151 réponses à ce sujet

[tyrvas]

dorktainian wrote...

it doesnt.

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

this ^ has been said not to be so by the audio team according to 'Evil' Chris Prisetly,
he mentioned this in a reply to a question over @ MASSEFFECT-UNIVERSE.DE
dont want to check link, well this is what was asked...

Originally Posted by Antauronius...

Why the Catalyst's voice has Shepard's in the background?



What does Harbinger say just before hitting Shepard with the laser beam? "Save us" or "Serve us"? Something else?


Why Harbinger in ME3 didn't say a word with his ME2's voice?

Originally Posted by Evil Chris Priestl...

The Catalyst's voice is partially formed from Shepard's memories, so his/her voice is part of the speech.



Harbringer doesn't actually say anything at that point. I know, I
thought it did as well, but I asked teh Audio team and they told me it
is just sound effects, not actually speech.

Edit: link does not work???  FIXED.

Modifié par tyrvas, 20 juillet 2012 - 02:17 .

[Jadebaby]

I thought refuse disproved IT....

[Applepie_Svk]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

I thought refuse disproved IT....

No way.... Indoctrination is still strong enough.

[SubAstris]

pirate1802 wrote...

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.

Thanks for the comment. Why do you believe it is London though?

[Applepie_Svk]

SubAstris wrote...


Thanks for the comment. Why do you believe it is London though?

Stone rubbles, shadow of mako somewhere behind... oh yes and fact that after explosion Shepard cannot survive exposure in space without suit, which was uterly destroyed.... 

[Ex-Cerberus]

One reason the IT loses footing with the EC is because Catalyst goes to great lengths to explain everything to Shepard and never once demands cooperation. He doesn't even attempt to dissuade Shepard from choosing destroy, just simply explains what effect it will have on the synthetics of his cycle (Geth/EDI). Sure, you could make the "failsafe" argument that the Catalyst had no control over presenting Shepard with that choice, but surely such an advanced being would at least try a little harder, maybe even lie to you that it would effect organics more than it would. The Catalyst even assumes that organics would have "little difficulty repairing the damage". To me, that doesn't sound like something a Reaper ever told an indoctrinated agent. I have no idea what was going through Saren's or Illusive Man's head when they were indoctrinated because we never got to play as them obviously, but both of them seemed absolutely certain that this was not an option. Neither of them had a synthetic girlfriend that might influence that decision either as far as I know.

Also keep in mind, all of this was new information to Shepard. Generally people don't learn new information in their dreams. If nothing on the Citadel actually happened, then why do we see things outside of Shepard's view transpire after the choice is made? There is nothing to indicate these events are also "dream sequences". They seem to happen in relatively normal cut scene fashion as every other cut scene in the trilogy did. Surely if they were "dreamed", there would be blurry screens, echoing voices, and things of this nature often associated with dream sequences (take Shepard's own dreams chasing the boy for example). It's really hard to justify a dream theory when we already know for fact how Shepard dreams.

However... I will not deny that sound of Harbinger sounds an awful lot like "Serve us". There is clearly a vocal pattern in that sound clip and it's not just an "obscure sound" or whatever Bioware tried to explain it as. While I don't discount this as evidence towards the indoctrination theory, I do not find it to be sufficient evidence on it's own to PROVE the IC is fact. Ultimately it comes down to the player's interpretation of the events, and while I do not believe "open to interpretation" was the goal Bioware was initially aiming for with this ending (even though they might try to cover their asses with it). But I definitely don't believe in the IC, but I admit it would have been neat if the story took that route and made it blatantly clear that was what was happening.

[Jadebaby]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

I thought refuse disproved IT....

No way.... Indoctrination is still strong enough.

so care to elaborate?

[SubAstris]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Thanks for the comment. Why do you believe it is London though?

Stone rubbles, shadow of mako somewhere behind... oh yes and fact that after explosion Shepard cannot survive exposure in space without suit, which was uterly destroyed.... 

As for the "stone" rubble, the material of the Citadel was only vaguely touched upon in ME1, it was clearly not meant to be a big point of contention. Furthermore, similar looking material does indeed show up on the Citadel. In addition, we have no direct comparison with broken up Citadel rubble before, so we don't know how it would look like. Therefore to say it is definitely London rubble is pushing it. Also if the rubble did come from London, how did it come to accumulate on top of Shepard when he was in a wide open space?

The "shadow of the Mako" has been debunked by ITers on the IT thread, even if it weren't already blindingly obvious that it isn't any vehicle already.

BW have said that there were emergency barriers on the Citadel, so that everyone plot important survived.

So yeah, everything explained

[Jadebaby]

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

One reason the IT loses footing with the EC is because Catalyst goes to great lengths to explain everything to Shepard and never once demands cooperation. He doesn't even attempt to dissuade Shepard from choosing destroy, just simply explains what effect it will have on the synthetics of his cycle (Geth/EDI). Sure, you could make the "failsafe" argument that the Catalyst had no control over presenting Shepard with that choice, but surely such an advanced being would at least try a little harder, maybe even lie to you that it would effect organics more than it would. The Catalyst even assumes that organics would have "little difficulty repairing the damage". To me, that doesn't sound like something a Reaper ever told an indoctrinated agent. I have no idea what was going through Saren's or Illusive Man's head when they were indoctrinated because we never got to play as them obviously, but both of them seemed absolutely certain that this was not an option. Neither of them had a synthetic girlfriend that might influence that decision either as far as I know.

Also keep in mind, all of this was new information to Shepard. Generally people don't learn new information in their dreams. If nothing on the Citadel actually happened, then why do we see things outside of Shepard's view transpire after the choice is made? There is nothing to indicate these events are also "dream sequences". They seem to happen in relatively normal cut scene fashion as every other cut scene in the trilogy did. Surely if they were "dreamed", there would be blurry screens, echoing voices, and things of this nature often associated with dream sequences (take Shepard's own dreams chasing the boy for example). It's really hard to justify a dream theory when we already know for fact how Shepard dreams.

However... I will not deny that sound of Harbinger sounds an awful lot like "Serve us". There is clearly a vocal pattern in that sound clip and it's not just an "obscure sound" or whatever Bioware tried to explain it as. While I don't discount this as evidence towards the indoctrination theory, I do not find it to be sufficient evidence on it's own to PROVE the IC is fact. Ultimately it comes down to the player's interpretation of the events, and while I do not believe "open to interpretation" was the goal Bioware was initially aiming for with this ending (even though they might try to cover their asses with it). But I definitely don't believe in the IC, but I admit it would have been neat if the story took that route and made it blatantly clear that was what was happening.

yea the existence of the breath scene and forcing your fans to headcanon the rest kind of disproves that...

[Jadebaby]

SubAstris wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Thanks for the comment. Why do you believe it is London though?

Stone rubbles, shadow of mako somewhere behind... oh yes and fact that after explosion Shepard cannot survive exposure in space without suit, which was uterly destroyed.... 

As for the "stone" rubble, the material of the Citadel was only vaguely touched upon in ME1, it was clearly not meant to be a big point of contention. Furthermore, similar looking material does indeed show up on the Citadel. In addition, we have no direct comparison with broken up Citadel rubble before, so we don't know how it would look like. Therefore to say it is definitely London rubble is pushing it. Also if the rubble did come from London, how did it come to accumulate on top of Shepard when he was in a wide open space?

The "shadow of the Mako" has been debunked by ITers on the IT thread, even if it weren't already blindingly obvious that it isn't any vehicle already.

BW have said that there were emergency barriers on the Citadel, so that everyone plot important survived.

So yeah, everything explained

we got a look at broken Citadel material in the coop mission, none of which looked like concrete and rebar

[SubAstris]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Thanks for the comment. Why do you believe it is London though?

Stone rubbles, shadow of mako somewhere behind... oh yes and fact that after explosion Shepard cannot survive exposure in space without suit, which was uterly destroyed.... 

As for the "stone" rubble, the material of the Citadel was only vaguely touched upon in ME1, it was clearly not meant to be a big point of contention. Furthermore, similar looking material does indeed show up on the Citadel. In addition, we have no direct comparison with broken up Citadel rubble before, so we don't know how it would look like. Therefore to say it is definitely London rubble is pushing it. Also if the rubble did come from London, how did it come to accumulate on top of Shepard when he was in a wide open space?

The "shadow of the Mako" has been debunked by ITers on the IT thread, even if it weren't already blindingly obvious that it isn't any vehicle already.

BW have said that there were emergency barriers on the Citadel, so that everyone plot important survived.

So yeah, everything explained

we got a look at broken Citadel material in the coop mission, none of which looked like concrete and rebar

Video?

[Jadebaby]

SubAstris wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Thanks for the comment. Why do you believe it is London though?

Stone rubbles, shadow of mako somewhere behind... oh yes and fact that after explosion Shepard cannot survive exposure in space without suit, which was uterly destroyed.... 

As for the "stone" rubble, the material of the Citadel was only vaguely touched upon in ME1, it was clearly not meant to be a big point of contention. Furthermore, similar looking material does indeed show up on the Citadel. In addition, we have no direct comparison with broken up Citadel rubble before, so we don't know how it would look like. Therefore to say it is definitely London rubble is pushing it. Also if the rubble did come from London, how did it come to accumulate on top of Shepard when he was in a wide open space?

The "shadow of the Mako" has been debunked by ITers on the IT thread, even if it weren't already blindingly obvious that it isn't any vehicle already.

BW have said that there were emergency barriers on the Citadel, so that everyone plot important survived.

So yeah, everything explained

we got a look at broken Citadel material in the coop mission, none of which looked like concrete and rebar

Video?

I'm not going to hold your hand, play the game again. I'm not out to prove/disprove anything, just calling it how i saw it.

[Fauxnormal]

TBH, nothing will disprove IT to IT nuts. Nothing. Like all other conspiracy whackos, they see what they want to see, and ignore everything they dislike.

[AlanC9]

Do threads like this make any sense? Is there anything that could disprove IT?

[tyrvas]

IT is headcanon

[SubAstris]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Thanks for the comment. Why do you believe it is London though?

Stone rubbles, shadow of mako somewhere behind... oh yes and fact that after explosion Shepard cannot survive exposure in space without suit, which was uterly destroyed.... 

As for the "stone" rubble, the material of the Citadel was only vaguely touched upon in ME1, it was clearly not meant to be a big point of contention. Furthermore, similar looking material does indeed show up on the Citadel. In addition, we have no direct comparison with broken up Citadel rubble before, so we don't know how it would look like. Therefore to say it is definitely London rubble is pushing it. Also if the rubble did come from London, how did it come to accumulate on top of Shepard when he was in a wide open space?

The "shadow of the Mako" has been debunked by ITers on the IT thread, even if it weren't already blindingly obvious that it isn't any vehicle already.

BW have said that there were emergency barriers on the Citadel, so that everyone plot important survived.

So yeah, everything explained

we got a look at broken Citadel material in the coop mission, none of which looked like concrete and rebar

Video?

I'm not going to hold your hand, play the game again. I'm not out to prove/disprove anything, just calling it how i saw it.

You can't expect anyone to believe anything without evidence

[Applepie_Svk]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

I thought refuse disproved IT....

No way.... Indoctrination is still strong enough.

so care to elaborate?

Indoctrination is was do decieve its victim, Shepard was heavily implanted after ME2 and every technology in ME is based on Relay technology - Reaper technology even implants, Shepard wasn´t implanted with some kind of failsafe and yet TIM know control him. (This was reason why Miranda again mentioned this stuff in ME3, it was clue that Shepard has no failsafe implant, but how is possibile that after TIM´s upgrade with Reaper tech he can control Shepard? - Catalyst also said that he was already controling TIM - so even if he didn´t control Shepard - he has some kind of connection) 

Still they left interesting part where Shepard shoot Anderson into belly and yet Shepard is one who is bleeding from same part of body where should be wounded Anderson.

Paths which pressent Catalyst are for 2/3 in favor of presserving Reapers from 2/3 is indoctrination already infected Shepard´s mind and third is inevitable path to conflict - clear mind - but delusion which serve on purpose created by Catalyst.
(Your children will soon enough create another synthetics and cycle start again ...)

We have seen in game only 1 person which stayed unaffected by Indoctrination - Shiala and it was just because she was once connected with Thorian (which made some kind of natural indoctrination - probably it was disabling Reaper´s influence in her mind)

None ever has return from indoctrination because they always fall so deep that there was way either stay as mindless husk or blew their head off - if they manage to overlook delusion - refusal...


When Shepard refused, it was probably some kind of failsafe in case that someone will oppose to indoctrination - just blew your head or nerve overload ... because when we have meet previous indoctrinated victims and manage to talk with them they died - Saren , TIM... You managed to talk with them and showed them that they are indoctrinated - they killed themselves or you managed to anger them and kill them on your own.

SubAstris wrote...

You can't expect anyone to believe anything without evidence

Than go to youtube and stop trolling...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 20 juillet 2012 - 03:13 .

[Lord Goose]

One reason the IT loses footing with the EC is because Catalyst goes to great lengths to explain everything to Shepard and never once demands cooperation. He doesn't even attempt to dissuade Shepard from choosing destroy, just simply explains what effect it will have on the synthetics of his cycle (Geth/EDI). Sure, you could make the "failsafe" argument that the Catalyst had no control over presenting Shepard with that choice, but surely such an advanced being would at least try a little harder, maybe even lie to you that it would effect organics more than it would. The Catalyst even assumes that organics would have "little difficulty repairing the damage". To me, that doesn't sound like something a Reaper ever told an indoctrinated agent.

Yeah, I remember how everybody was: "he is manipulating us, he wants to paint destroy in negative light". He doesn't anymore, but did someone even admitted that he was wrong about it?

This was reason why Miranda again mentioned this stuff in ME3, it was clue that Shepard has no failsafe implant, but how is possibile that after TIM´s upgrade with Reaper tech he can control Shepard?

To be fair, TIM also done researches on the Sanctuary and uncovered something which made Reapers react.

[Ex-Cerberus]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Ex-Cerberus wrote...

One reason the IT loses footing with the EC is because Catalyst goes to great lengths to explain everything to Shepard and never once demands cooperation. He doesn't even attempt to dissuade Shepard from choosing destroy, just simply explains what effect it will have on the synthetics of his cycle (Geth/EDI). Sure, you could make the "failsafe" argument that the Catalyst had no control over presenting Shepard with that choice, but surely such an advanced being would at least try a little harder, maybe even lie to you that it would effect organics more than it would. The Catalyst even assumes that organics would have "little difficulty repairing the damage". To me, that doesn't sound like something a Reaper ever told an indoctrinated agent. I have no idea what was going through Saren's or Illusive Man's head when they were indoctrinated because we never got to play as them obviously, but both of them seemed absolutely certain that this was not an option. Neither of them had a synthetic girlfriend that might influence that decision either as far as I know.

Also keep in mind, all of this was new information to Shepard. Generally people don't learn new information in their dreams. If nothing on the Citadel actually happened, then why do we see things outside of Shepard's view transpire after the choice is made? There is nothing to indicate these events are also "dream sequences". They seem to happen in relatively normal cut scene fashion as every other cut scene in the trilogy did. Surely if they were "dreamed", there would be blurry screens, echoing voices, and things of this nature often associated with dream sequences (take Shepard's own dreams chasing the boy for example). It's really hard to justify a dream theory when we already know for fact how Shepard dreams.

However... I will not deny that sound of Harbinger sounds an awful lot like "Serve us". There is clearly a vocal pattern in that sound clip and it's not just an "obscure sound" or whatever Bioware tried to explain it as. While I don't discount this as evidence towards the indoctrination theory, I do not find it to be sufficient evidence on it's own to PROVE the IC is fact. Ultimately it comes down to the player's interpretation of the events, and while I do not believe "open to interpretation" was the goal Bioware was initially aiming for with this ending (even though they might try to cover their asses with it). But I definitely don't believe in the IC, but I admit it would have been neat if the story took that route and made it blatantly clear that was what was happening.

yea the existence of the breath scene and forcing your fans to headcanon the rest kind of disproves that...

Not really. I'm going more with "bad story-telling". A writer's own uncertainty may lead to a inconclusive ending, but that doesn't mean it was always intended to be that way. "Open to interpretation" usually only suggests one or two aspects of the story are in doubt, like the ending of "Inception". Not a plethora of details that force people to headcanon. I honestly had no idea what "headcanon" was until I joined this board. The whole concept of it is utterly stupid to me. A writer finishes the story, not the fan.  

[Tealjaker94]

Refusal seems like the right option to break free from indoctrination. Except if you choose it, everyone dies. Plus, even if Shepard chooses destroy, which should stop the indoctrination attempt, he still sees the entire Normandy scene and ending slides narrated by Hackett. That's why I think IT is dead.

[Wayning_Star]

the only and biggest thing about the IT is that it's just too all encompassing. That is, it makes for the possiblity that Shepard is no longer in the game, that he is reaper. This pretty much takes the main story and upends the basis for having Shepard there at all. Also, there are three charactors in the final scenes. These being T.I.M., who is obviously already indoctrinated, if we can take the catalysts word for anything(if not that then not anything the creature say can be taken as fact..) then we have Anderson who apparently becomes instantly controlled by the IM, via his control energy, surmized to be a form of indoctrination. And finally Shepard, who also is under the spell of the IM. Why go through all that to asssume Sheppard is indoctrinated, only because hes had dreams of the 'reaper type', when we know he's been communicating with the reapers for some time and been exposed to reaper tech as well. Then indoctrinate the guy just after T.I.M. resuscitates him with reaper tech. It starts to turn the whole game into the dream state of Shepard. In that case the game is no longer functional as an MEU experience, but turns into an induced Reaper dream state when related to actions of an indoctrinated Shepard. Even if the indoctrination only happened after Shepard was onboard the citadel with the catalyst, the fact that he was brought back to life, seems uneeded, as he's the sworn enemy of the reapers, why would they permit his return,especially if he's indoctrinated? Eventually Saren took himself out and he was totally under the reaper spell. Only when he was controlled instantainiously, he was no longer Saren, but the reaper who controlled him then. Why wouldn't the catalyst just 'assume control' if they wanted him to do stuff? Why beat around the bush? Why bother with the four choices, why bring Shep back when you could just leave him be, or have the illusive man just finish him off, why bother orchastrating any of the aforementioned to indoctrinate two main charactors, then permit them to 'make choices'? It can go on like this for about ever..so I'm your captive fan on the 'undoing' of my synopsis quicky.

[tyrvas]

  Applepie_Svk wrote...

When Shepard refused, it was probably some kind of failsafe in case that someone will oppose to indoctrination - just blew your head or nerve overload ... because when we have meet previous indoctrinated victims and manage to talk with them they died - Saren , TIM... You managed to talk with them and showed them that they are indoctrinated - they killed themselves or you managed to anger them and kill them on your own.

The Catalyst wants you to select Synthesis, this would save all synthetics including it.

If you select Destroy you eliminate all synthetics including Catalyst.

Select Control and the Catalyst dies or is reprogrammed as Shep.

Synthesis is the only way for the Catalyst to survive as is and evolve to what it desires to become, to have organic essence.

Refuse/Shoot Catalyst will allow the Catalyst to continue with it's flawed solution.

Catalyst cannot alter the programming without organic influence,
the Creators original fail-safes for the Catalyst AI are only Destroy or Control.

Catalyst will not destroy itself or control itself. Catalyst best solution is synthesis, which
according to him is made available due to the power source and Shep.
Only problem the Catalyst has is that again, this new solution can only be triggered by an organic, who he has to convince to survive.

Modifié par tyrvas, 20 juillet 2012 - 03:36 .

[TSA_383]

Nothing is disproved or proven.

Leviathan adds content to the choice sequence though, so that should provide a bit of interesting context in this whole debate...

[Wayning_Star]

I see the plot problems here now. Everyone thinks the catalyst is in charge 'after' the crucible is connected to the citadel. It's not. There is no need to control Shepard, he could be controlled at any time IF the catalyst were 'able' to control him. The scene effects, where shep is like semi conscience is leading players to assume he's under the reaper spell, the reapers have NO need to do this, as they can assume control of shepard any time they want to. But they cannnot, because of the crucible is more than 'just a power supply' if it weren't, the there would be NO reason for any of the actions of shepard or the catalyst during the time it was invoked. They alread had the IM under control, so it didn't matter about him, he had control of shep and anderson, so why didn'the just have them destroy each other, because he couldn't, because the catalyst couldn't, because the crucible changed the game by, basically indoctrinationg the catalyst via programming.

[SubAstris]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You can't expect anyone to believe anything without evidence

Than go to youtube and stop trolling...

When was trolling ever disagreeing with someone and just asking for evidence? Unless you don't work on that basis