151 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

if the cycle were the catalyst's preferred option, then the walk away option is the only viable choice pro-reaper. Synthesis definitively defrocks the catalyst as the head reaper, stops all harvesting, equalizes to some extent, the organics and synthetics, including the catalyst and all his reapership race. Destroy leave room for a return visit from the reapers, or at least another catalyst, if what the original programmers/builder/creators allude to over the millena, so that's more pro reaper agenda, than synthesis, control has more appeal, as the reapers get to remain reapers, but with a new catalyst/controller such as Sheppard. He'd be of no use to them if he were indoctrinated as it damages organics on levels we do not know. If you consider Saren and indoctrination, the effects are not good. So I think that, logically, synthesis would be the very last pick the catalyst would make, as if it were even up to it.

[tyrvas]

Destroy eliminates the Reapers & Catalyst and all synthetics. anti-reaper/catalyst they are dead.

Control makes Shep a reaper god. Catalyst is overwritten.

Refuse = Catalyst has to continue with flawed reaping solution, until next organics pop by.

Synthesis = All synthetics survive. Only Catalyst solution that worked, he thought of it,
he is the genius that also thought reaping was the only solution, before this one.

[Edorian27]

IT is not disproven, because the devs never wanted to disprove it. Still, it became less likely after the EC. Beliving in IT or not is a matter of what interpretation of the events taking place is more realistic: The indoctrination theory or a more literal interpretation of the events.

IT is, as the devs say themselves, a possible way to explain the end, for me it is still the most logical one and thus I favor it, but EC kind of ruins it for me.

What did EC change that made me doubt IT was intended from the start?

1) When it was not explained how your companions survived the beam run, it was much easier to count the ending of them stepping out of the Normandy as a dream - now it gets explained.

2) Hackett saying that Shepard made it to the citadel. Why would this be placed into the game if it weren't true? IT mainly states that Shep remained on earth. The Hackett - Scene is neither dreamlike nor does it make sense for Shep to imagine it.

3) The Catalyst is giving a crude, but possible explanation of what he is, what happens after the endings etc. So now we have an alternative explanation.

4) The ending slideshows are very detailed and long. It was easy to imagine they were a dream before, with the Normandy touching down in a Paradiselike world, but now it's rather elaborate. Makes IT less likely.

5) The ending text message states "You have defeated the reaper threat" and is more detailed than before, where it mainly stated that you might buy additional DLC. Don't know for sure if that was changed though cause I don't remember how the original message was.

6) Several statements after EC of the devs point to different explanations (e.g. as to how Shep survives through the Citadels failsaves etc... forcing my belief that IT is not the intended ending.

To uphold IT, you can only claim that EC was built for the players who don't like IT and give them a acceptable ending, thus not being canon and the original cut still the way they wanted the game.
Still, we might get answers when the announce ME4...

[DirtyPhoenix]

Edorian27 wrote...

IT is not disproven, because the devs never wanted to disprove it. Still, it became less likely after the EC. Beliving in IT or not is a matter of what interpretation of the events taking place is more realistic: The indoctrination theory or a more literal interpretation of the events.

IT is, as the devs say themselves, a possible way to explain the end, for me it is still the most logical one and thus I favor it, but EC kind of ruins it for me.

What did EC change that made me doubt IT was intended from the start?

1) When it was not explained how your companions survived the beam run, it was much easier to count the ending of them stepping out of the Normandy as a dream - now it gets explained.

2) Hackett saying that Shepard made it to the citadel. Why would this be placed into the game if it weren't true? IT mainly states that Shep remained on earth. The Hackett - Scene is neither dreamlike nor does it make sense for Shep to imagine it.

3) The Catalyst is giving a crude, but possible explanation of what he is, what happens after the endings etc. So now we have an alternative explanation.

4) The ending slideshows are very detailed and long. It was easy to imagine they were a dream before, with the Normandy touching down in a Paradiselike world, but now it's rather elaborate. Makes IT less likely.

5) The ending text message states "You have defeated the reaper threat" and is more detailed than before, where it mainly stated that you might buy additional DLC. Don't know for sure if that was changed though cause I don't remember how the original message was.

6) Several statements after EC of the devs point to different explanations (e.g. as to how Shep survives through the Citadels failsaves etc... forcing my belief that IT is not the intended ending.

To uphold IT, you can only claim that EC was built for the players who don't like IT and give them a acceptable ending, thus not being canon and the original cut still the way they wanted the game.
Still, we might get answers when the announce ME4...

Pretty much this.

[I_eat_unicorns]

pirate1802 wrote...

Edorian27 wrote...

IT is not disproven, because the devs never wanted to disprove it. Still, it became less likely after the EC. Beliving in IT or not is a matter of what interpretation of the events taking place is more realistic: The indoctrination theory or a more literal interpretation of the events.

IT is, as the devs say themselves, a possible way to explain the end, for me it is still the most logical one and thus I favor it, but EC kind of ruins it for me.

What did EC change that made me doubt IT was intended from the start?

1) When it was not explained how your companions survived the beam run, it was much easier to count the ending of them stepping out of the Normandy as a dream - now it gets explained.

2) Hackett saying that Shepard made it to the citadel. Why would this be placed into the game if it weren't true? IT mainly states that Shep remained on earth. The Hackett - Scene is neither dreamlike nor does it make sense for Shep to imagine it.

3) The Catalyst is giving a crude, but possible explanation of what he is, what happens after the endings etc. So now we have an alternative explanation.

4) The ending slideshows are very detailed and long. It was easy to imagine they were a dream before, with the Normandy touching down in a Paradiselike world, but now it's rather elaborate. Makes IT less likely.

5) The ending text message states "You have defeated the reaper threat" and is more detailed than before, where it mainly stated that you might buy additional DLC. Don't know for sure if that was changed though cause I don't remember how the original message was.

6) Several statements after EC of the devs point to different explanations (e.g. as to how Shep survives through the Citadels failsaves etc... forcing my belief that IT is not the intended ending.

To uphold IT, you can only claim that EC was built for the players who don't like IT and give them a acceptable ending, thus not being canon and the original cut still the way they wanted the game.
Still, we might get answers when the announce ME4...

Pretty much this.

Would you make a "false" ending then expand on that "false" ending to prepare for the "real" ending? 
Because puuting 3 months of time,money, and energy into a non-sensical, fan-fic theory that ruins player choice that is so heavily encouraged in a game like mass effect. 



This is from the SDCC, at around 6:00, you can see a better version of the flow chart. You see how much work/variables the writers put into the endings under the 2 gb limit, why would they go against their own hard work and say "jk it was all a dream"?

[Haiyato]

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.

LOL I thought Harbinger said "Save Us" which sort of made sense when star child states he forced his solution on his creators. But EC doesn't disprove IT at all.

[DirtyPhoenix]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Edorian27 wrote...

IT is not disproven, because the devs never wanted to disprove it. Still, it became less likely after the EC. Beliving in IT or not is a matter of what interpretation of the events taking place is more realistic: The indoctrination theory or a more literal interpretation of the events.

IT is, as the devs say themselves, a possible way to explain the end, for me it is still the most logical one and thus I favor it, but EC kind of ruins it for me.

What did EC change that made me doubt IT was intended from the start?

1) When it was not explained how your companions survived the beam run, it was much easier to count the ending of them stepping out of the Normandy as a dream - now it gets explained.

2) Hackett saying that Shepard made it to the citadel. Why would this be placed into the game if it weren't true? IT mainly states that Shep remained on earth. The Hackett - Scene is neither dreamlike nor does it make sense for Shep to imagine it.

3) The Catalyst is giving a crude, but possible explanation of what he is, what happens after the endings etc. So now we have an alternative explanation.

4) The ending slideshows are very detailed and long. It was easy to imagine they were a dream before, with the Normandy touching down in a Paradiselike world, but now it's rather elaborate. Makes IT less likely.

5) The ending text message states "You have defeated the reaper threat" and is more detailed than before, where it mainly stated that you might buy additional DLC. Don't know for sure if that was changed though cause I don't remember how the original message was.

6) Several statements after EC of the devs point to different explanations (e.g. as to how Shep survives through the Citadels failsaves etc... forcing my belief that IT is not the intended ending.

To uphold IT, you can only claim that EC was built for the players who don't like IT and give them a acceptable ending, thus not being canon and the original cut still the way they wanted the game.
Still, we might get answers when the announce ME4...

Pretty much this.

Would you make a "false" ending then expand on that "false" ending to prepare for the "real" ending? 
Because puuting 3 months of time,money, and energy into a non-sensical, fan-fic theory that ruins player choice that is so heavily encouraged in a game like mass effect. 



This is from the SDCC, at around 6:00, you can see a better version of the flow chart. You see how much work/variables the writers put into the endings under the 2 gb limit, why would they go against their own hard work and say "jk it was all a dream"?

No I won't. Still I'd be happy if I'm proved wrong and IT is proved right in future. Not holding my breath though.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I don't agree with IT, but it makes more sense than any other interpretation. It is bizarre that fans have to come up with that to make sense of the game.

[dorktainian]

Haiyato wrote...

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.

LOL I thought Harbinger said "Save Us" which sort of made sense when star child states he forced his solution on his creators. But EC doesn't disprove IT at all.

could be either and either would work

serve us = help the reapers get rid of star brat = freedom for the reapers
save us = same.

my prefered ending would have harbie actually saving shep from his laser blast at the last minute so he could make it to the citadel.  him flying away to fool the catalyst into thinking shep is dead.

[chidingewe8036]

well i think the ending still sucks and the brain trust at Bioware did not really think it through, ME3 as a whole just seemed rushed......period.

[dorktainian]

chidingewe8036 wrote...

well i think the ending still sucks and the brain trust at Bioware did not really think it through, ME3 as a whole just seemed rushed......period.

yep i'm playing it through again and in places it just smacks of being rushed out of the door.  some of the fmv editing is terrible and the actual quest system is laughable.

[aceofqueens]

 So many people are saying that IT is just "an interpretation" or "a fan-fiction".
If you don't believe it, you think it's more likely that there are dozens of plot holes in the last 20 minutes, than the ending being indoctrination.  Period.
Other people are saying that the things EC changed (like an explanation of how joker got away and how your squadmates got on the Normandy) debunks IT because it stops these things from being used as arguments for IT. 
Well, to these people, I say this:
There are still over 70+ things that don't make sense in non-indoctrination setting. There are still dozens of arguments for it. We've got am abundance, don't you worry. 
Still other people are still saying that Bioware didn't confirm IT or make it explained in the game. To these people:
As I said already, bioware isn't going to give away what the ending is. They set up this trippy ending where you have to figure out what happened, and you expect them to just tell you? Do you want them to come to your house and play the game for you, then give you a summary of the game? 
As for the point about IT not being explained in the game. Well, I don't know what to tell you. IT is already explicitly obvious.  If you do the math, you just played through an ending with IT stuff about every 17 seconds.  
It's not us IT believers that are the theorycrafters. It's you guys who have the outrageous claim. When somebody has something like that, it's up the them to prove it. And not once have I seen a shred of proof. 

While we on the other hand, have all the proof we need.

I know I said the thread shouldn't be about arguing over IT being real or not. But I just had to say something. 

So, if you're gonna say IT isn't real please just keep it to yourself. As I said before, I can't help you. They're tons of articles, lists, and essays you can read.

Now, if you have proof, bring it on. 

I would prefer to keep this about EC though.

Now that is out of the way, heres something I think is interesting. 

Edorian27 wrote...
To uphold IT, you can only claim that EC was built for the players who don't like IT and give them a acceptable ending, thus not being canon and the original cut still the way they wanted the game.
Still, we might get answers when the announce ME4...

That actually isn't the only claim I can make. I mean, I've got logic backing me up. I make that claim anyway because I believe that is part of the reason Bioware did the EC. In fact I think that is the main reason. They aren't going to tell everyone IT happened because of the reasons I've already stated. 

My options A) and are both possible. The EC could've had a secondary purpose: to open the possiblilty of . Perhaps they wanted us to choose between them? Or maybe they're trying to show us is their intended vision. Either way it doesn't really matter, the effect is the same. I'm going with though because it's much cooler. Everyone is all crying and sad because they think you're dead, then you wake up on the Citadel and take that breath. It's much more glorious. 

As for ME4, I highly doubt they're gonna make one. For obvious reasons, they cannot continue Shepard's story. So if it's in the same universe but not about Shepard, it wouldn't be Mass Effect 4. They would create a new series name. 

They could make destroy cannon, but I highly doubt that. It defeats the whole purpose. And obviously synthesis and control and refusal can't be cannon. 

They could do some kind of prelude to ME about Shepard in the first contact war or something. Or about other characters pre Mass Effect series. I think it would be cool to play a Turian or Krogan or something commander with the same game mechanics, exept for new classes for new races. 

Modifié par aceofqueens, 21 juillet 2012 - 08:22 .

[aceofqueens]

Oh and by the way, I'm happy to hear from lots of people saying EC doesn't disprove IT and backing me up. You guys rock. Thanks.

[Edorian27]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

Would you make a "false" ending then expand on that "false" ending to prepare for the "real" ending? 
Because puuting 3 months of time,money, and energy into a non-sensical, fan-fic theory that ruins player choice that is so heavily encouraged in a game like mass effect. 



This is from the SDCC, at around 6:00, you can see a better version of the flow chart. You see how much work/variables the writers put into the endings under the 2 gb limit, why would they go against their own hard work and say "jk it was all a dream"?

Actually, yes. In this case you have to allow you to belive that BW actually listened to their fans and their needs for the ending.
If you belive IT was intended at the start, too less people got the brilliance of it and complained their Shepard story was not complete, even if IT was true. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to invest time and money to keep these fans satisfied. An obvious: "It was all IT" Explanation DLC might have failed at that.

Plus there is not too small a chance that the ending was rushed due to time limits and they were well aware they need to invest into a free ending DLC from the start. They just did what they weren't able to do in time for the original game. 

What I'm trying to say is there is a chance that BW started an experiment to actually indoctrinate the player and when they saw the anger rising and people not getting it they corrected the canon. 

[aceofqueens]

Edorian27 wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

Would you make a "false" ending then expand on that "false" ending to prepare for the "real" ending? 
Because puuting 3 months of time,money, and energy into a non-sensical, fan-fic theory that ruins player choice that is so heavily encouraged in a game like mass effect. 



This is from the SDCC, at around 6:00, you can see a better version of the flow chart. You see how much work/variables the writers put into the endings under the 2 gb limit, why would they go against their own hard work and say "jk it was all a dream"?

Actually, yes. In this case you have to allow you to belive that BW actually listened to their fans and their needs for the ending.
If you belive IT was intended at the start, too less people got the brilliance of it and complained their Shepard story was not complete, even if IT was true. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to invest time and money to keep these fans satisfied. An obvious: "It was all IT" Explanation DLC might have failed at that.

Plus there is not too small a chance that the ending was rushed due to time limits and they were well aware they need to invest into a free ending DLC from the start. They just did what they weren't able to do in time for the original game. 

What I'm trying to say is there is a chance that BW started an experiment to actually indoctrinate the player and when they saw the anger rising and people not getting it they corrected the canon. 

Indoctrinating the player is exactly what it's about. It's a really awesome thing. I can't communicate how perfect I think it is. 

[Lord Goose]

As I said already, bioware isn't going to give away what the
ending is.

If IT is true, Shepard still wakes up on Earth, Harbinger is still guarding the beam, Citadel is still closed and Crucible cannot be docked, Illusive Man still somewhere in the Citadel, and we have no idea why Reapers even doing the cycles and what the whole salvation through destruction means.
Basically, none of the major plotlines were given resolution.
At the same time, where is not much room for a new Mass Effect game. We explored the setting. Shepard was everywhere, from asari temples on Thessia to gresy clubs on Omega, from secret labs of STG to ruins of Earth. Shepard played major role in history of many races one way or another.

So where is just no room for a new game, at very least in my opinion.

Extended Cut could have been explicit confirmation of IT, but it didn't happened. So these plotlines are still have no resolution. And since it is unlikely that new game will happen, IT will be just unfinished.

[SaidRael]

At some point, can perfectly fit the theory, but the likelihood is made very few.

But I'd rather have naive hopes

[SubAstris]

aceofqueens wrote...

 So many people are saying that IT is just "an interpretation" or "a fan-fiction".
If you don't believe it, you think it's more likely that there are dozens of plot holes in the last 20 minutes, than the ending being indoctrination.  Period.
Other people are saying that the things EC changed (like an explanation of how joker got away and how your squadmates got on the Normandy) debunks IT because it stops these things from being used as arguments for IT. 
Well, to these people, I say this:
There are still over 70+ things that don't make sense in non-indoctrination setting. There are still dozens of arguments for it. We've got am abundance, don't you worry. 
Still other people are still saying that Bioware didn't confirm IT or make it explained in the game. To these people:
As I said already, bioware isn't going to give away what the ending is. They set up this trippy ending where you have to figure out what happened, and you expect them to just tell you? Do you want them to come to your house and play the game for you, then give you a summary of the game? 
As for the point about IT not being explained in the game. Well, I don't know what to tell you. IT is already explicitly obvious.  If you do the math, you just played through an ending with IT stuff about every 17 seconds.  
It's not us IT believers that are the theorycrafters. It's you guys who have the outrageous claim. When somebody has something like that, it's up the them to prove it. And not once have I seen a shred of proof. 

While we on the other hand, have all the proof we need.

I know I said the thread shouldn't be about arguing over IT being real or not. But I just had to say something. 

So, if you're gonna say IT isn't real please just keep it to yourself. As I said before, I can't help you. They're tons of articles, lists, and essays you can read.

Now, if you have proof, bring it on. 

I would prefer to keep this about EC though.

Now that is out of the way, heres something I think is interesting.

IT is still just an interpretation, doesn't matter how much "evidence" is going for it.

There are some plot holes in the ending, no one is disputing that, and that the ending was abnormally bad; however if one were to analyse most endings to an epic you would find similar mistakes. Furthermore, you seem to suggest that without IT, there would be no plot holes in the story at large at all, which is just not true.

I think it is not so much the fact that they didn't change everything which was listed as so-called evidence but the fact that they at least changed some, the main things people didn't like. The fact that they did this, despite the fact that in an IT interpretation there would absolutely no need to, provides damning evidence for the theory.

EC was the final chance for BW to make gameplay on a new ending involving IT. Why did they neglect to do so? They are not making another DLC on the ending again, they have said this many times. ME3 was the end of Shepard's story. The only way they can reveal IT now is by tweet or press conference, which won't be nice for most ITers who want to play the game.

The fact is there is a difference between ambiguous and not having a bloody ending at all a la IT

"IT is already explicitly obvious"- Hence why 99% of people didn't get the ending first time? You must be kidding!

"They're tons of articles, lists, and essays you can read"- This really means nothing. I can fetch you a million videos, books, articles etc on 9/11 truth. I have seen the vast majority of the points made for IT and not one has really convinced me of its validity

[SubAstris]

Edorian27 wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

Would you make a "false" ending then expand on that "false" ending to prepare for the "real" ending? 
Because puuting 3 months of time,money, and energy into a non-sensical, fan-fic theory that ruins player choice that is so heavily encouraged in a game like mass effect. 



This is from the SDCC, at around 6:00, you can see a better version of the flow chart. You see how much work/variables the writers put into the endings under the 2 gb limit, why would they go against their own hard work and say "jk it was all a dream"?

Actually, yes. In this case you have to allow you to belive that BW actually listened to their fans and their needs for the ending.
If you belive IT was intended at the start, too less people got the brilliance of it and complained their Shepard story was not complete, even if IT was true. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to invest time and money to keep these fans satisfied. An obvious: "It was all IT" Explanation DLC might have failed at that.

Plus there is not too small a chance that the ending was rushed due to time limits and they were well aware they need to invest into a free ending DLC from the start. They just did what they weren't able to do in time for the original game. 

What I'm trying to say is there is a chance that BW started an experiment to actually indoctrinate the player and when they saw the anger rising and people not getting it they corrected the canon. 

That is possible. However, most ITers thought there was proof already in the main game, unless you are saying that there wasn't, and then EC added more (although that clearly didn't work since ITer numbers have dropped significantly, EC has decimated their ranks) . They only got the greenlight for the new EC in late March as well, so they didn't always know.

[Joccaren]

aceofqueens wrote...
So many people are saying that IT is just "an interpretation" or "a fan-fiction".
If you don't believe it, you think it's more likely that there are dozens of plot holes in the last 20 minutes, than the ending being indoctrination.  Period.

Uh, not necessarily. It is possible that they just acknowledge that Bioware wrote a crappy ending, however it is also possible that they found a face value ending made more sense than IT does. It all depends on how you look at everything presented, and what you want to believe.

Other people are saying that the things EC changed (like an explanation of how joker got away and how your squadmates got on the Normandy) debunks IT because it stops these things from being used as arguments for IT.

Really EC never changed things, it merely presented them for us to see what Bioware thought was going on at those points.

Well, to these people, I say this:
There are still over 70+ things that don't make sense in non-indoctrination setting. There are still dozens of arguments for it. We've got am abundance, don't you worry.

I know I said I wouldn't open up this argument on two fronts, but I haven't recieved an argument from the other front for 2 days so this front is now open. Present these things that don't make sense. Thus far I've seen one legitimate one that only loosely linked to IT - the Gun model one. Beyond every argument an IT person brings up in this regard has had another easily available explanation.

Still other people are still saying that Bioware didn't confirm IT or make it explained in the game. To these people:
As I said already, bioware isn't going to give away what the ending is. They set up this trippy ending where you have to figure out what happened, and you expect them to just tell you? Do you want them to come to your house and play the game for you, then give you a summary of the game?

You act as if it is a good thing to not write in something like this. It is not. It is not some sort of "Discover the hidden ending" mystery. The endings are vague, yes. That is not because they wanted to hide IT. It is because they wanted to allow everybody to interpret the endings in the way they wanted - IT, face value, or something else entirely.
If they actually had in mind what the true ending of the game is, they would have made it abundantly clear. They did not. They do not need to have Shepard state "Oh my god, I woke up from Indoctrination". They do, however, need to present something unmistakable that shows Shepard was undergoing Indoctrination. They do not. Taking IT as fact, they present a jumbled mess of scenes that loosely relate to an Indoctrination theme, that are very easily mistakable for face value events. Beyond that, nothing. If what you state is true, and IT is the one and only true ending to the game Bioware presented, then it is very poorly written in.

As for the point about IT not being explained in the game. Well, I don't know what to tell you. IT is already explicitly obvious.  If you do the math, you just played through an ending with IT stuff about every 17 seconds.

Hardly. If you blind yourself to alternatives IT is explicitly obvious. If you keep an open mind and think "Hey, maybe there is actually a face value explanation for this" it is not.
As for the math, you play through an ending with non-IT stuff every single second that you play the endings, so W/E.
 

It's not us IT believers that are the theorycrafters. It's you guys who have the outrageous claim. When somebody has something like that, it's up the them to prove it. And not once have I seen a shred of proof.

False.
Our "Outrageous" claim is that the endings are as written - as Bioware presents them.

ITs claims are that Bioware has lied and misdirected its entire community in an attempt to keep hidden an ending that isn't even presented in the game and is only evidenced by vague events that require a specific interpretation to see "Properly" and will probably never actually state is the ending to the game.

Which one seems more outrageous?
The burden of proof is on you to prove that the endings are not as presented in game. If you came up with some amazing new theory that you thought made Natural Selection full of logical flaws, and make no sense, the burden of proof would be on you to disprove the theory of Natural Selection, not for Natural Selection to prove itself to you.

While we on the other hand, have all the proof we need.

And yet consistently fail to present any of it that can stand under scrutiny as the only possible thing that could have happened.

I know I said the thread shouldn't be about arguing over IT being real or not. But I just had to say something. 

So, if you're gonna say IT isn't real please just keep it to yourself. As I said before, I can't help you. They're tons of articles, lists, and essays you can read.

Honestly, IT is real in the sense its a Valid interpretation of the endings. Its not real in the sense that it is the ONLY valid interpretation of the endings - an idea you seem to be trying to push.
All the essays, videos, articles and lists I have seen have consistently failed to present anything concrete to prove IT. Each has required that the person seeing it blindly looks at each situation expecting only to find IT, rather than looking for alternatives.

Now, if you have proof, bring it on.

See above, it is not us the burden of proof lies on.

I would prefer to keep this about EC though.

Technically it is. IT is a valid interpretation of the endings in EC. What the EC does to disprove the IT is nothing, as that is not what it set out to do. What it does to prove the IT is something that can be debated and is on topic.

[Doctoglethorpe]

It disproved it by not proving it.  IT insists there is more content coming otherwise its pointless.  The EC has come nad gone and it did not involve IT.  There is no more content coming post-ending.  That is it.  Without future content confirming IT and depicting the events afterwards you are left with an eternal cliff hanger at best if you still believe in IT.  That defeats the purpose of the IT to begin with which was to explain how its not really over and more is coming.  More is not coming.  Sorry. 

[Cyrax86]

disprove IT, when was IT proof or fact.

When harby shoots Shep, she's laying down next to nothing, nor is she near any buildings. Yet during the death breath scene she's covered in rubble and debris with noise of crumbling structure/s.

[Edorian27]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

 IT insists there is more content coming otherwise its pointless.  The EC has come nad gone and it did not involve IT.  There is no more content coming post-ending.  That is it.  Without future content confirming IT and depicting the events afterwards you are left with an eternal cliff hanger at best if you still believe in IT.  That defeats the purpose of the IT to begin with which was to explain how its not really over and more is coming.  More is not coming.  Sorry.  

I disagree on this one. In my Interpretation of IT, During the struggle inside Shepards head he is still acting in reality, this is just not shown. So by overcoming Indoctrination, Shepard manages to activate the crucible, then passes out.

If you got enough War Assets, Shep wakes up in London in daylight, when his forces won the day. If you don't.. well, he doesn't wake up - so either you failed to defeat the reapers because your fleet wasn't strong enough or Shep just didn't survive.

I don't need additional content, I didn't even need EC to find this ending satisfying, but only with IT. It is not a cliffhanger either, it just does not show your victory explicitly. It is implied though by Shep waking up during daylight, when it seems the battle taking place at night is over.

[Edorian27]

Joccaren wrote...

Honestly, IT is real in the sense its a Valid interpretation of the endings. Its not real in the sense that it is the ONLY valid interpretation of the endings 

I agree.
Nice to read a well though of approach toward interpreting the events in ME3s ending. 
Let me ask you though: Do you prefer the ending as it is in a more literal interpretation over IT? Why? 

*edit*:

And one question about a hint in favor of IT. What do you make of the Citadel being paced together of parts of the Collector ship, the Shadowbroker vessel and the TIM - Room in the end? 
The resembelance is pretty obvious to me, and makes sense in IT where it is pieced together from Shepards memories.
How does it make sense in a literal interpretation?

Modifié par Edorian27, 21 juillet 2012 - 04:41 .

[XxDarkTimexX]

-How the hell can Effective Military Strenght alter the course of a hallucination?

-Why does Vendetta not detect you as Indoctrinated if you're becoming so?
thats because he's not indoctrinated only until after harbinger hits Shepard with the beam  
-Why does Harbinger shoot you if you're his pet?
because your not, at least not yet
-Why does the Stargazer scene EXIST if all that happens does not happen?
and now you support the starchild

[/quote]
if people can't understand indoctrination theory then there is no point in argueing. 
the whole point of being indoctrinated is that you don't know if your being indoctrinated
if people looked at everyone who is indoctrinated in all mass effect games no one is safe form indoctrination.
The reason why i like indoctrination because its almost like the ring of power from lord of the rings. 
for example if your near reaper artifacts for a long time chances are your indoctrinated its almost the exact thing that when your holding the ring of power there more time passes the more it controls you