...
No. The stargazer isn't part of the main narrative. It can fit whatever happens with the endings. If IT were to come true the scenes would still fit.

Reject is different, because what if we refuse and IRL with IT we lose the war? It still fits. 

Actually, the only scene that would fit IT is the Reject one. 

Shepard is indoctrinated and therefore defeated, and the cycle continues. Leading to the Reject stargazer.

You're speaking like you know for sure what happens.

Who knows what happens after the Indoctrination attempt? Maybe, like Saren and TIm, we learn we're under the influence and get what we need done before turning the gun on ourselves? We still win, but Shepard is tainted.

Whereas with Destroy, we win and Shep is propa good, blad

[The Real Bowser]

It doesn't disprove anything, the simply truth is that the ending was so poorly developed that we took hints that it meant that the ending really was leading to something else.

The sad truth is that the ending really was just that bad.  Bioware went from the most amazing sci-fi game story ever written to the complete and utter crap that was the ending.  There was no special twist in mind.  We (myself included) just hoped the subtle hints meant something else since the story was so terrible, but it didn't.  It's confirmed now.  It's time to move on.

Bioware has denied it, and considering that the ending of the game expands past Shepards death and explains things further, it really does all but flat out say the indoctrination theory is not true, and Bioware themselves already confirmed it.

Again, it's time to move on.  The indoctrination theory was a frail hope at best anyways, and it has been completely disproven now.  The fact that the extended cut did not directly work with the indoctrination theory, and the fact that Bioware directly said it wasn't true is proof enough.

[Rhayak]

CoolioThane wrote...
You're speaking like you know for sure what happens.

I'm just going with what the game narrates.

Who knows what happens after the Indoctrination attempt? Maybe, like Saren and TIm, we learn we're under the influence and get what we need done before turning the gun on ourselves? We still win, but Shepard is tainted.

Whereas with Destroy, we win and Shep is propa good, blad

Per the IT, Destroy is the only true victory.

But then, the EC would mean that the Reapers go as far as making you dream further epilogues, if you pick Control or Synthesis.

O_O

[shepdog77]

CoolioThane wrote...

NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS EXPLAINED AWAY IN FACT MOST OF IT STILL STANDS PLUS THE NEW STUFF THEY ADDED WHY ARE YOU SO IGNORANT TO THIS

Say it again, maybe more people will believe you. <_<

[SubAstris]

It doesn't destroy it, just makes a very unlikely thing any storyteller would do. You could all claim it was a dream and your interpretation wouldn't be damaged. However, there are points which one must consider:

1) BW are never going to make another DLC on the ending, this is the end of Shepard's story, as they have repeated many times. The inevitable conclusion of this is that there will never be a grand reveal where it turns out that the Catalyst is Harbinger. Instead you are getting all that happened in the game. Of course, that doesn't leave any closure in terms of plot and characters, which is not a very nice prospect, and it's very unlikely that a writer or team of writers would do this. You could understand not everything being tied up, but such an end would be akin to ending Star Wars with thebeginning of the trench run.

2) Very little reason for BW not to implement IT in EC, their final chance to do so, and to show conclusively it was true, if that was their true intention

3) If IT is true, BW spent 3 months of time and resources on creating new scenes, getting in voice actors, planning it all for something that is ultimately pointless. There is very unlikely for a profit-making company to ever choose to do.

[SubAstris]

CoolioThane wrote...

NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS EXPLAINED AWAY IN FACT MOST OF IT STILL STANDS PLUS THE NEW STUFF THEY ADDED WHY ARE YOU SO IGNORANT TO THIS

That's because most of the "evidence" was just plot holes.

Well done, you found plot holes. All EC did was plug the holes people most hated e.g. why can't I talk to the Catalyst, why can't I tell him to f*** off, won't the destruction of the Mass Relays lead to galactic annihilation blah blah blah. This was not needed AT ALL if they were trying to show IT

Modifié par SubAstris, 20 juillet 2012 - 11:54 .

[Joccaren]

aceofqueens wrote...
It just amazes me that people would choose to believe that the ending isn't a dream. 

If it's real, 2 of them are depressing and there are so many plot holes that open up, whereas IT covers literally every aspect. 

As for leaving the ending open, bioware just did that to calm people down. It makes sense, they want to sell games, and with people vowing to never buy another game, they had to fix the situation. I'm fine with it. I saw what they did. The little nods and middle fingers. 

Well, there is no hard evidence for it, and my general rule is never assume conspiracy where poor technique/stupidty/naivity/artistic integrity will suffice.
Thereby I have no reason to believe that IT is true [There has been 1 thing I have been unable to explain - the gun model swapping in destroy at the end, yet numerous things that I would have to bend over backwards to explain through IT - unless you just choose to ignore it as "LALALA, NOT REAL"].

My personal approach to fixing the endings is much simpler:
Shift-Delete the entire Priority: Earth section onwards
Rewrite.

No need to include some fancy Indoctrination stuff, just delete what doesn't work and redo it.

Bioware's old track record had me give them the benefit of the doubt that they would retcon the ending within the first month. After that it became apparent that they'd had nothing in development nor planned to better the ending, and were following their more recent track record of making rather mediocre games.

As for the current endings, it all depends on how you take them. They can be plothole ridden and depressing if you want them to be, or you can logically think your way through things and come to some acceptable conclusions regarding what you are shown. The same can occur to IT: You can view it as plothole ridden and lacking an end, thereby selling you an incomplete game and all that jazz if you want, or you can follow along with the other believers and interpret what happens in a way that makes it feasable. It all depends on what you want to believe. I'm actually happy Bioware gave you guys that option. Would have been kinda cruel to just outright say "No" to an idea with such a large cult following.

[SubAstris]

Joccaren wrote...

aceofqueens wrote...
It just amazes me that people would choose to believe that the ending isn't a dream. 

If it's real, 2 of them are depressing and there are so many plot holes that open up, whereas IT covers literally every aspect. 

As for leaving the ending open, bioware just did that to calm people down. It makes sense, they want to sell games, and with people vowing to never buy another game, they had to fix the situation. I'm fine with it. I saw what they did. The little nods and middle fingers. 

Well, there is no hard evidence for it, and my general rule is never assume conspiracy where poor technique/stupidty/naivity/artistic integrity will suffice.
Thereby I have no reason to believe that IT is true [There has been 1 thing I have been unable to explain - the gun model swapping in destroy at the end, yet numerous things that I would have to bend over backwards to explain through IT - unless you just choose to ignore it as "LALALA, NOT REAL"].

Gun models swap throughout the ME series anyway.

[Joccaren]

CoolioThane wrote...

NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS EXPLAINED AWAY IN FACT MOST OF IT STILL STANDS PLUS THE NEW STUFF THEY ADDED WHY ARE YOU SO IGNORANT TO THIS

Because "Evidence" is your interpretation of numerous events that can quite easily be taken at face value and still lead to a reasonably logical conclusion. I'm not going to open this debate up on two fronts - I can only type a couple of page long posts arguing this a day - but when the only evidence IT is able to bring up is them saying "Well, sure you could say that Shepard was bleeding the whole time, as he was hit by Harbinger's beam, but if you take it that he was bleeding because he shot Anderson, and thus injured himself, IT makes sense!". Its an interpretation. Its not fact. Its not evidence. People are not ignorant to the fact that you have interpretations that allow IT. You seem to be ignorant to the fact that other interpretations can also exist.

[Joccaren]

SubAstris wrote...

Gun models swap throughout the ME series anyway.

Agreed, though that is generally for a good reason - I.E using an assault rifle to shoot long range.

The gun in the destroy endings changes from one pistol type to another, only as the explosion occurs over Shepard, and for no real apparent reason. Knowing the options in the UDK, changing the gun for a cutscene is something that must be forced - by default the gun will remain the same.
Therefore, Bioware for some reason forced the gun to be changed for a couple of seconds only during the explosion in the destroy ending from one pistol model to another.

I hold no illusions that this relates to IT - the links that the finder of this presents are flimsy at best, and they're possibly the best links you can come up with. It is, however, one unexplained aspect of the Destroy ending.

[legion999]

It doesn't. Because Bioware can't commit to a ‘canon' except when it's convenient.

[MB957]

well...since bioware keeps saying they made the endings vague on purpose so that players could create their own head cannon....then....anything is possible..

but then why play the game at all??

for me...all of ME3 becomes headcannon at that point.

[Silhouett3]

The Real Bowser wrote...
The fact that the extended cut did not directly work with the indoctrination theory, and the fact that Bioware directly said it wasn't true is proof enough.

When/where did Bioware said that?

[Uncle Jo]

Silhouett3 wrote...

The Real Bowser wrote...
The fact that the extended cut did not directly work with the indoctrination theory, and the fact that Bioware directly said it wasn't true is proof enough.

When/where did Bioware said that?

They never said it. The guy has no clue and is just making things up. Howling with the wolves. Common thing in the BSN.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 20 juillet 2012 - 01:44 .

[MetioricTest]

Stargazer.

Not one IT person has explained a decent explanation for Stargazer.

Modifié par MetioricTest, 20 juillet 2012 - 01:57 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

SubAstris wrote...

It doesn't destroy it, just makes a very unlikely thing any storyteller would do. You could all claim it was a dream and your interpretation wouldn't be damaged.

True.

2) Very little reason for BW not to implement IT in EC, their final chance to do so, and to show conclusively it was true, if that was their true intention

3) If IT is true, BW spent 3 months of time and resources on creating new scenes, getting in voice actors, planning it all for something that is ultimately pointless. There is very unlikely for a profit-making company to ever choose to do.

Good points. But the shepard breath scene still bugs me. I'm almost 99.99% sure it takes place in London.

Modifié par pirate1802, 20 juillet 2012 - 02:13 .

[Soultaker08]

dorktainian wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

it doesnt.

if anything when harby says 'serve us' before nuking shep, it only strengthens the IT case.

In the Chris and Jessica discussion thread, Jessica said Harby didn't say anything... just a strange sound effect of some sort.

Yeah....  of course he didnt.      ran this past my son the other night and he swore it says 'serve us'.   unless mine and his ears need cleaning out (highly doubtful) thats my conclusion, or someone just managed to put that *extra* sound effect in there just to ****** us off.  run it through a vocoder to clean it up - it deffo sounds like 'serve us' to me.

Either that or an absolutely astonishing coincidence.  




Oh well at least theres TESO to look forward to.

www.youtube.com/watch

here you go , 4:49 , the same sound in the background , all sounds are taken from the demos first lvl vancouver, its just a recycled sound

Modifié par Soultaker08, 20 juillet 2012 - 02:09 .