80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Restrider]

starlitegirlx wrote...
This seems too reaching. Getting into all sorts of speculation and not even close to sticking with in game facts and in game reality. Using possible future content is absurd. Sorry, but it just is. You are linking it to something that literally does not exist to your knowledge. That's the sort of thing ITers HAVE to stay away from or we lose credibility and look like idiots. Stick with specific details that are IN GAME and work along the principles you would use in analyzing a literary work or movie for foreshadowing, referencing things working on a deeper level, point to themes. That's the only way to do this or you are getting off track. If you like to do that on your own, that's cool. But it seems to me that this thread has a purpose which is to quite specifically use in game information to show IT as what is actually happening whether people choose to accept it or not. Many will not because it's too heady for them or ruins their fun. You can lead a horse to water... Well, we have to dangle a big ole carrot in front of that horse and the carrot has to be factual in game stuff or the horse will get lost or buck and pull away and run. That's what we are dealing with at this point. Indoctrination in game seems to parallel indoctrination of players in RL which is rather scary but also rather interesting in a disturbing way.


EDITED TO ADD: Think of it as us being the Scully rather than Mulder since IT in and of itself is Mulder and the Mulder aspect of us. Scully kept him sane and in the realm of reality. She kept him on track and focused in the facts rather than letting him just believe and theorize stuff without any kind of evidence. In the end, the evidence often made everything quite clear and generally there was a scientific explanation. Well, we're the scullies that are looking for proof about IT. Speculation that is not supported by factual in game evidence makes us more like Mulder. Imagine how far Mulder would have gotten without Scully? Even with her, he barely got out of some situations, but she gave balance and credibility to the x-files. Without her, it would just have been an insane conspiracy theory show... that failed.

I get what you are trying to say, but right now, we have been digging through the main game, the EC, Leviathan and the entire trilogy. We already have found, checked and compiled a lot of points that support this theory. What is happening right now is some kind of shadow-boxing until Omega DLC comes out and (possibly) provides us with more information.
And if you want to have the hard information supporting IT, check this list.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Home run MF wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Keeping the base is directly linked to the control ending. Same goes for destroying the base and the destroy ending.

It makes perfect logical sense.

If you're so convinced the colors are reversed in the decision chamber could you explain to me the paragon/renegade check during your first conversation with Javik aboard the Normandy?

What would that have to do with Javik?

Shepard: Then I'd say you've found an ally. The goal of this ship is to wipe the Reapers from existence.

Javik: But how far are you willing to go to achieve that goal?

paragon/renegade check here where he "reads" Shepard

If renegade: Lies are easy to detect. But you seem to be telling the truth, Commander. For now.

If paragon:  I do not believe you, Commander. Lying is a biological marker. There is doubt behind your words.


Which Shepard appears to have doubts about destroying the Reapers? 

You know, I've played From Ashes twice now, and I've never had this line/bit of conversation happen for me. (Note: I was playing a pure paragon Shep who destroyed the base, both times).

I just looked up the conversation on youtube, and it isn't happening there either.

It doesn't seem to make sense. There are paragons who will keep the base, and there are renegades who will destroy it. What is read? The decision at the end of ME2? The alignment at the end of ME2? Both? The alignment so far in ME3? All of it?

What I do know, is that in the decision chamber, paragon Shep is much more going along with the catalyst. (One of the dailogue wheel options is  "I think I understand"), (s)he just stands there going "but the Reapers will obey me?".

[Restrider]

SwobyJ wrote...

Eryri wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Lots of things possibly tying together into this idea of post-ending or full expansion DLC on Rio in some form (whatever Bioware wants to say, 'post-ending' could be twisted to mean several things), acting as the 'dawn after the darkness' true narrative conclusion to Mass Effect.

I've said this before, but if Bioware really wanted to be sneaky, they might consider the Stargazer scene to be the true ending to the game. Therefore anything set before then, even post breath scene, would merely be mid-game dlc.

They would still have to change it then. If "One more story" meant DLC (LOL @ the ending message: "BUY OUR DLC"), then they'd still have to change the Stargazer scene after we get it.


Unless there really is a ME4, which would make the scene fit no matter what....

Keep in mind that it is "one more story about the Shepard..."

[lord of dahorde]

Extended cut + leviathan dlc makes IT Theory obsolete.

[BatmanTurian]

Davik Kang wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
And that has nothing to do with the ending where everything is obviously reversed. There is no connection here.

HrMF's point is that the Control choice is the Paragon choice - the non-aggressive choice.  It's just showing Paragon isn't always right.  Javik is pointing out that a consistently Paragon Shepard is one who shows mercy where possible.  He's not saying Paragon is always bad, just that Paragon sentiment may lead you astray when the time comes.

Tbh I think inverting the Blue/Red channels and then going "wow look - destroy is the good option" is the kind of thing you guys should veer away from.  To me that is almost definitionally putting the cart before the horse.  Just my opinion though.

okay that makes sense, but you also have to realize the context of what Javik is saying. He comes from a culture where showing mercy IS showing fear, placating the enemy. So, of course he would say a mostly paragon shepard is letting the Reapers win. It's just how his view of the world is colored by his extinct culture.

[BatmanTurian]

lord of dahorde wrote...

Extended cut + leviathan dlc makes IT Theory obsolete.

Your confirmation bias is showing. Extended cut and Leviathan DLC actually strengthed IT. But you weren't paying attention of course. Your kind never does.

[DoomsdayDevice]

lord of dahorde wrote...

Extended cut + leviathan dlc makes IT Theory obsolete.

Leviathan confirms IT is entirely possible.

Reapers can build illusions from your memories even better than Leviathans can.

And to drive the message home, they included this parallel:



This is not Ann Bryson, it is a Leviathan projection.
This is not the kid from Earth, it is a Reaper projection.

You're not on the floor, you're inside a mech-suit.
You're not on the Citadel, you're on Earth.



Oh yeah, your mind belongs to him too.

Getting nervous already?

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 28 octobre 2012 - 08:38 .

[Davik Kang]

lord of dahorde wrote...
Extended cut + leviathan dlc makes IT Theory obsolete.

This guy has clearly read all 6000 pages before coming to this well-considered conclusion.  

/thread.

[Restrider]

SwobyJ wrote...
Just as they hide their crazy-psycho killer Asari.

Asari lovers hate to think about it, but the race DOES have a very dark side. It's their whole thing, ever since they were shown having eyes that turn to black

And I love asari myself. Liara is still actually one of my favorite characters, I see most asari as just fine, and Samara's story is heartbreaking.

None of that doesn't mean that they may have been positioned or promoted by another faction (Reaper/Leviathan/Prothian?) to be the 'apex race' in their own way of this cycle, after the Prothian 'unite under one empire and banner' cycle 'failed'.

Yeah, I covered that kind of a few days ago.
Xilizhra then accused me of being a misogynist and Asari-hater, though I am not, lol.
To paraphrase my post:
I came to the impression that the Asari, though portrayed as the race of empathy, wisdom, patience, diplomacy and balance, have a very dark side. In fact, most of the characters (aside from the various mooks/cannon fodder you kill) that show sociopathic/psychopathic traits are Asari:

- Aria T'Loak
- Tela Vasir
- Morinth
- Cpt. Enyala (the Cpt. in Miranda's LM)
- Elnora (the mercenary that killed that Volus and lied about it)
- Wasea (?? the leader of Eclipse right after biotic god)
- Nassana Dantius and her slaver sister
- Jona Sederis  

I probably forgot a few... What I am trying to say, though, is that this might be a way to show that the Asari also have their dark side.

[BatmanTurian]

Davik Kang wrote...

lord of dahorde wrote...
Extended cut + leviathan dlc makes IT Theory obsolete.

This guy has clearly read all 6000 pages before coming to this well-considered conclusion.  

/thread.

Yes, it was clearly a well-informed and logical deduction based on facts and evidence with a clear mind untainted by peer pressure.

[Davik Kang]

starlitegirlx wrote...
The color channels is just a cool thing though not really proof of anything and when you get right down to it, paragon and renegade are irrelevant at this point. You're about to save the galaxy. If saving the galaxy means you are a renegade would that dissuade you from saving it? Also, paragon and renegade changed from what they were in previous games. You still have those options but don't you have both now? That is an interesting change I always wondered about. And then there's the reputation system. Another strange change. I guess because reputation helps guide you toward gaining of assets in certain cases, but what else does it accomplish? Trust in a few cases, but the main points of the game still happen no matter what you reputation is. I missed many of them the first time through and still got a fairly decent level though screwed by not playing MP and therefore it was cut in half. Thanks BW for that trick.

I think the Reputation system was implemented so that Shepard's personality was given weight so long as she chose plenty of 'heartfelt' options, without penalising those who would choose both Paragon and Renegade options and end up with a neutral alignment (like me).

In other words, it meant that as long as you were choosing something, that was enough to develop the personality side.  It meant you didn't have to exclusively pick red or blue options everytime to get additional options.

I highlighted one sentence because I think it really nicely sums up what Mass Effect was about.  Making the right choices to save the galaxy, irrespective of the methods used.  I know many will disagree.  But it was this mentality that got me really attached to the series.

[Home run MF]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

You know, I've played From Ashes twice now, and I've never had this line/bit of conversation happen for me. (Note: I was playing a pure paragon Shep who destroyed the base, both times).

I just looked up the conversation on youtube, and it isn't happening there either.

It doesn't seem to make sense. There are paragons who will keep the base, and there are renegades who will destroy it. What is read? The decision at the end of ME2? The alignment at the end of ME2? Both? The alignment so far in ME3? All of it?

What I do know, is that in the decision chamber, paragon Shep is much more going along with the catalyst. (One of the dailogue wheel options is  "I think I understand"), (s)he just stands there going "but the Reapers will obey me?".

Here. As far as I know it only checks your current alignment.

My view as Davik Kang pointed out is that you should not base your decisions on paragon/renegade alignment, I've never kept the base myself or destroyed the Destiny Ascension either but I always end up with a renegade Shepard.
If you play the game thinking one side is always correct the writers might use that to manipulate you.

[CmdrShep80]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Keeping the base is directly linked to the control ending. Same goes for destroying the base and the destroy ending.

It makes perfect logical sense.

If you're so convinced the colors are reversed in the decision chamber could you explain to me the paragon/renegade check during your first conversation with Javik aboard the Normandy?

What would that have to do with Javik?

Shepard: Then I'd say you've found an ally. The goal of this ship is to wipe the Reapers from existence.

Javik: But how far are you willing to go to achieve that goal?

paragon/renegade check here where he "reads" Shepard

If renegade: Lies are easy to detect. But you seem to be telling the truth, Commander. For now.

If paragon:  I do not believe you, Commander. Lying is a biological marker. There is doubt behind your words.


Which Shepard appears to have doubts about destroying the Reapers? 

And that has nothing to do with the ending where everything is obviously reversed. There is no connection here.

If the ending is obviously reversed then wouldn't the choices in this conversation reflect this?

[/i]If renegade: I do not believe you, Commander. Lying is a biological marker. There is doubt behind your words. 

If paragon: [i] Lies are easy to detect. But you seem to be telling the truth, Commander. For now.

Like this?

[CmdrShep80]

BatmanTurian wrote...

starlitegirlx wrote...

Eryri wrote...

starlitegirlx wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

I think its very useful to IT. Humanity's evolution may have lead to Shepard. Shepard is highly resistant to mental influence (comparatively speaking). I think there's a major link, and future content (nope, I don't think we're done quite yet) will show us why Shepard is so strongly willed and why others follow him like he has an 'aura'.

Or rather, its a mix of conscious intent and genetic anomaly.

This seems too reaching. Getting into all sorts of speculation and not even close to sticking with in game facts and in game reality. Using possible future content is absurd. Sorry, but it just is. You are linking it to something that literally does not exist to your knowledge. That's the sort of thing ITers HAVE to stay away from or we lose credibility and look like idiots. Stick with specific details that are IN GAME and work along the principles you would use in analyzing a literary work or movie for foreshadowing, referencing things working on a deeper level, point to themes. That's the only way to do this or you are getting off track. If you like to do that on your own, that's cool. But it seems to me that this thread has a purpose which is to quite specifically use in game information to show IT as what is actually happening whether people choose to accept it or not. Many will not because it's too heady for them or ruins their fun. You can lead a horse to water... Well, we have to dangle a big ole carrot in front of that horse and the carrot has to be factual in game stuff or the horse will get lost or buck and pull away and run. That's what we are dealing with at this point. Indoctrination in game seems to parallel indoctrination of players in RL which is rather scary but also rather interesting in a disturbing way.

To be fair, Shepard did survive contact with the Prothean beacon in ME1. According to Liara that should have killed someone with a weaker will.

Yet saren used it just fine. was that because of evolution? Turians were of zero interest to harbinger. Was it because of Sovereign? You have to remember that in creating your shepard you have very specific options. Basically you are a hero and/or survivor. All of them are geared toward making shepard a strong willed survivor. Is that evidence enough? Maybe. The first part of the hypothesis is fine. But the minute you link it to something that doesn't even exist yet the point is lost. Better off to go back to the trilogy and see what supports this idea of shepard being special. IS THAT what you are trying. I'm not even sure. What was on the datapad again? You have to form a clear connection that isn't just speculation. Do we want to be a group of Mulder types (pre scully) or Mulder/Scully types. There's a vast difference between the two. That's all I'm saying and I'll keep posting it because if you get lost in wild speculations then IT as a whole begins to suffer as it drifts toward the finge and starts looking like the ramblings of a person not based in reality.

Saren had reapertech implants. Those implants might have been what kept him from having his mind turned to mush, either that or Sovereign was possessing him at the time, which he is seen to do the next time you see Saren having a hissy fit in front of Benezia.

Anyway, we can speculate a little as long as that isn't our main focus. However, speculating sometimes does lead to a new perspective on current evidence and could lead to a new prediction for future content. As long as it's controlled, grounded, and it's not TDM-level speculation, I'd say it's more helpful than harmful. Scientists sometimes have to speculate based on the information given them to form a hypothesis as do literary critics examining a story.

Saren didn't get his reaper implants till about halfway through ME1

[CmdrShep80]

Davik Kang wrote...

lord of dahorde wrote...
Extended cut + leviathan dlc makes IT Theory obsolete.

This guy has clearly read all 6000 pages before coming to this well-considered conclusion.  

/thread.

I'm impressed, I'm only at maybe 500 pages and I came to a different conclusion.  Guess I need to read the other 5,500 threads lol

[CmdrShep80]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

lord of dahorde wrote...

Extended cut + leviathan dlc makes IT Theory obsolete.

Leviathan confirms IT is entirely possible.

Reapers can build illusions from your memories even better than Leviathans can.

And to drive the message home, they included this parallel:



This is not Ann Bryson, it is a Leviathan projection.
This is not the kid from Earth, it is a Reaper projection.

You're not on the floor, you're inside a mech-suit.
You're not on the Citadel, you're on Earth.



Oh yeah, your mind belongs to him too.

Getting nervous already?

You know one of the polls I did about indoctrination (as late as it was when I did it) most people believed their Shepard could not be indoctrinated.  So a lot of us who play this game believe that the hero can't have something bad happen to him.  So while we realize we are still in a mech suit and realize we're seeing a projection, we still believe it's not changing us or our choices (hence the line about indoctrination is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds...)

[DoomsdayDevice]

Home run MF wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

You know, I've played From Ashes twice now, and I've never had this line/bit of conversation happen for me. (Note: I was playing a pure paragon Shep who destroyed the base, both times).

I just looked up the conversation on youtube, and it isn't happening there either.

It doesn't seem to make sense. There are paragons who will keep the base, and there are renegades who will destroy it. What is read? The decision at the end of ME2? The alignment at the end of ME2? Both? The alignment so far in ME3? All of it?

What I do know, is that in the decision chamber, paragon Shep is much more going along with the catalyst. (One of the dailogue wheel options is  "I think I understand"), (s)he just stands there going "but the Reapers will obey me?".

Here. As far as I know it only checks your current alignment.

My view as Davik Kang pointed out is that you should not base your decisions on paragon/renegade alignment, I've never kept the base myself or destroyed the Destiny Ascension either but I always end up with a renegade Shepard.

Okay, just checked that scene, and the reason I never got it, is because you only get that with the renegade response.

I always took the paragon option, in which case the 'check' (how do we even know it actually makes a check?) doesn't happen and Javik says you're hoping this war will end with your honour intact.

Home run MF wrote...

If you play the game thinking one side is always correct the writers might use that to manipulate you.

Even though I always play paragon, I don't think it is more correct than the renegade path. in many cases it is, yes, but here's the thing: paragon is more empathic. You make an effort to see things from the other's perspective. With the Reapers however, this is dangerous. This is why paragon Shep's answers in the decision chamber seem more indoctrinated than Renegade Shep's answers.

It is true, the writers are using that to manipulate you, but it makes sense because being empathic is usually good, except, you know, in the case of mind-controlling, indoctrinating, brainwashing death machines.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 28 octobre 2012 - 09:02 .

[FFZero]

Okay I'm back from the MCMExpo, didn't get a chance to speak to Chris sadly, had to leave before he showed up at the Expo today since he and JM spent most of the morning with the cosplayers taking photos and stuff by Big Ben. Also completely broke now, bought way too much stuff, especially from the Rooster teeth booth

Anyway have I missed any good speculations over the past few days?

Modifié par FFZero, 28 octobre 2012 - 09:01 .

[CmdrShep80]

Home run MF wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

You know, I've played From Ashes twice now, and I've never had this line/bit of conversation happen for me. (Note: I was playing a pure paragon Shep who destroyed the base, both times).

I just looked up the conversation on youtube, and it isn't happening there either.

It doesn't seem to make sense. There are paragons who will keep the base, and there are renegades who will destroy it. What is read? The decision at the end of ME2? The alignment at the end of ME2? Both? The alignment so far in ME3? All of it?

What I do know, is that in the decision chamber, paragon Shep is much more going along with the catalyst. (One of the dailogue wheel options is  "I think I understand"), (s)he just stands there going "but the Reapers will obey me?".

Here. As far as I know it only checks your current alignment.

My view as Davik Kang pointed out is that you should not base your decisions on paragon/renegade alignment, I've never kept the base myself or destroyed the Destiny Ascension either but I always end up with a renegade Shepard.
If you play the game thinking one side is always correct the writers might use that to manipulate you.

BioWare did change the process of paragon/renegade alignments when compared to previous games