80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Iconoclaste]

SwobyJ wrote...

3)The Shep_Lives movie shows rebar. Sure, the Citadel has rebar now. Bajillion years old and they use rebar.

(I mean technically it could be true because there's of course a lot of aspects of the Citadel that don't make so much sci-fi sense, but still...rebar?)

There is no rebar there, and this has been debunked in IT thread Mark 1 by credible IT supporters who compared pictures of rebar (in London) and cables surrounding Reaper structures.

[Legion of 1337]

I guess the best question to pose is:

Is it really a greater leap of faith to think that Bioware is simply fixing a screw up caused by rushing to meet a deadline and switching the ending from one plot (Dark Energy) to another (the Catalyst and the Leviathans) at the last minute, than to think that everything in at the end is imaginary based on the assumption that the 'real' ending will eventually be revealed despite there being no evidence to support this? After all, IT was invented because the out-of-the-box endings weren't explained at all. Now that EC explains the aftermath and Leviathan explains the Catalyst and Reapers' origins, the ending makes sense. The Crucible's origin and an explaination of its function are the only glaring plotholes left.

[Hrothdane]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Ok. But if we're not shown what happens after the indoctrination sequence (which is apparently the existing ending), then the game has no ending. And you don't make a game with no ending, especially not one with two DLCs that essentially expand (EC) or explain (Leviathan) the ending. An ending that is apparently a dream-like sequence,  not the actual ending. In that case, why did they explain it further? Why not show us the "real" ending? That makes no sense.

The EC was not planned. BioWare underestimated the fan outrage. Think about it, if they were planning on revealing that the ending slides do not actually happen, they could do whatever they want in them. Furthermore, going from "relays are destroyed" to "relays get repaired" would be changing the endings in a big way, something BioWare said the EC does not do. If nothing in the slides actually happens, then altering them doesn't really change the outcome, does it?  None of the new ending stuff is particularly well-crafted anyways; most of the slides look more like fan-art, voice-overs are terrible narrative devices, and the few added pre-ending scenes at the beam run and such were supposed to be in the original game.

They couldn't show us the "real" ending because they need more time to make it. EA screwed them over by requiring them to develop a balanced multiplayer AND a full single player game in the same time they had to just make a full single player game (ME2). They also have taken time to try to guage customer responses and see exactly WHAT they should put in the new content, doing things like, say this: http://www.holdtheli...on-theory.1909/

I don't expect you to agree with us; I just want you to understand where we are coming from.

[Legion of 1337]

SwobyJ wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

desert_beagle wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Ok. But if we're not shown what happens after the indoctrination sequence (which is apparently the existing ending), then the game has no ending. And you don't make a game with no ending, especially not one with two DLCs that essentially expand (EC) or explain (Leviathan) the ending. An ending that is apparently a dream-like sequence,  not the actual ending. In that case, why did they explain it further? Why not show us the "real" ending? That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense if you want to milk your fans for every red cent they have to slowly satisfy their hope for an actual ending that not only makes sense, but conforms with what they have been fighting as Shepard for throughout three games now.

So you actually think that's what's happening? In that case, the only real way to prove you 100% wrong (since most of your evidence is based on belief and interpretation) is for BW to stop making ME3 DLC. If they don't make ending DLC (which they've already said they won't), then IT is wrong. I would bet on that being the case. I would also bet people would keep believing in it anyway, since it is effectively a religion at this point.

A religion? Oh give me a break lol

Anyway, if they stop SP DLC, AND verbally confirm that Indoctrination is no in any way related to Shepard's personal experiences (basically "Shepard was never indoctrinated."), then its busted.

But if they stopped DLC and continued the line of "It's up to interpretation" until they announce their next ME game, then um, its obviously still up for discussion.

But you'd still be basing your theory off of the assumption of the existence of a non-existant 'real' ending. I mean, it's fine if you want to do that, but that woudl still leave you without an actual tangible ending to view. Which to me would feel unfulfilling.

Modifié par Legion of 1337, 02 septembre 2012 - 06:33 .

[Arashi08]

IT isn't a religion. it is called the Indoctrination THEORY...not the Church of the Holy Technicolor Dream.

Religion is in the business of proving things, science is in the business of disproving things, then looking at whatever remains to be the "truth." Religion is absolute faith and does not require scientific observation. This thread at least attempts to look at things from an educated and hypothetical standpoint. No one here is covering their ears and going "lalalalala! IT is true and you can't change my mind lalalalala!" If someone brings legitimate proof that IT is not BioWare's intended path then that will be the end of it. It's when people say that nothing will change their beliefs that they are indoctrinated.

[Legion of 1337]

SwobyJ wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

I guess the best question to pose is:

Is it really a greater leap of faith to think that Bioware is simply fixing a screw up caused by rushing to meet a deadline and switching the ending from one plot (Dark Energy) to another (the Catalyst and the Leviathans) at the last minute, than to think that everything in at the end is imaginary based on the assumption that the 'real' ending will eventually be revealed despite there being no evidence to support this? After all, IT was invented because the out-of-the-box endings weren't explained at all. Now that EC explains the aftermath and Leviathan explains the Catalyst and Reapers' origins, the ending makes sense. The Crucible's origin and an explaination of its function are the only glaring plotholes left.

After weighing in both Bioware's history and the possible circumstances of development, I consider both a bit of a leap of faith until confirmation - you know, actual confirmation and not further speculation on either 'side' - hits.

And IT (I mean, what we now call IT) has I recall its formation as early as Arrival. I recall people being really damn worried that Shepard's exposure to Object Rho was going to be a later plot point.

I also recall a lot of stuff about the Earth Child shown in demonstrations of ME3 that he was creepy and said things that sounded a lot more like a hallucination.

So yeah, IT itself came from the seeming nonsense of the ending, but the specualation about Shepard being under indoctrination was certainly from as early as ME2.

If the 'literal' view of the ending now makes sense, why continue to think/insist it's not the real ending? I suppose if you're one of those people who has invested heavily into IT you wouldn't want to just throw all that out the window because it would make it all seems pointless and silly, whereas continuing to believe in it makes you feel smart, because building the case for IT actually involves a lot of digging and analysis of details and such.

[Hrothdane]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

I guess the best question to pose is:

Is it really a greater leap of faith to think that Bioware is simply fixing a screw up caused by rushing to meet a deadline and switching the ending from one plot (Dark Energy) to another (the Catalyst and the Leviathans) at the last minute, than to think that everything in at the end is imaginary based on the assumption that the 'real' ending will eventually be revealed despite there being no evidence to support this? After all, IT was invented because the out-of-the-box endings weren't explained at all. Now that EC explains the aftermath and Leviathan explains the Catalyst and Reapers' origins, the ending makes sense. The Crucible's origin and an explaination of its function are the only glaring plotholes left.

Some people may take IT on faith, and in fact a great number of people did in the past. We are still here because we find the EVIDENCE compelling.

Indoctrination is a key thematic element of the Mass Effect universe.
Indoctrination is KNOWN and SHOWN to cause hallucinations and nightmares (see Derelict Reaper and Arrival audio diaries).
Indoctrination is said to be caused by infrasonic noise generated by Reapers.
Reaper technology and minions are said to amplify and boost this signal.
Shepard has spent a great deal of time around Reaper's, their minions, and their technology, even spending 2 days unconscious in a facility with an artifact that already indoctrinated the entire staff.
The dreams Shepard experiences in ME3 are consistent with the dreams described by The Project staff, who all became indoctrinated.
Indoctrination is a slow and "subtle" process works via nanites that slowly rewire the brain to think in accordance with Reaper goals and wishes.
Harbinger says through Object Rho that Shepard's "Mind will be mine."
Harbinger "speaks of" Shepard to the other Reapers and treats him/her as special.

Is it not reasonable to think that the Reapers want to indoctrinate Shepard? If we take the endings as literal, then all that foreshadowing and evidence is all for naught. Then, not only do we get a crappy ending, we get crappy games.

As for the dark energy plot, it was scrapped early on, according to its creator, Drew Karpashyn, before development on ME3 was even underway.

[Legion of 1337]

Actually, why am I still here? I'm not going to change anyone's mind I don't think.

Modifié par Legion of 1337, 02 septembre 2012 - 06:38 .

[Legion of 1337]

SwobyJ wrote...
Hmm let me put it this way.

In the scale of how much I supported AND ENJOYED this theory based on experiencing the content:

ME3 = Medium
EC = Medium-Low
Leviathan = Medium-High

Note how none of them, NONE are on High. Basically, I'm actually still unfulfilled. IT is still a theory because it produces solid evidence from everywhere - its not just a hypothesis and it certainly is not only 'blind faith'. I mean come on, Bioware even said they were going to have a sequence where Shepard would lose control due to indoctrination.

Evidence is there, HOWEVER, I  would agree that there is also ample evidence that everything should be taken face value. So we have a theory, not a 'law' of ME3's story. Time will tell whether this theory is 'story law', or it is actually unwarranted speculation.

So in essence you don't like the explaination of the actual endings (the Catalyst/Leviathans backstory), and preffer to believe in what is, effectively, headcanon
(it will only not be headcanon if a 'real' ending DLC was released) ?

I mean, I don't object to that. It's fiction. If that's what it takes for you to enjoy it, that's fine to me. I could do that to fix all the problems I have with it, but I'll always be telling myself in the back of my mind that none of what I'm imagining is actually in the game, it's just what I want to be in the game. I choose to accept and live with what we're given rather than try to imagine something I like more. 

Anyway, that's my monthly dose of IT thread. I likely will not post here again for a while, this constant arguing just goes round and round and round and never gets anywhere because everyone's convinced their side of the issue is more convincing than the other.

Modifié par Legion of 1337, 02 septembre 2012 - 06:48 .

[demersel]

desert_beagle wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

It would not be pointless because the first trip was a symbolic representation of Shepard overcoming indoctrination, and not actually representative of how the Crucible ACTUALLY works. Furthermore, it would have the thematic purpose of showing Shepard defeating the most potent and subversive weapon of the Reapers, one that has been developed since the very first mission of the first game.

Thank you.  

And having the indoctrination beaten, we'd only have the old fashioned "shot the bad guy in the X spot N number of times until his heapth drops to zero" type of thing which is really can be left for the DLC to handle. 
If you do things right, YOU HAVE BEATEN THE MOST POWERFULL FORCE IN THE GALAXY, and become invincible for the enemie's most dangereous weapon. After you beat the indoctrination - the rest is just simple trivial soldiers footwork. 
By waking up in that rubble, you've made a god bleed, AND live to tell the tale and fight another day. 
By waking up you proved, that beating reapers is inevitable and just a matter of time and effort. Reapers can be killed, their troops can be killed, and and if given enough resistance will eventually run out, harvesting camps can be sabotaged, troop transports and deathships can be easily destroyed, which prevents the reapers from taking a planet or a system (not much that a huge reaper can do, besides blowing **** up with a laser, without minouns - they are helpless, like the leviathans are without monions - don't belive me? Read the info about Ilium, that was added in the Leviathan DLC). ME1 - reapers can be stopped. ME2 - their monions can be stopped, ME3 - indocrination can be beaten and broken free from. 
ME3 is really an end of that story ark. And the ending is really an ending. But to know and understand it you must understand what actually haapened there. 
The IT doesn't need a post game DLC to work. It would be nice to continue the fight, have a boss battle with Harbinger, etc - but that is really just a DLC material. It isn't what beats the reapers. Your actions through out ME3 - is what does the trick. You don't even need the cruciblle, whatever it does. (no other cycle gas ever been even close to finishing the thing, we did it in what, like a few months? Now that we have the prototype we can mass produce the thing if we wanted, and throw them at reapers like stones.).  Sure Harbinger is the first reaper. Sure, he is the most powerfull and you have kind of a personal crudge against him. But so what?

Killing him, does not fix the reaper problem, but overcoming indoctrination - does. He is your pesonal enemy, and in some DLC we might get a chance to take a swing at him. (Imagin - a Hunt for Harbinger DLC - where you're objective is to kill of Harrbinnger, either ambush him, or lure him into a trap of some kind. And it happens during the main game. But how can then harbinger protect the beam if he's already dead? But that's the point - he can't! There will be some other generic reaper shooting laser. Remember - the enemy is already in your mind - the child is already there - the ending is not harbinger or any specific reaper infusing a dream at you - it is your the indoctrination, taking over your mind and taking control of your actions away from you. Remember the auto dialog? Remember all those weird moments when Shepard sudenly says and does something you didn't intended? Remember how you don't even enter in a dialog wheel when talking to squadmates anymore? you just stand there and watch the confersation ubfold, as if from a distance - doesn't that sound familiar to you? Remember how your squadmates seem to do their own thing now - hanging out around the citadel without you? Don't you feel left out? Maybe it's the other way around - maybe it is Shepard who's making some distance from them and you can't do a thing about it - it is irritating but you go along with it - it starts small, but over time, you'd be just watching what shepard does from behind your monitor, unable to change anything, or take some action....oh, wait...Isn't that EXACTLY how Bonezia described the effects of inndooctrinnation taking over? you see my point here? If you look at ME3 from this point of view - every single weird design choice suddenly makes total sense)

Modifié par demersel, 02 septembre 2012 - 07:14 .

[XXIceColdXX]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

Actually, why am I still here? I'm not going to change anyone's mind I don't think.

Good to see your point of view anyway. Whether you change anyones minds or not.

I want IT to happen, im not 100% convinced its definately happening or its what they intended, but there is enough evidence for me to think its a possibility (and an improvement on what we got post beam), if Bioware are able to finish the story well after Harbingers beam, I am all for it.

[demersel]

I'm content. I got the breath scene on my first playthhrough without any DLC - And I Immideatly new - this is it - that is the victory - there, in that five second cinematic - this is what beats the reapers.

In ME3 - you set out on a quest. Your quest is the quest for hope. No one will fight the battle if they know it is hopeless. You must have at least so gleam of hope. Not Shepard. Shepard fight even if there is now hope of winning at all. And survives. And prevails. But that in ME3 that is not good enough. You don't have an army of Shepards. So you send shepard on quest all over the galaxy to find something, that will give hope to everyone. In the beginning you find the schematis for some prothean devic, that might be a weapon agains the reapers - that is perfect - this is a patch up. Id doesn't matter, whether it does anything at all or not. While you're busy building the thing with the hope that it will work - everybody will fight. Hold grounds. Gather resources. Do their part. It is a red herring - in a sense that it is only a temporary patch up. It will not hold forever. It holds only untill you actually try to use the thing. It gives time to Shepard, the man who doesn't care about hope, and who doesn't need it to fight. to find something that will give everyone true hope. (can you see how this quest on itself is a device to give hope? Shepard is out there, searching - he'll find a way for us to win, he won't stop he won't quit untill he does, he will find a way to beat the reapers, but untill that time we must do our part and fight as hard as we can). This is why you don't put a man like shepard on front line - he's just a man, he is certain to get killed there - and then you have nothing - no hope.

And in the end of Mass Effect 3 is exactly what happens. You have done the impossible - you, a simple man, you have united the whole galaxy, and brought it to figh. You have built the crucible. It is done, and is a monument of united efforts - it doesn't actually matter at this point whether or not this thing actually works or does anything - it is a proof, that the impossible can be done in just a few months time. But it is missing one part, the trigger - and to get it you must take it from the enemy. Without it it is useless - so no more hope of winning someday. And no other alternative by this time - Shepard has found nothing yet to replace the crucible as a banner of hope.
So you just come to the unbeatable enemy's domain, knocking of the front door with your boot, And just take it from him by force - this what the priority earth is all about. All or nothing.

And it then, on the front line when the true victory happens.

Shepard survives, and overcomes indoctrination after being face to face with the unbeatable enemy (the likes of which he has already killed - the only unbeatable part left was indoctrination. Sure you can blow a reaper up. But you can't beat indoctrination. Well, gues what, no you can!) - after that- there is no need for the crucible any more. If he can do it - anyone can do it. So now everyone can just fight without a clear banner of hope, like the crucible.

Well, what about the EC - you might ask me. I'll tell you.
EC - is exactly what it is - the EA standing over Bioware's shoulder, with a check list of things to fix, after the initial outcry. It does only that - adresses the things on that checklist, without actually changing anything. (since the ending is a dream - you could add anything to it as long as you don't take out the breath scene or alter it context, and quess what - they didn't) - it is clumsy and long, and a real pain to sit through (the normandy pic up - facepalm - if i ever needed proof that things were unreal - this would do the job) and i really wish it would just expire one day or something...Oh, wait...

[RavenEyry]

Calling IT a religion is as dumb as calling it fanfic. Just rubbish people spout when they can't be bothered to debate sensibly.

[Spartas Husky]

This is still going? my god I praise you guys for keeping this alive. Honestly I hold out a small candle in a dark corner of my mind that some fix is done to ME ending. IT would be the best imo. But there could be better ones. Either way thank you... and now to put back the memories of this game locked away again, dont want to remember the feelings of the ending more than I have to .

Cheers and good luck.

ps: EA, bioware whoever I dont really care who is really in charge...dont really care for this game or dlc's. Going back for the "missing" chapters simply to end up in the same ****hole isn't worth a penny. I can read an extensive description of it in wiki, or watch a youtube video in full. Might matter might not, you want my money back, you know what you have to do. If not well... there is always Halo4 hopefully they dont pull a "bioware" out of their asses when it comes to the Chief's storyline.

Modifié par Spartas Husky, 02 septembre 2012 - 08:55 .