80611 réponses à ce sujet

[XXIceColdXX]

Any hint of IT being a possibility would most definitely increase sales. All the major gaming sites/magazines would be all over it.

[spotlessvoid]

And that is what I don't understand. Why hold out? It's costing money...

1. Endings are literal, players choice
2. Endings are literal, control and synthesis are traps
3. Indoctrination Theory



1. My god the suckage
2. Then the slide shows make no sense. None.
3. I'm not buying the dlc to speculate, I'm buying the dlc and speculating. Gimme

1. Keyboards slapping at monkeys theory (you read that right]
2. At least  is still bad in 2
3. Take my money! Just give us a reason to trust you. More DLC sales = more DLC

1. There is subliminal advertising on the bsn. They are making millions of speculating
2. 92% bad writing theory
3. EDI- "I have theory about indoctrination Shepard" Keep it in context.

[desert_beagle]

Let me ask this one question. After any of you finished Mass Effect 2 before any new DLC (Arrival, LotSB) was released, did the end of the game not feel like the end of the game? I mean, you kick the collectors in their family jewels, barely get out alive from a suicide mission and boom story arc for ME2 is done.

What I am saying is that ME2 did not need any additional single player DLC to flesh anything out, or clarify, or complete in anyway the overall mission you were trying to accomplish. If you didn't want to buy the DLC's for ME2, no harm no foul. You miss out on some fun extra story and game play, but in the end it had nothing to do with your overall mission to take out the collectors, and once that was done, then the game was done, finished, complete.

Mass Effect 2 had closure, no DLC required. Mass Effect 1 had closure, no DLC required. Mass Effect 3 has, well it has, umm...keep speculating and maybe the next DLC will tell us more.

[TJBartlemus]

desert_beagle wrote...

Let me ask this one question. After any of you finished Mass Effect 2 before any new DLC (Arrival, LotSB) was released, did the end of the game not feel like the end of the game? I mean, you kick the collectors in their family jewels, barely get out alive from a suicide mission and boom story arc for ME2 is done.

What I am saying is that ME2 did not need any additional single player DLC to flesh anything out, or clarify, or complete in anyway the overall mission you were trying to accomplish. If you didn't want to buy the DLC's for ME2, no harm no foul. You miss out on some fun extra story and game play, but in the end it had nothing to do with your overall mission to take out the collectors, and once that was done, then the game was done, finished, complete.

Mass Effect 2 had closure, no DLC required. Mass Effect 1 had closure, no DLC required. Mass Effect 3 has, well it has, umm...keep speculating and maybe the next DLC will tell us more.

My thoughts are pretty much the same as yours. Also wasn't there a pic of a page of ideas for the end of the game by Casey or Mac that had "speculations for all" at the end? 

[spotlessvoid]

"lots of speculation from everyone"


Somebody should try to deconstruct this thing. maybe some sort of idiot savant

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 02 septembre 2012 - 05:21 .

[Leonia]

So.. I'm like 55 pages behind now, can someone kindly sum up the best bits post-Leviathan or link me to the stuff worth reading? Because going backwards at two pages at a time is a pain in the back side and I'm lazy.

[Legion of 1337]

Well apparently the moderators like to keep all IT discussion in this thread, despite the fact that this is mainly the "add new 'evidence' to IT" thread where all the pro-IT people hang out, which will inevitably cause conflict with all the "literalists" who want to voice their views somewhere. I haven't spoken about IT since EC came out so here's my two cents:

IT was only a plausible theory before EC. That was because the ending was so ambiguous and didn't explain at all what happened afterward, so ANYTHING could have happened. And since the three existing endings were so ****ty, IT became the most popular alternative.

EC, from my perspective, destroyed IT. If IT were true, then you would need to go out on a limb and say that everything we are shown of the future of the ME universe as a result of Shepard's choice was also all in his head for. That all the rebuilding, and people going on with their lives, and even memorializing Shepard, was all in his head? That makes no sense. And now with Leviathan, BW have actually gone out of their way to explain the creators and backstory of the Reapers, to the point where the Catalyst is no longer an out-of-the-blue last minute twist character, but one that someone playing through the game for the first time would actually be expecting to meet, and would even know the way the Catalyst thinks so his dialogue seems less like shoehorning and more like manipulation.

While I admire the analytical and investigative work that went into IT, the fact is that it makes no sense for BW to make not one, but two DLCs explaining the backstory of the Reapers, the nature of the Catalyst and the effects of the Crucible in the decades afterward, and have it ALL BE A DREAM. That is a HUGE waste of time. We are never given a single hint that Shepard ever "wakes up" from his supposed indoctrination, so this theory has no factual grounds, only speculation.

On a side note, I believe this is an interesting micro-scale version of how religions develop, and is quite fascinating from a psychological and cultural standpoint. I have no doubt someone somewhere is using IT as the subject of their thesis paper for a psychology or philosophy course.

Ok, I'm done. You may call me a poison-spitting heathen now if you like.

[desert_beagle]

I know what to call the next game. Mass Call of Medal Battlefield Honor Duty Effect.

"That was a joke Shepard"

Modifié par desert_beagle, 02 septembre 2012 - 05:19 .

[desert_beagle]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EC, from my perspective, destroyed IT. If IT were true, then you would need to go out on a limb and say that everything we are shown of the future of the ME universe as a result of Shepard's choice was also all in his head for. That all the rebuilding, and people going on with their lives, and even memorializing Shepard, was all in his head? That makes no sense.

It makes more sense that stuff happening in his head, than Shepard waking up on Earth after being blown to hell and gone on the Citadel after Destroy and only Destroy I might add.  How is this even remotely possible?  What?  Is Shepard actually Chuck Norris?  If that were the case they wouldn't have needed the Crucible at all.

[Iconoclaste]

Hrothdane wrote...

Well said. I know Simon_says was working on coalescing all the most important information into a single document, but he hasn't been on for the past week or so. I would work on it myself, but I have been sick and quite swamped with freelance work, my job, and school.

Once this will be done, the next logical step would be to look for the "easiest route" to take, from the dev's perspective, to alter the content without denaturing it in order to have a clear hint at IT that doesn't contradict the other endings. Tough call, but still possible to realize, if IT relies mostly on the "Breathe scene". Even EC had a different outcome reserved for "Destroy" with the LI hesitating to put the plate on the memorial. This was, in my view, Bioware's effort to leave room for "more" in this particular ending. I already wrote that earlier on this thread : each ending is to be viewed as independant, the conclusion of a playthrough pivoting on the player's beliefs and behavior. People fond of  "Synthesis" will not look at "destroy" as a way to validate Synthesis, the same applies to all endings. A Shepard bent of sparing everyone, even the Reapers, doesn't need to be "Indoctrinated", he will naturally do what the Catalyst hopes he will do. Only in the "Destroy" mindset will Shepard represent a menace for the Reapers, so only there is the necessity to use "Indoctrination" as a last-ditch effort.

[Legion of 1337]

desert_beagle wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EC, from my perspective, destroyed IT. If IT were true, then you would need to go out on a limb and say that everything we are shown of the future of the ME universe as a result of Shepard's choice was also all in his head for. That all the rebuilding, and people going on with their lives, and even memorializing Shepard, was all in his head? That makes no sense.

It makes more sense that stuff happening in his head, than Shepard waking up on Earth after being blown to hell and gone on the Citadel after Destroy and only Destroy I might add.  How is this even remotely possible?  What?  Is Shepard actually Chuck Norris?  If that were the case they wouldn't have needed the Crucible at all.

He's in the rubble of the Citadel. He can't be on Earth because he'd have burned up in the atmosphere.

[spotlessvoid]

legion of 1337

Yes, that is known as keyboards slapping at monkeys theory.
The EC barely fixed anything and didn't really add a whole lot besides extra voice work and some crap slide show

Leviathan, a whole dlc about indoctrination that creates more plot holes if taken literally. Definitely was indoctrination theory's death blow

And you're a condescending little ***

[The Twilight God]

spotlessvoid wrote...

2. Then the slide shows make no sense. None.

 

If you take them literally at face value they do make sense.

Oddly enough it is the so-called literalist who see more than is presented.

The Twilight God wrote...

So of course a typical argument against any indoctrination theory is, "But the Extended Cut disproves anything and everything involving indoctrination. Everything turns out great. In fact, things turn out better in the Control and Synthesis endings than they do in Destroy. All Praise the Reapers for their truth and honesty!”

But do things turn out better in Control and Synthesis?

This is never definitively elaborated upon. All of the epilogue slides involve a narrator speaking about what they foresee will happen, want to happen, hope will happen or plan to make happen. The slides do not actually occur in real-time. Nothing in the slides actually occur in-game. The endings don't happen in the future. The endings are in the present. No time travel takes place. The EC slides are intended to placate angry fans by showing them pretty pictures. Ignore the slides and just listen to what the narrator actually says. The narrator does not describe what is on screen. The narrator cannot know if any of that stuff would happen as the narrator is speaking from the perspective of a person in the present. It is merely an individual talking about their hopes for the future in a general manner. No direct mention of krogan babies, geth-quarian peace, Jack becoming the headmaster of Grissom, Miranda becoming president of Earth, or anything else of that sort. Bioware counts on people to see what they want to see. Many players assume everything in the slides is an actual depiction of the future. There is no evidence of this being true. There cannot be as the endings take place in the present.

Even the Stargazer scene, which takes place in an unspecified place and time, involving an unspecified species is ambiguous. The Stargazer says, "Some of the details have been lost in time. It all happened so very long ago", so for all we know whatever ending the player chooses is just his telling of the legend. Even if the player chooses Control or Synthesis, Destroy can still be what actually occurred "so very long ago". Also, we don't know what occurred between the end of ME3 and the Stargazer scene. It's possible the galaxy, in another cycle, had to battle the "Shreapards" or there was a guerilla war to break free from synthesis indoctrination (Matrix style).

All control is is a Shepard saying "I.. I will" just like TIM saying he would control the Reapers. Funny how that turned out.
Synthesis is just EDI talking about what she thinks will happen. No different than Dr. Kenson thinking the Reapers were bringing a utopia.
Destroy is what Hackett hopes will happen. Nothing more. He says alot of things that simply can't true, like fixing the relays (as if it's as simple as changing a tire). Purely blind optimism.

[XXIceColdXX]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

desert_beagle wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EC, from my perspective, destroyed IT. If IT were true, then you would need to go out on a limb and say that everything we are shown of the future of the ME universe as a result of Shepard's choice was also all in his head for. That all the rebuilding, and people going on with their lives, and even memorializing Shepard, was all in his head? That makes no sense.

It makes more sense that stuff happening in his head, than Shepard waking up on Earth after being blown to hell and gone on the Citadel after Destroy and only Destroy I might add.  How is this even remotely possible?  What?  Is Shepard actually Chuck Norris?  If that were the case they wouldn't have needed the Crucible at all.

He's in the rubble of the Citadel. He can't be on Earth because he'd have burned up in the atmosphere.

If IT theory stands true Shep never left earth.

Also one reason Bioware would go with IT if not doing so already. Money. They would make a fortune, increased sales, increased publicity, happier fans. The current literal endings suck. 

Modifié par XXIceColdXX, 02 septembre 2012 - 05:37 .

[desert_beagle]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

desert_beagle wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EC, from my perspective, destroyed IT. If IT were true, then you would need to go out on a limb and say that everything we are shown of the future of the ME universe as a result of Shepard's choice was also all in his head for. That all the rebuilding, and people going on with their lives, and even memorializing Shepard, was all in his head? That makes no sense.

It makes more sense that stuff happening in his head, than Shepard waking up on Earth after being blown to hell and gone on the Citadel after Destroy and only Destroy I might add.  How is this even remotely possible?  What?  Is Shepard actually Chuck Norris?  If that were the case they wouldn't have needed the Crucible at all.

He's in the rubble of the Citadel. He can't be on Earth because he'd have burned up in the atmosphere.

Rubble on the Citadel?  Really?  Concrete rubble in space.  The fact that the room Shepard is in is completely exposed to the vacuum of space and his suit is completely fried not to mention the fact that he has no helmet on this time completely obliterates any notion that he wakes up on the Citadel.  Shepard would be without a doubt deader than the Protheans.  How does he wake up on Earth?  He was never on the Citadel to begin with.  

That is the whole point of the Indoctrination Theory.  After Harby's beam, the entire sequence aftwards is an indoctrination attempt by the Reapers to get Shepard to choose one of their options Control or Synthesis.  The two options that were supported by the series two main alternate antagonists apart from the Reapers.  TIM wanted Control, and Saren wanted Synthesis.

Now you tell me, what kind of hero actually at the end falters and decides to pick one of the options that he was fighting against through the entire series?

[Hrothdane]

spotlessvoid wrote...

legion of 1337

Yes, that is known as keyboards slapping at monkeys theory.
The EC barely fixed anything and didn't really add a whole lot besides extra voice work and some crap slide show

Leviathan, a whole dlc about indoctrination that creates more plot holes if taken literally. Definitely was indoctrination theory's death blow

And you're a condescending little ***

No need for the cursing, spotless. All it does is escalate antagonism and prove the naysayers right that we won't listen to criticism.

[spotlessvoid]

The Twilight God wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote ...
2. Then the slide shows make no sense. None.

If you take them literally at face value they do make sense.

Explain

[spotlessvoid]

How Religions start.....pfffftt
I'm out

And you're right Hrothdane

[Auralius Carolus]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Well apparently the moderators like to keep all IT discussion in this thread, despite the fact that this is mainly the "add new 'evidence' to IT" thread where all the pro-IT people hang out, which will inevitably cause conflict with all the "literalists" who want to voice their views somewhere. I haven't spoken about IT since EC came out so here's my two cents:

IT was only a plausible theory before EC. That was because the ending was so ambiguous and didn't explain at all what happened afterward, so ANYTHING could have happened. And since the three existing endings were so ****ty, IT became the most popular alternative.

EC, from my perspective, destroyed IT. If IT were true, then you would need to go out on a limb and say that everything we are shown of the future of the ME universe as a result of Shepard's choice was also all in his head for. That all the rebuilding, and people going on with their lives, and even memorializing Shepard, was all in his head? That makes no sense. And now with Leviathan, BW have actually gone out of their way to explain the creators and backstory of the Reapers, to the point where the Catalyst is no longer an out-of-the-blue last minute twist character, but one that someone playing through the game for the first time would actually be expecting to meet, and would even know the way the Catalyst thinks so his dialogue seems less like shoehorning and more like manipulation.

While I admire the analytical and investigative work that went into IT, the fact is that it makes no sense for BW to make not one, but two DLCs explaining the backstory of the Reapers, the nature of the Catalyst and the effects of the Crucible in the decades afterward, and have it ALL BE A DREAM. That is a HUGE waste of time. We are never given a single hint that Shepard ever "wakes up" from his supposed indoctrination, so this theory has no factual grounds, only speculation.

On a side note, I believe this is an interesting micro-scale version of how religions develop, and is quite fascinating from a psychological and cultural standpoint. I have no doubt someone somewhere is using IT as the subject of their thesis paper for a psychology or philosophy course.

Ok, I'm done. You may call me a poison-spitting heathen now if you like.

Well, the problem is that some very bizarre things are going on with Shepard and have been ever since the Object Rho encounter. He has been having symptoms of EMF exposure, including the hearing of voices on occasion, vivid reoccuring nightmares- which also include Reaper noises and extremely high levels of infrasound, by the way- as well as possible signal amplification, (James hearing a buzzing), and potential Reaper implants being visible in the ending during Control and Synthesis.

The shadow figures, disembodied voices and doppleganger which are within the dreams are also tell-tale of extremely high EMF and Infrasonic exposure and have been documented medically.

There are some very strange things going on and indoctrination attempts fall into the patterns very soundly. Even in the Leviathan DLC, indoctrination is a huge mechanic and the Leviathans even confirm that there is "something" special about him/her; something that has been uttered by the Reapers since ME2 but never explained.

The IT is simply our hypothesis regarding these strange facets of the game. We could be wrong or right, but we have our reasons and said reasons are well within the realm of the fantasy/sci-fi universe as well as Bioware's tradition of occasionally springing surprises after dropping subtle hints, (example: KOTOR and Revan).

[Arashi08]

spotlessvoid wrote...

@desertbeagle:

Screams in horror at ME becoming an annual

I'm watching Grave of the Fireflies and yet THAT notion is somehow way more depressing

[Iconoclaste]

desert_beagle wrote...

Rubble on the Citadel?  Really?  Concrete rubble in space.  The fact that the room Shepard is in is completely exposed to the vacuum of space and his suit is completely fried not to mention the fact that he has no helmet on this time completely obliterates any notion that he wakes up on the Citadel.  Shepard would be without a doubt deader than the Protheans.  How does he wake up on Earth?  He was never on the Citadel to begin with.  

That is the whole point of the Indoctrination Theory.  After Harby's beam, the entire sequence aftwards is an indoctrination attempt by the Reapers to get Shepard to choose one of their options Control or Synthesis.  The two options that were supported by the series two main alternate antagonists apart from the Reapers.  TIM wanted Control, and Saren wanted Synthesis.

Now you tell me, what kind of hero actually at the end falters and decides to pick one of the options that he was fighting against through the entire series?

What TIM and Saren wanted is quite different from what Shepard is offered at the end, because the Crucible didn't exist before.

[Legion of 1337]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

desert_beagle wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

EC, from my perspective, destroyed IT. If IT were true, then you would need to go out on a limb and say that everything we are shown of the future of the ME universe as a result of Shepard's choice was also all in his head for. That all the rebuilding, and people going on with their lives, and even memorializing Shepard, was all in his head? That makes no sense.

It makes more sense that stuff happening in his head, than Shepard waking up on Earth after being blown to hell and gone on the Citadel after Destroy and only Destroy I might add.  How is this even remotely possible?  What?  Is Shepard actually Chuck Norris?  If that were the case they wouldn't have needed the Crucible at all.

He's in the rubble of the Citadel. He can't be on Earth because he'd have burned up in the atmosphere.

If IT theory stands true Shep never left earth.

Also one reason Bioware would go with IT if not doing so already. Money. They would make a fortune, increased sales, increased publicity, happier fans. The current literal endings suck. 

If he doesn't leave Earth, then that makes IT pointless, because even if he does "break free", he'd wake up on Earth, proceed to the beam, and activate the Crucible. Which is what happens already anyway.

[jgibson14352]

where is that post that (i think) Salient_Archer posted about the mathematics of how powerful an explosion would have to be to break the citadel?

from what i remember, it would take more than a supernova level explosion to do ANYTHING to the citadel, let alone rip it up as badly as it did. we know from the codex that the citadel is made from the same seemingly indestructible material as the relays. we know from the Mu relay that even a star going supernova will most likely just push a relay out of position, NOT destroy it. so using common sense we can deduce that any explosion powerful enough to break the citadel would have surely destroyed the earth and any living being near it.

the original post actually had alot of thought put into it, and included the force equations for the average supernova and what would be needed to devastate earth, does somebody have it? im pretty sure it was mark 2