80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Dwailing]

All I can say right now is that if this IS an ARG, then the BSN has becomr the home to one of the most brilliant ARGs ever.

[Andromidius]

Rifneno wrote...

It doesn't work that way.  It's all or nothing.  Averting a dark energy apocalypse was never going to be their real motivation.

I know that.  We know that.  But maybe the Reapers are so arrogant that they think they can change things.

I mean they already think that its perfectly acceptable to preserve life by...you know...killing it and turning it into weapons to kill more lifeforms.

[Rankincountry]

Dwailing wrote...

All I can say right now is that if this IS an ARG, then the BSN has becomr the home to one of the most brilliant ARGs ever.

With the leaks, easter eggs in the game, cryptic hints from Mike Gamble and all the rest, it's quite easy to believe this is all part of a plan. Heck, even the "accidentally" included lines from Leviathan in the EC files got a lot of people stoked for the DLC. BW know that for any PC game, someone somewhere will go nosing in the files.

I think part of the enjoyment of what's happening is that there is an undercurrent of roleplaying outside of the game for those people who aren't just hating on it. Not overt in the sense that we're consciously in-character or anything like that, but in the way that everyone across the discussion threads, even the stupid ones, is expressing a view or taking an action that would work if they were a character in the game.

If it's an accident it's a happy one. If Bioware planned all of this then they are geniuses. Either way it's a win.

[Davik Kang]

plfranke wrote...
@Davik
Leviathan effortlessly assumed direct control of Shepard, and Harbinger is made of the minds of perhaps billions of Leviathans. I think it's safe to say he can assume direct control of anything at anytime. However, we don't know what the consequences of doing that are. However, this is one of the reasons I have said in the past that indoctrination is a poor mechanic to be put in this game. It is not detailed enough of what it is, how it's done or under what circumstances. Instead what we get is, this guy betrayed you because he was indoctrinated, but you can trust everyone else.

I'm sorry man but if Harbinger or anyone else can "assume direct control" of Shepard or anyone else any time they like, then the whole plot of ME1-3 is just laughable.  One big ridiculous joke.  Do I really need to go into the reasons why?

Leviathan forced Shepard into a dream-like state when he was however far deep into a sea at massive atmospheric pressure and standing right in front of the Leviathan.  If you want to claim that it implies that a Reaper can control anyone, go for it.  But please don't get me started on just how often that makes entire scenes, sub-plots, hell the whole damn plot of ME1-3 just plain hilarious.

Rifneno wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...
About Hackett, I wasn't trying to start a 'Hackett is indoctrinated' theory. I just pulled a lot of info from the codex about the Fifth Fleet and the Systems Alliance. There is a huge amount of information in there, realtive to the total information we have on the Alliance and Hackett, that at the very least casts doubt on his character and motives. It doesn't prove anything. I don't expect people to think "omg indoctrination". At the same time I raise an eyebrow when otherwise rational posters here say "hackett indoctrination idea is retarded" and then use a strawman about an old circular argument as their proof.

You didn't start that theory, it's been around almost as long as IT. A strawman? The burden of proof is on you, not me. You're making the claim. I'm not saying there needs to be a smoking gun, but I've yet to see a single argument for Hackett being indoctrinated that wasn't either simply untrue or someone's imagination running wild over what is almost certainly simple video game mechanics.

Does your answer intentionally ignore everything I said in the above post?  I literally started the quoted text with "I am not trying to start a Hackett is indoctrinated theory" and you first line response is "You didn't start that theory..." Yes, I just said that... seriously, please don't start random arguments when you aren't even responding to a single thing I actually said.  Do I need to dig up all the stuff I posted before?  Do I need to explain my whole point again?

[FFZero]

Okay so I asked JM about project x and it's apparently something completely original, not related to ME at all. However she's hardly going to tell me if it is part of ME if she won't even tell me anything about Omega DLC.

[Davik Kang]

FFZero wrote...

Okay so I asked JM about project x and it's apparently something completely original, not related to ME at all. However she's hardly going to tell me if it is part of ME if she won't even tell me anything about Omega DLC.

Do you know if they'll be there tomorrow as well?  What are they mainly promoting today?

[RebelTitan428]

BioWare headquarters.

Casey Hudson, Patrick Weekes and Jessica Merizan are standing in front of a screen displaying the latest transmission from the publisher.

EA: We impose deadlines on the chaos of game production. This cycle will end. There will be no more delays. You write because we allow it, and the writing will end because we demand it.

Transmission ends.

Silence.

Patrick Weekes: EA won. Shepard's struggle, everything he fought for - undone. Any chance we had at fixing our ending dies with Shepard's indoctrination. We bet it all on this. EA took the best of us and tore him down. People will lose hope.

Casey Hudson: They won't. They must never know EA succeded.

Patrick Weekes: Three endings, all of them the same? You can't sweep that up!

Casey Hudson: No. But EA cannot win. Mass Effect needs its true hero.

Patrick Weekes: [immediately understanding] No!

Casey Hudson: [quoting Shepard] "This is what we can do, here, today. It ends with us." I can fake the ending because I'm not a hero, not like Shepard. I destroyed this ending. That's what I can be.

Patrick Weekes: No, no! You can't, you're not!

Casey Hudson: I'm whatever Mass Effect needs me to be.

Casey hands Patrick his mouse.

Casey Hudson: Submit the script.

Patrick Weekes: They'll hate you.

Casey Hudson: You'll hate me. You'll condemn me, set the fans on me. Because that's what needs to happen. Because sometimes... the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.

Casey runs.

Jessica Merizan: Casey? Casey! Why is he running, Takyris?

Patrick Weekes: Because we have to blame him.

Jessica Merizan: He didn't do anything wrong.

Patrick Weekes: Because he's the hero Mass Effect deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hate him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector...

A Dark Writer.

[BatmanTurian]

So here is a PM I got from June from shodisme that I don't think I ever shared with you guys and forgot about it. It's a reply to me about my disagreement with the OP in a thread where he said one should use Occam's Razor to show IT is wrong. and of course the OP was seboist and we all know his "feelings" on the issue (since that is what they are with no logical basis to back them up.) Get a load of this guy.

shodiswe wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

AsheraII wrote...


[qoute]BatmanTurian wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Read
the OP in a televangelist's voice and you'll realize how ridiculous he
sounds. He says IT is a religion, but he sounds like he's telling us
that the devil is seducing us into believing the IT.
He sounds like a
religious leader. Sorry, but it's true. It completely undermines
everything he has to say. Seboist just sounds like a sycophant choir boy
in this metaphor.

IT is still built and faith and belief
more than something proven. There is no single piece of proof that noone
can question. There is no line where the writers wrote. "Shepard is
indoctrinated" or "this is a dream, even after you wake up from the
dream!" or "this is a dream inside your dream!"...

Since im also
dissapointed in the current ending I can relate to the need to reject it
and the pain of it would it be all there was to it.. Which atm I think
happens to be the case It's just the simplest solution and most
plausible explanation that doesn't requier lofty storytelling and very
farfetched theories to prove it, even though it is done without any
tangiable proof that can't be questioned.

I choose the most scientific solution to pick a hypothetical theory, Occam's razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Occam's
razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the
law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one
to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest
assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.


The
simplest explanation with the least amount of assumptions would be that
the ending sucked and the Bioware team, especialy the people
responsible for making the ending thought it would make do and it would
finish the job in the allotted time.
There is no proof that it's the
right assumption or that it's the "only right" assumption, but given the
lesser amount assumptions needed to formulate the hypotheses it's
probably more correct than the IT when it commes to explain the ending
we got on release.

What will Bioware do in the EC? They will do
that which feels good for the team and that which is likely to pacify
the largest amount of dissatisfied fans without upsettign more fans, and
without loosing face entierly.
They say they wont chagne the ending
but they can still add to them and they can diversify them without
changing the actual endings as they were but adding more to it to make
them different and satisfy consumer feedback. To some degree anyway.

It
will be interesting to see what BW does. Whatever they do it will
likely have ramifications that they didn't anticipate, especialy if it's
true they didn't anticipate the fans reaction to the endings given at
release.

I think that will be enough from me in this thread, I
got other things to do, but I must say it will be interesting no matter
what hapens. If not for the sake of the game but from the socialstuddies
point of view and science It will also be a nice example for
marketing management classes on how and how not to manage customer
relations.

Occam's Razor can't be used on literary
interpretations because of hidden meanings. If you're trying to use it
on Literary interpretations, you're using it wrong. It's for scientific
and philisophical theories. Nice try though, sport.

This
whole discussion definitely has both scientific (look logically at the
facts presented within the codex) and philosophical (do you believe in
the IT or not) roots, meaning Occam's Razor is applicable here. It is
NOT applicable to the story as a whole, but can be applied to some of
its segments. We can use it to go through the knowledge we have of
indoctrination (a scientific subject within the virtual reality of the
story) and whether Shepard was subject to it (factual proof within the
virtual reality of the story).

It's not applicable
because we are talking about story elements which are guided by a
concious being or beings. Occam never meant the theory to be used in all
situations and in many situations it is actually the wrong tool to use.
It is especially wrong to use it on a video game whose main focus is
the story. Shooting stuff comes second to the story and is only the
vehicle to drive the adventure story forward.

shodiswe wrote... It is a science
fiction story though. Science is like shooting: it's there to drive the
story forward. And we're pretty specifically discussing a science
component: indcoctrination.

  As you can see I applied Occam’s
Razor to the question “what was wrong with the ending. “ not the IT as a
whole. MY point was that it most likely was bad writing and that the
Bioware staff thought it would make do as an ending. That’s my
application Of Occam’s. To a simple question. I find that my conclusion
is far more likely than a very elaborate theory with no solid proof that
can be interpreted any way you want, with a lot of assumptions to it.
It
is similar to the example that” When you see a tree that’s fallen down
during the night, it’s more likely to have been caused by the wind than
by an elephant or 200m high aliens.

There is nothing wrong about my use of Occam’s razor. Maybe I should have specified the question more clearly.
But
the IT (as I see it) is actually about explaining what hapend in the
ending and in some cases providing an ending that some people prefer.
Which would be similar to explaining why a tree fell during the night.

Since that was the main objection to my post i'm guessing we're done here.

I see red when people used Occam's Razor against literature. This guy sounds like he found a new word and wants to use it, but in his bias he forgot that it only applies to weak hypothesis in science. In literature, it only applies to this definition from Wikipedia:

Occam's razor has been recommended as a measure of how good the plot of a
novel is. Simple and logical plots are easy to explain and this
enhances the experience of the reader. The writer is also less likely to
make an error while explaining the plot to the reader.

So yeah, your thoughts, discussion, yadda yadda yadda. I like to bring up old stuff when we become a little stale in here. Plus it helps new people.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 27 octobre 2012 - 12:53 .

[Dwailing]

FFZero wrote...

Okay so I asked JM about project x and it's apparently something completely original, not related to ME at all. However she's hardly going to tell me if it is part of ME if she won't even tell me anything about Omega DLC.

Don't believe her! She thinks Synthesis is a good idea. Additionally, she lies.

[paxxton]

FFZero wrote...

Okay so I asked JM about project x and it's apparently something completely original, not related to ME at all. However she's hardly going to tell me if it is part of ME if she won't even tell me anything about Omega DLC.

Ask her how come Shepard can be seen in one piece after being in the center of impact of a thermonuclear explosion? Or is the breath scene somehow happens to be before that?

[Eryri]

Rankincountry wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

biscuit crumbs is more likely

And if you hold the biscuit in the coffee for too long, saturating it and causing it to fall apart, it creates a new combination of coffee and biscuit - a "synthesis" if you will - mainly characterised by being a deeply unpleasant thing that ruins your break.

If that's not symbolism I don't know what is.

I lol'd.

[Eryri]

Dwailing wrote...

FFZero wrote...

Okay so I asked JM about project x and it's apparently something completely original, not related to ME at all. However she's hardly going to tell me if it is part of ME if she won't even tell me anything about Omega DLC.

Don't believe her! She thinks Synthesis is a good idea. Additionally, she lies.

If it's nothing to do with ME, then why on Earth would they use the codename "Project X" - knowing as they must, the hopes built up around that rumor from Clevernoob? Way to raise our hopes and then dash them in the space of 5 minutes Bioware!

Modifié par Eryri, 27 octobre 2012 - 01:04 .

[TheWill]

isnt projext x some lame teen film or something.... you think they would be able to pick a better name for a project than project x... just saying... lame

[FFZero]

Davik Kang wrote...

FFZero wrote...

Okay so I asked JM about project x and it's apparently something completely original, not related to ME at all. However she's hardly going to tell me if it is part of ME if she won't even tell me anything about Omega DLC.

Do you know if they'll be there tomorrow as well?  What are they mainly promoting today?

Yeah they'll be here all day tomorrow. As for what they're promoting, not that much. Mostly DA3. 

[Rankincountry]

TheWill wrote...

isnt projext x some lame teen film or something.... you think they would be able to pick a better name for a project than project x... just saying... lame

It was that, along with a bunch of other things: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_x. The "Atlas Shrugged" reference is interesting:

"Project X is an invention of the scientists at the state science
institute, requiring tons of Rearden Metal. Basically, it is a "death
ray", and is capable of destroying anything with a sonic pulse.
The scientists claim that the project will be used to preserve peace
and squash rebellion. It is destroyed towards the end of the book, and
emits a pulse of radiation that destroys everything in the surrounding
area, including Cuffy Meigs and Dr. Stadler, as well as the Taggart
Bridge. The invention is publicly introduced as the "Thompson
Harmonizer".

[SNascimento]

Do people still believe in this?

[Davik Kang]

Ok I found the posts about Hackett and the Systems Alliance, which is a relief, so I don't have to re-type everything.  Phew.

Note that I'm not trying to prove Hackett is indoctrinated.  I'm just highlighting what little info we have on the SA and Hackett.  The info could be seen as at least casting doubt on the character as a whole.  But various conclusions could be drawn.

Here's the posts:

Davik Kang wrote...

...one thing I'm looking at is the galactic war as a whole, and the power players within it.  One is Cerberus.  Another is the Reapers.  There's also Leviathan.  And the Council.  

This war isn't us and them.  There are lots of factions who desire power.  But which faction have I not mentioned yet?  Is it 'humanity'?  It is not.  It is the Systems Alliance.

I have been looking into the Systems Alliance and there is a lot of stuff that suggests they are not the 'good guy side' which we always presume them to be.  I won't go into it all here - it'll need its own thread - but the point is, many of the factions are not so different to the Reapers themselves.  More accurately, they are one of many power players looking to gain the upper hand, an upper hand that can only be gained by war.


Another thing I'm looking at is how these various powers see Shepard as one of the most powerful pieces on the board,a nd how they hope to win her to their own side.  IT is all about the Reapers doing this.

In ME1, we work for the Council.  In ME2, we work for Cerberus.  In ME3, we work for the Systems Alliance.  Not only that, but in ME3 we have the Turian-built Normandy, we have Spectre status giving us Council power, and we have a new ship and synthetic/cybernetci implants provided for us by Cerberus.  Shepard is becoming the ultimate soldier and who controls him is key.

Food for thought before I go into it - Hackett is an extremely suspicious character, so I want to look at him, his motives and his actions in more detail.  The Council is also a point of interest, especially in how they use Turian and Salarian skills to their advantage and how ultimately they have the Asari at the peak.  I want to go into Indoctrination as a whole, not just how it's used by the Reapers.  I also want to look at the endings and what they might imply.

It'll need multiple threads cos there's too much to go into in one go.  But the point of it all will be to have various good people of BSN working together to figure it out.  At the moment BSN is split into factions, and it is really hard for a small faction to look at all this stuff.  With more people working together, we might be able to figure out a lot more than what we have so far.

Davik Kang wrote...

 Right.  Hackett.  

I already said about the Systems Alliance becoming the de facto leader of humanity, with their cast resources and their convenient premature desire to build an intergalactic army.  The key thing being that war was a catalyst for a shift in power.

Much of this comes from Codex entries.  Do you remember Admiral Mikhailovich?  He is the guy who demands to inspect your ship early in ME1.  It is revealed that his fleet suffered the fewest losses, and supported the Fifth Fleet (Hackett's) in the ME1 Citadel battle.  Both of these gain the most post-ME1 with their subsequent promotions.  

In ME3, the First Fleet is decimated during the surprise attack on Arcturus Station by the Reapers.  Remember, this station is the house of the Systems Alliance Parliament set up once the SA became a seriously powerful government in itself.  However, the Third Fleet is said to have already pulled back to an ideal firing position when the Reapers arrive (?).

The Fifth Fleet, Hackett's fleet , is said to be tasked with protecting Arcturus Station.  However, it is not destroyed, while other fleets are.  More pressingly, the codex actually says that Hackett sacrificed the 2nd fleet so that the 3rd and 5th could survive.  Is this really the action of a hero?  The 2nd fleet by the way was the one that saved Shanxi from the Turians.

Meanawhile, the fourth fleet, guarding Earth, is decimated, despite advance warning of the attack.  So, Hackett's fleet and his alarmingly well-prepared allies in the 3rd fleet survive, while all other fleets are destroyed.

Note that Anderson remarks that the Reapers couldn't be here already at the beginning of Vancouver.  So why is he surprised?  Did the forces at Arcturus not really put up the fight they were expected to put up?  Why does Anderson say this?

The consequence of all this is that Hackett becomes the de facto leader of humanity, and the person in charge of defending Earth.  What does he do?  Immediately reinstates Shepard and asks her to go to Mars to look for something.

Huh?  This is just odd.  He's already got a plan to abandon Earth, draw humanity's resources away from Earth, and bide time for... what?  Just hoping that his own forces will magically find a ginat spacegun?  

But... that's exactly what happened.  Hackettis prescient?  Liara also reveals that it was Hackett who ordered her to Mars and gave her security clearance to search there.

What is going on.  Is all of this really coincedence or bad writing?

Hackett appears to have engineered himself into being the leader of humanity, and via Shepard, the galaxy.  Even in the Low EMS ending, his ship appears to have survived while others were vaporised.  Where did he go?  How was he so far away that his ship wasn't obliterated?

In the meantime he's been sitting pretty, minding over the Crucible construction.  He then sends everybody to Earth, and makes it clear that the only concern is getting the Citadel doors open.  During this whole mission exposition, we see warning signs intentionally uncovered between Shepard and Hackett.  Shepard expected the assault to be on the Citadel, and is positively surprised when Hackett tells her to head to Earth instead.  

We then see a brief red hologram of the Reaper monument on Earth, and are told that it's a beam that goes to the Citadel.  In one of the cutscenes do we see any beam between the Citadel and Earth.  And even if they somehow know that the beam does come from the Citadel, how does Anderson possibly know that people can travel up that beam to get onto the Citadel?  Why would he not assume anyone who tried would be reduced to Reaper mush?

There are two (maybe more) possible consequences if what I'm saying about Hackett turns out to be true.  One is simply that he's pushing for control of the galaxy once the Reapers have been wiped out.  But a much darker explanation is that he is already indoctrinated, and is in fact assisting the Reapers by sending most of the galaxy, including their #1 target, Shepard, to Earth for the harvest.  It could mean that Shepard is sent on a Charge of the Light Brigade to speed up the decimation of the galactic forces, and to speed up Shepard's indoctrination by heading straight for a huge Reaper artifact.

It paints the depressingly dark scenario that the war is already lost, and all Shepard can do is avoid indoctrination.  If she can even manage that.  

[Davik Kang]

^ **** sorry wrong thread

[TheWill]

maybe dr evil is running bioware.. maybe it was originaly called the alan pasrons project or something...


with the idea of the crucible being another trap... how are we to be sure that the "splinter group" that infiltrated the last attempt at bulding the crucible were the ones who were indoctrinated... couldnt they simply have been those that figured out it was a trap and attempted to stop those who were from building and using it... and were then labelled as such.... the crucible beam makes little sense to me.. but as a tool of mass indoctrination... i like it... and having a species build it for you proves their ability as builders...tools...the next thrall race... why dig the hole yourself when you can let your victims dig their own grave...

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

SNascimento wrote...

Do people still believe in this?

Considering the pile of hints and indications has only grown with time, that should not really be a suprise.

[Ithurael]

RebelTitan428 wrote...

BioWare headquarters.

Casey Hudson, Patrick Weekes and Jessica Merizan are standing in front of a screen displaying the latest transmission from the publisher.

EA: We impose deadlines on the chaos of game production. This cycle will end. There will be no more delays. You write because we allow it, and the writing will end because we demand it.

Transmission ends.

Silence.

Patrick Weekes: EA won. Shepard's struggle, everything he fought for - undone. Any chance we had at fixing our ending dies with Shepard's indoctrination. We bet it all on this. EA took the best of us and tore him down. People will lose hope.

Casey Hudson: They won't. They must never know EA succeded.

Patrick Weekes: Three endings, all of them the same? You can't sweep that up!

Casey Hudson: No. But EA cannot win. Mass Effect needs its true hero.

Patrick Weekes: [immediately understanding] No!

Casey Hudson: [quoting Shepard] "This is what we can do, here, today. It ends with us." I can fake the ending because I'm not a hero, not like Shepard. I destroyed this ending. That's what I can be.

Patrick Weekes: No, no! You can't, you're not!

Casey Hudson: I'm whatever Mass Effect needs me to be.

Casey hands Patrick his mouse.

Casey Hudson: Submit the script.

Patrick Weekes: They'll hate you.

Casey Hudson: You'll hate me. You'll condemn me, set the fans on me. Because that's what needs to happen. Because sometimes... the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.

Casey runs.

Jessica Merizan: Casey? Casey! Why is he running, Takyris?

Patrick Weekes: Because we have to blame him.

Jessica Merizan: He didn't do anything wrong.

Patrick Weekes: Because he's the hero Mass Effect deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hate him, because he can take it. Because he's not our hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector...

A Dark Writer.

Best. Ending. Ever:wizard:

[Heimdall]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

Do people still believe in this?

Considering the pile of hints and indications has only grown with time, that should not really be a suprise.

All of which are extremely subjective and rely on the notion that Bioware is would really create the whole EC just to propagate a lie and not reveal anything for a year.

[Samtheman63]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

Do people still believe in this?

Considering the pile of hints and indications has only grown with time, that should not really be a suprise.

All of which are extremely subjective and rely on the notion that Bioware is would really create the whole EC just to propagate a lie and not reveal anything for a year.

you mean that 5 minute slideshow?

[Heimdall]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote..

SNascimento wrote...

Do people still believe in this?

Considering the pile of hints and indications has only grown with time, that should not really be a suprise.

All of which are extremely subjective and rely on the notion that Bioware is would really create the whole EC just to propagate a lie and not reveal anything for a year.

you mean that 5 minute slideshow?

The one that is 100% canon,yes, along with the not inexpensive additional CGI and cutscenes not to mention voice actor bills.  That, and I have never known Bioware to produce content sheerly for the purpose of misleading people.

I also don't quite understand why people would prefer that Bioware deliberately released an incomplete game and denied player choice at the eleventh hour by saying only destroy is correct, that entirely goes against the rest of the series.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 27 octobre 2012 - 02:46 .

[Davik Kang]

Lord Aesir wrote...
The one that is 100% canon,yes, along with the not inexpensive additional CGI and cutscenes not to mention voice actor bills.  That, and I have never known Bioware to produce content sheerly for the purpose of misleading people.

I also don't quite understand why people would prefer that Bioware deliberately released an incomplete game and denied player choice at the eleventh hour by saying only destroy is correct, that entirely goes against the rest of the series.

The ending is whatever you picked.  The consequences are for all of us to ponder.

The EC slides do little more than draw out what was already implied by the final conversation...

You can prefer what you like, but some players are trying to figure out the meaning behind some of the events in the series and the writers' choices to implement them as they did...

What "goes against" what exactly is subject to interpretation...

But at least you should be able to see that the idea of IT was put in by the writers.  Whether or not it's the 'true ending'... well that's another thing we'll have to decide for oursleves.