80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Cecilia L]

ShepnTali wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

YAY! IT thread got it's BioWare tag back!!! XD

Sorry, not trying to further derail the topic. It's actually very involved in the topic because I 'speculated' that BioWare would find some way to stamp the IT thread again to give it validity, IT FTW!

I think the puzzle theory is IT friendly in it's potential.

Moar ending stuff FTW! It's not unlikely that IT will be revealed one bit at a time.

Modifié par Cecilia L, 04 août 2012 - 04:18 .

[Dwailing]

I was beginning to think that Synthesis might be a good idea. Then I rewatched it on YouTube. Problem solved.

[Chriz Tah Fah]

Dwailing wrote...

I was beginning to think that Synthesis might be a good idea. Then I rewatched it on YouTube. Problem solved.

It's a good idea in theory and when you first think about it. The more you think about the series as a whole the more wrong synthesis becomes.

[Gwyphon]

Youtube reverses the effects of indoctrination.

[Cecilia L]

Both Synthesis and Control are beautiful endings on an emotional plane. When you however start to think about them using brains, logic and stuff... problematic.

EDIT: oh hell 6.30 AM -Goodnight! And non-reaper-influenced dreams to you all!

Modifié par Cecilia L, 04 août 2012 - 04:35 .

[Rosewind]

Goood Merry Afternoon my fellow thingies lol

[Iconoclaste]

Hrothdane wrote...

In fact, that cornucopia of evidence is why I imagine most of us are here in the first place. We could try prioritizing evidence in order of strength and/or organizing it by type (ex. Circumstantial, Thematic, Logical Inconsistency, Plot Hole, etc...).

Agreed. Or you could simply put down "rules" against which the evidence is tested as it is discovered. There are sufficient pieces of the "puzzle" now to extract general guidelines, from which a more solid IT "skeleton" could be etched. The Reapers' motivation to indoctrinate Shepard (use him to demoralize opposition) could be one of the main "rules", instead of being an answer given too late among explanations, when "newcomer" asks "but why then would Harby just not kill Shep sleeping at his feet?". You now have the Normandy escaping without a scratch to support this further. How do you trace the intensity build-up of the means used to get Shepard in a "confident" mood towards the Catalyst in the end. Kid in the vent is a 50-50 part, doesn't even need to be an "hallucination", as long as he can be found in Shepard's memory to be played upon. But that is some good starting point for the emotional build-up, even from a literal standpoint, since it induces the following "dreams". That also concurs to making Shepard less of a super-human resisting Indoc where everyone else would have fallen, since the kid / dreams part could be a "natural processus" and not a brain-damaging Reaper technique. This does not exclude that the Reapers still can access Shep's mind and see what's going in there, and erases the need of a Reaper intervention that becomes difficult to attenuate in order to save Shepard's mind from the bad indoc effects over extended time. I only give you my thoughts as if I was to make IT more "appealing" to newcomers, but you see where I point to : a more "harmonious" sequence of actions from the Reaper part, not much weight given to "evidence" not related to intents, etc.

[Rosewind]

starlitegirlx wrote...

I'm new to ME as of this late may early june when I played ME1 a few times then moved to ME2 and last month ME3. So a lot of this DLC related stuff is lost on me. All the info that's not directly in the main games I don't have since the only DLCs I did were From the Ashes as it gets me an amazing crew member which I feel I would like to have as I never use James and want a stronger military person in my crew given I'm a vanguard, I romance Kaiden and there's Liara.

I've read all the DLC stuff I could find to try to help me understand how it fits into IT, which I already feel to be the truth of what has happened, but I also feel like there are numerous details mixed in from DLC that SHOULD be part of the game so I know all the details and yet I just don't feel like getting them. Mostly I follow this thread now as I'm a little game taxed. So could someone sum up all the relevant data that I don't have from these DLCs and extra material so I can understand the whole picture that has been given? I just really don't feel like buying and playing more of the game at this point. Totally burned out actually and need a rest I think.

So could someone give me the scoop on all the other details revealed over the years that I missed. I think if I had gotten into it a year or more ago or maybe even six months ago I would probably be into buying and playing all the DLC, but I've been on ME binge since June and after the horrible first ending I'm far more into IT in general and the discussion the way you'd be about an amazing book. You may not want to reread that book but you'd love to discuss it.

Thanks to anyone who can help.

Oh no poor you you missed out on Kasumi and Zaeed, they should never made them two DLC characters.

Edit: The only really important DLC (IT wise) is Arrival for ME2 scince it kinda sets the scene for ME3 and opens a lot of question like how come Shepard never even battered an eyelid at indoctrination after he/she was passed out for 2 days near Object Rho.

Modifié par Rosewind, 04 août 2012 - 04:54 .

[Iconoclaste]

Rosewind wrote...

Edit: The only really important DLC (IT wise) is Arrival for ME2 scince it kinda sets the scene for ME3 and opens a lot of question like how come Shepard never even battered an eyelid at indoctrination after he/she was passed out for 2 days near Object Rho.

Here are my "objections" to this IT-supporting set of facts :

-Shepard can clearly fight indoctrination even if he is asleep, because that's the whole point of IT : Shepard fighting in his mind while sleeping in London. Only difference in Arrival is that we're not shown Shepard's "visions";
-Shepard is not in the presence of object Rho as long as the others there, so he doesn't get the same amount of effects proportionally;
-Shepard passes out in a state of "combat" while the others were in a much more "passive" stance for a long period, hence Shepard must be having nightmares about his failure instead of wishes of peace with the Reapers;

[Simon_Says]

The problem is that the IT Documentary is both largely incomplete, largely biased, and largely focused on evidence for what's happening and not on discussion why.

I want to tackle a Indoctrination Theory Primer. If I can find enough time and enough material I think I can do a good job of it. But I don't know if Hellish and Turbo's Choose Wisely series is going to already cover it in full. Speaking of which, Hellish/Turbo, if you're reading this, any word on selections for the narrator? I also have plans to expand Selfish Meme Theory and to do another run of the Mass Effect series start to finish, taking copious screenshots and notes along the way.

Speaking of which, about Selfish Meme Theory, I'm officially putting out a call for assistance. What I want are previous or new quotes/threads/ideas/questions etc. that I can use to help build SMT further. I'll do proper attributation of course.

Here's my current notes on how the SMT article is currently structured and what I plan to include in an... let's call it an extended cut.

Current structure...

--Introduction

What is Indoctrination

The Geth

The Catalyst

Indoctrination as Enemy--



To add:

How does SMT affect the endings? The future of Mass Effect?

Is Indoc intelligent?

mention Von Neumann machines

Individuality vs Hiveminds/Standardization of mind

Organic vs Synthetics vs Indoctrinated, "End of Evolution"

Selfish Gene

Leviathan

How does Indoctrination control the indoctrinated? (reference Incpetion: ideas can define or destroy)

Programming vs Indoctrination

Mind control from other sources (Thorian, Overlord, etc.)

More data from ME1/ME2

Indoctrination vs The Cosmic Imperative

Why humanity?

If you want to see something added either shout here or gimme a PM.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 04 août 2012 - 05:10 .

[Iconoclaste]

starlitegirlx wrote...

I think a documentary that's 1.5 hours long called indoctrination theory (and which is also quite good) does a great job of this. It was actually the thing that pushed me into clear IT support territory. I thought it was done very well and it had tons of stuff I didn't even notice or consider which I will when I get back to playing ME3 and possibly add in the new DLC.

Off topic, I've only done 'from ashes' DLC so I'm not 100% sure on this but does the DLC match your game challenge level. I play on easy (yes, sissy me) because I want it to be more of a fun thing than a challenging thing which for me personally is not fun. Do the DLCs keep with what your setting is because I just read that the new one is supposed to be more challenging because players asked for it (NOT ME!) and that really deters me from ever getting it if It's going to annoy me because I'm not having fun and dying at every turn. Thanks.

1,5 hours is too long and too elaborate to be appealing to any newcomer, and a bit of a cumbersome argument since it relies heavily on audio and video. There needs to be a simple set of paragraphs, a "story-like" description from A to Z of the Indoc process with some main hints, that every IT "scout" should have ready in his backpocket.

Yes, DLC follows your game settings. I bought them all long after finishing ME2, just after finishing ME3, except "From Ashes", which I read about extensively on the BSN. Shadow Broker" is an excellent DLC and will get you plenty of funny and intricate stuff to read at the end.

[Rosewind]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

Edit: The only really important DLC (IT wise) is Arrival for ME2 scince it kinda sets the scene for ME3 and opens a lot of question like how come Shepard never even battered an eyelid at indoctrination after he/she was passed out for 2 days near Object Rho.

Here are my "objections" to this IT-supporting set of facts :

-Shepard can clearly fight indoctrination even if he is asleep, because that's the whole point of IT : Shepard fighting in his mind while sleeping in London. Only difference in Arrival is that we're not shown Shepard's "visions";
-Shepard is not in the presence of object Rho as long as the others there, so he doesn't get the same amount of effects proportionally;
-Shepard passes out in a state of "combat" while the others were in a much more "passive" stance for a long period, hence Shepard must be having nightmares about his failure instead of wishes of peace with the Reapers;

1) My minds a blank lol
2) We are not talking like 10 mins, 2 days is a long time and you don't have to be in the same room to feel the effects.
3) Adrenaline is said to increase the effects.

[Auralius Carolus]

Just figured I'd come in here are drop this off:

Chris Priestly-

I answered this. There will be no more new endings. I used the "quotes"
as we consider the Extended Cut the ending, the finale, the stop
whatever you want to call it of the ending of Mass Effect 3. We do not
plan to make new endings, give more closure to the endings, adding or
subtracting to or from the endings, etc. We are done with the endings.

That
said, we are working on some very cool downloadable story based single
player content. In these DLCs there will certainly be elements that will
effect the end of the game. As Mike Gamble already said, depending on
what you do in Leviathan there will be new dialog with the Catalyst at
the end of the game. These sorts of elements are definitely possible for
future DLC as well.

-Recently posted as a closing argument for a locked thread regarding the endings

Interestingly enough, the apparent explicit "We're done" of the first paragraph is circumvented by the nature of the second. What, exactly, Bioware considers to be "The endings" and how "The endings" are defined, in nature, is yet to be outlined, if the endings are considered fixed but new dialogue with the Catalyst can still be added.

Regardless, it's apparent that there is still rebellion brewing on these forums. It would also seem that the IT is still up in the air, if I know anything about political/business speak.

Link to quote: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/13492198/19

Modifié par Auralius Carolus, 04 août 2012 - 05:19 .

[Rosewind]

starlitegirlx wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

Oh no poor you you missed out on Kasumi and Zaeed, they should never made them two DLC characters.

Edit: The only really important DLC (IT wise) is Arrival for ME2 scince it kinda sets the scene for ME3 and opens a lot of question like how come Shepard never even battered an eyelid at indoctrination after he/she was passed out for 2 days near Object Rho.

HA! See that's why I don't do DLC. I want it to be worth my time and I sure didn't want more characters to deal with on ME2. I had enough with the ones I had, especially jacob who I wanted to murder every time he spoke. Truly. That attitude was in need of a throttle. Worse than Jack. Ugh. Least favorite character ever.

I saw the cutscenes from arrival online so I know the basics but I don't remember anything about being passed out for two days near object rho. That might have been missed in the cut scenes though I have read he was passed out near a reaper device or tech or something like that for a few days and could have been indoctrinated at that point. Was Arrival worth playing? Isn't he alone for it? I like having a team to back me so I don't think I'd like having to play more challenging with no team. I like having my team. But since I've seen it already (cutscene wise) then I guess I don't need to bother especially since I think there are only three references to it in ME3 (from anderson in the beginning, and then the two batarians) but not actual changes that I know of beyond that.

Thanks!

Bascly Shepard investigates the disappearance of a doctor for Hackett, Shepard then rescues her from a Batarian Gaol and escapes.
When the Doctor (not THE Doctor but I can't remember her name lol) and Shepard return to her base (an asteroid that is is been kitted out to destroy the relay) he/she sees a counter for 2 days and blah blah minutes which she explains is a count down to the Reapers arriving through the system Relay(which is a "trunk" Relay).

To cut a long story short she explains that Object Rho is telling them how long they have and she leads Shepard to Object Rho and then turns on him, after a battle Shepard is eventually knocked out by a pulse from Object Rho after seeing the Doctor with Big Yellow glowy eyes.

Shepard wakes up 2 days later in the hospital ward and has to stop the doctor from aborting the mission to destroy the Relay.

[Iconoclaste]

Rosewind wrote...

1) My minds a blank lol

?

Rosewind wrote...2) We are not talking like 10 mins, 2 days is a long time and you don't have to be in the same room to feel the effects.

If the effects would have been of sufficient intensity to affect Shepard after only 2 days, the others would have noticeably debilitated minds after such long exposure. I deduct from that the mildness of the effects, especially since there is the whole of ME3 to go through after that.

Rosewind wrote...3) Adrenaline is said to increase the effects.

It has no more effects once he's inconscious, and no quantitative data is available to clarify the difference between "increased by adrenaline" and "normal" indoc.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 04 août 2012 - 05:23 .

[Ithurael]

Not to troll on this but, if I am correct in the interpretation of IT, it basically states that the final scene (star kid and RGB) is all in shepards head and, by choosing destroy, you "break" the indoc attempt and Shepard wakes up.

Essentially though this would mean that there is more to be had - correct?

How does that stack up with Chris Priestly's most recent statement: about the endings.

I did truly like IT - I frankly thought it was brilliantly clever. however now it seems more like fan fiction vs actual viability on the endings.

Chris Priestly wrote...


I answered this. There will be no more new endings. I used the "quotes"
as we consider the Extended Cut the ending, the finale, the stop
whatever you want to call it of the ending of Mass Effect 3. We do not
plan to make new endings, give more closure to the endings, adding or
subtracting to or from the endings, etc. We are done with the endings.



That said, we are working on some very cool downloadable story based
single player content. In these DLCs there will certainly be elements
that will effect the end of the game. As Mike Gamble already said,
depending on what you do in Leviathan there will be new dialog with the
Catalyst at the end of the game. These sorts of elements are definitely
possible for future DLC as well.



And for all those stating "Well if you don't X I am not going to buy
another game/DLC/etc from BioWare again". I'm sorry you feel thht way,
but I understand it. That is your ability as a consumer. If a company
(us, a burger joint, a shoe store, etc) does not live up to your
expectations, you go elsewhere. I get it and I do the same thing. I do
not fault anyone for feeling this way. Hopefully, the DLC we come up
with or a future BioWare title will make you want to give us another
try.



However, if you don't like it, feel free to leave. I'm sorry we have
disappointed you and as I said, we'll try to make better content or
games in the future that you will hopefully enjoy. No one if forced to
be here. You don't like it, feel free to take your business elsewhere
and stop trying to ruin the funn and enjoyment for those people who do
enjoy ME3 and the DLC.



Done now.





LOCKDOWN!

Would IT then lead into ME4? If so how? Bioware stated that ME3 is the end of Shepard's story. It seems kinda BM to say that - then pull a 180 and give us more of Shepard's story.

What do you think bsn? How can IT come back from this? Can it?  

[Leonia]

Dude, they need to get their story straight on the ending. If this wasn't the conclusive part of a trilogy we wouldn't be so interested in the execution and meaning of said conclusion.

As it is, we're not sure if we've seen the end or not, whether it will be expanded on or not, if Shepard's story is truly over or not, we have no idea of what Bioware's Super-Secret Plan is and frankly I am getting tired of being left in the dark. No, not every question needs to be answered in a direct manner but this whole "dance around the bush" routine is getting really stupid. I'm half a mind to say whether IT is true or not, we'll never know and the constant "I don't know if I saw the end of story" will forever plague me. It's like.. a cliffhanger that is never resolved. Can we get some straight answers or not?

As someone who had no qualms with the endings pre-EC, I have to wonder how much more jerking around is in store for us before the "truth" is laid out. I was fine with my initial literal interpretation but now everything is indefinitely left up in the air and I find myself thinking about "What if this is or that is supposed to happen in Mass Effect land?" at nearly all hours of every single day. This cannot be healthy.

IT or not, I want some definite answers some day. Preferably soon.

Modifié par leonia42, 04 août 2012 - 05:32 .

[Rosewind]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

1) My minds a blank lol

?

Rosewind wrote...2) We are not talking like 10 mins, 2 days is a long time and you don't have to be in the same room to feel the effects.

If the effects would have been of sufficient intensity to affect Shepard after only 2 days, the others would have noticeably debilitated minds after such long exposure. I deduct from that the mildness of the effects, especially since there is the whole of ME3 to go through after that.

Rosewind wrote...3) Adrenaline is said to increase the effects.

It has no more effects once he's inconscious, and no quantitative data is available to clarify the difference between "increased by adrenaline" and "normal" indoc.

1) Sorry didn't know how to answer that.
2) It was sufficient enough to be able to knock him out in the first place.
3) You were refering to him being in combat, also Object Rho was still there when Shepard was running around after that Doctor on the base.
4) I have to go see ya lol

[Kenza]

All of Chris's lockdown posts are making me sad. D: I'm really starting to wonder if they have a Supeer-Secret Plan, or if it's "Hey guys, that's it! Don't you like it?!"

[Iconoclaste]

leonia42 wrote...

Dude, they need to get their story straight on the ending. If this wasn't the conclusive part of a trilogy we wouldn't be so interested in the conclusion. As it is, we're not sure if we've seen the end or not, whether it will be expanded on or not, if Shepard's story is truly over or not, we have no idea of what Bioware's Supeer-Secret Plan is and frankly I am getting tired of being left in the dark. No, not every question needs to be answered in a direct manner but this whole "dance around the bush" routine is getting really stupid. I'm half a mind to say whether IT is true or not, we'll never know and the constant "I don't know if I saw the end of story" will forever plague me. It's like.. a cliffhanger that is never resolved. Can we get some straight answers or not?

Well, that looks funny here on the IT thread, since it's commonly said that EC was made to "spoon-feed" the "literalists" that were not wise enough to understand IT, if I may put it that way. But there is enough already to make whatever we want of the end, with whatever choice we make, and no "external" canon story if one chooses "destroy", lots of "openness" to imagine what happens to Shepard. Yes, he can be alive, and manage to get out of the rubble and painfully make his way to other survivors, just like it takes many days to find remaining survivors of an earthquake. And IT may still be partly on solid ground, provided there are not too much expectations for a future "boss fight" with Harbinger. With the "Shepard in London" version, of course, it's a long stretch to go.

[Rosewind]

starlitegirlx wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

1,5 hours is too long and too elaborate to be appealing to any newcomer, and a bit of a cumbersome argument since it relies heavily on audio and video. There needs to be a simple set of paragraphs, a "story-like" description from A to Z of the Indoc process with some main hints, that every IT "scout" should have ready in his backpocket.

Yes, DLC follows your game settings. I bought them all long after finishing ME2, just after finishing ME3, except "From Ashes", which I read about extensively on the BSN. Shadow Broker" is an excellent DLC and will get you plenty of funny and intricate stuff to read at the end.

Thanks on the details about DLCs.

As for the documentary and people needing to read stuff, I thought seeing all the added stuff (even if it's 1.5 hours long) that was clearly edited into the game was rather mindboggling and falls into the it makes no sense since none of it was even in the direction you were headed but to the side. Developers went out of their way to edit in stuff that the average player would probably never see and all of it is pretty fascinating as described in the video. I say this only because seeing the video footage from the game with the narrator asking unbiasedly why it's there and what it means and does it fall into IT, not IT or maybe IT was truly worth the time.

The thing is that if people don't like the idea of IT for whatever reason or they just don't accept it, nothing IT people write or say or document in a video is going to change their mind. It's rather like being passionate about something like religion almost at this point where the controversy is. There are still people who think anyone who was not satisfied by the ending given what was promised are losers and whiners and need to get over it as if people don't have a right to be upset about something that upsets them whether or not you disagree or agree with  them. So for us in the IT thread, we're renegades in a way. We think outside the box and delve into something deeper that does not give us pie in the sky endings because to me, my shep is still on the ground and facing imminent death given it was all an illusion of sorts at the end. But I find IT to be far more logical than any of the other options provided especially given it was the key in the first game, and then came up again in the end of the third just enough to see Tim as having lost it and indoctrinated but not enough to trigger most to see IT was in play at the ending sequence. I missed it on my first playthrough and went with control. Later, I started contemplating what was happening and the trilogy on whole.

But nothing we write will sway anyone who is not already leaning in the IT direction, which is fine. Let them be content with their endings just as they should STFU and let us be content with our belief in IT. It's just like religion. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs but trying to tell someone theirs are wrong isn't going to go over well.

Welcome to the cult ...l ... I mean group!

From Your Speculations Madam
Rose