80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Dwailing]

masster blaster wrote...

okay there is a thread that is saying that Dalatrass was working for Cerberus.

I will proved the link right now.

http://social.biowar.../index/13462878

It's an interesting idea.  That could explain why she's such a *****.

[masster blaster]

Night Otter, and night Dwailing

[Simon_Says]

Otter, that black circular blur is in all of the cutscenes. It's just a cinematic effect. It was noticed months ago and got everyone really excited until someone posted an image with a thresher maw with the black circles. Granted there was a reaper in that scene but we discovered it happens everywhere else as well.

So yeah, unless they intensify around reapers, you've been debunked ol' chum. Sorry.

[DJBare]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...


We got an ending that was poorly written and allowed mutliple theories other than the IT to be developed. Everyone got mad about the lack of closure/plot holes and we waited for a response from Bioware, and they announced the ec dlc which would not add any new endings, just expand on the current one. Believing in the IT is pretending that the original ending was more than poor writing. It wasn't. We got the answer of whether or not the perspective of IT is right or wrong from the ec dlc, Bioware won't be adding any new endings as they have said before. 

You can believe anything you want if that's how you derive entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if there can be a "truth" about the structure of a fictional work it is that that which the author intended is the actuality. ME's writers do not intend IT to be the valid end. 

Normally I would agree with what you say here, the problem I have is the inconsistency, the main body of the story was good(I won't say great, I've definitely seen better) but to put so much effort in and then fail in the last few minutes?, whether IT or not, something does not add up, even an amateur writer would know better than take an epic running story and turn it in to a snooze fest at the end, like one thread title asked, "Was it so difficult to give us the feeling of victory"; I'm not sure what Bioware are doing any more, all I know is that the ending was inconsistent with the rest of the writing, almost like the writing changed hands at the last moment.

[Auralius Carolus]

So as I considered the parallels between the Reaper Invasion "Courtroom" scene and the Citadel Beam "Overlook" scene, I can't help but wonder if, perhaps, we've drastically overstepped our estimation of when Shepard lost consciousness.

While there is still minimal evidence for it, Shepard has suffered several traumatic impacts before the Citadel Beam: namely The Defeat/Blast at Object Rho and the Alliance Courtroom at Vancouver. In both of these events there would have been significant damage to the landscape, providing for the rubble. There is also the explosion at the reactor with Kensen, although that seems a less notable event.

Given the sound of wind howling during the "Breath" scene, it may seem favorable that Shepard is on Earth, possibly in a building. But the unusual arch seen in the background is very akin to Rho.

The possibility that Object Rho escaped the Viper Nebula must also be considered.

Modifié par Auralius Carolus, 02 août 2012 - 03:45 .

[byne]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

So as I considered the parallels between the Reaper Invasion "Courtroom" scene and the Citadel Beam "Overlook" scene, I can't help but wonder if, perhaps, we've drastically overstepped our estimation of when Shepard lost consciousness.

While there is still minimal evidence for it, Shepard has suffered several traumatic impacts before the Citadel Beam: namely The Defeat/Blast at Object Rho and the Alliance Courtroom at Vancouver. In both of these events there would have been significant damage to the landscape, providing for the rubble. There is also the explosion at the reactor with Kensen, although that seems a less notable event.

Given the sound of wind howling during the "Breath" scene, it may seem favorable that Shepard is on Earth, possibly in a building. But the unusual arch seen in the background is very akin to Rho.

The possibility that Object Rho escaped the Viper Nebula must also be considered.

Nah, I still find the idea that the entire game was a hallucination to be ludicrous.Thats just me though.

(If that is indeed what you're suggesting. I'm tired so it may not be.)

Modifié par byne, 02 août 2012 - 03:49 .

[Simon_Says]

smokingotter1 wrote...

TheConstantOne wrote...

smokingotter1 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

In an effort to bring this back to speculations: Can someone explain why so many people still think the epilogues (not necessarily the space scenes/Normandy scenes) are part of the indoctrination attempt and not actual depictions of the galaxy's future?

It's my belief coming as an overlay-time theorist that the epilogue scenes ARE REAL but everything Shepard faces post "serve us" is fake.

Remember how we talked about religious imagery in the ending and allegory? The writers are explaning how religions and cults are formed.

1. You have past events that are real and are more or less based somewhat on historical events (ME1-near end of ME3)
2. You usually have a mesiah figure who during a short period of time accomplishes miracles and fantastically stories that are scientifically impossible and with logic that sometimes does not make sense (ending of ME3)
3. You have "modern period" epilogue scenes.

Stargazer doesn't know the full details of what happens at the end of ME3 and Shepard in the same way that we in the modern world don't know the full story of Jesus or Mohammed (insert the name of your messiah figure here) and because of that- why people depend on allegory and religious texts. Jesus and Mohammed may have been real people but since "details are lost in time" they've become Legends.

Get it?{smilie}

That said, the details lost in time does not mean that those details will not be filled...

We can't say for certain whether they are real or not but...if you take all of the endings together there are two pivotal things that can be explained through Shepard's willpower:

1) The soldiers that are fighting the husks. This point has been mentioned quite a few times. In Destroy, they continue fighting until the bitter end whereas in Control and Synthesis, the husks are winning out. This could be an illustration of Shepard's mental state versus Reaper power. In Control and Synthesis, Shepard doesn't believe he is destroying the Reapers and so if the soldiers are indicative of his willpower, they will not fare well against Reapers.

2) The Normandy memorial wall scene. When Shepard believes openly accepts his death at the hands of the Reapers, his name is placed on the wall. In Destroy, the companion not only doesn't place the plaque on the wall but some of them seem to be smirking. How would the companion be so sure of Shepard's survival as to not place his name on the wall AND smile? This can be readily explained if they represent part of Shepard's consciousness: at this point of the vid Shepard realizes that he has succeeded and that he is still alive. This explanation also reconciles very well with Shepard waking up right after the memorial scene

I think we need to seperate the slides from what happens on dream planet.

1. Everything in the space battle is real... even the crucible firing.

2. Dream planet is fake... fake fake fake.... faker than fakey McFake Fake. It is the "haven" in Shepard's mind.

3. Stargazer scene is very real but it happens soooooooo long after the events of ME3. It's meant to show that after signficant periods of time how real events get the details lost in time. Stargazer is telling this fantastical story to this child about Shepard in the same way an adult would explain a religion to the child. The problem is we know the facts of the Mass Effect universe... that's why we're all here ITers, through logic and reason we can see through the BS of the ME3 ending unlike the way a child would when faced with a similar story.

The ME3 ending is a parody of religion and ironically comments on how people accept faith (or indoctrination) in other religious faiths about mesiahs or "Shepards" who perform miracles that we know are impossible.

It's telling that Bioware took so much inspiration from Dante's "The Divine Comedy" about the "souls journey to God." The ME3 is a parody of the "person's acceptance of god"... a subtle but important distinction.

Sorry if I offended anyone here who is religious.

Well I agree that the space scenes and Crucible firing were real. The only question then is what the deal is with the galaxy map.

But I have to disagree with the garden world being fake. I didn't detect a smile in any of the videos I saw of the memorial scene. And as I suggested that since Shepard survived, it was plausible to survive, and ergo the LI could believe Shepard survived. It's likely a reflection of EMS. "We did so well considering, y'know, reapers. Maybe Shepard survived somehow?"

It's not breaking my suspension of disbelief, frankly. I'm personally calling it real for the time being.

As for the Stargazer. I'm still confused how synthorganics could forget when they're supposed to be 'perfected' by technology and have the reapers providing their knowledge. Bah. The scenes are still very vague. The only thing the EC revealed was that in BGR the council cycle survives for some time (though I maintain that it's only because the reapers are harvesting slowly and patiently over the course of centuries*) and in reject it's a future cycle who somehow "ends the reaper threat" (though like the Stargazer in B and G, if they chose B or G they would only think they ended the threat).

Actually, come to think of it, if the Crucible wasn't fired, and th council cycle was quickly exterminated, would that mean that the Crucible could still be attached to the Citadel by the time the next cycle rolled around?

-edit- Oh, and green faces in synthesis? Well if everyone is indoctrinated, I don't think it's a huge leap that everyone would be viewing an... ah what word should I use... say, overlay?

Modifié par Simon_Says, 02 août 2012 - 04:10 .

[Destructorlio]

Congrats on reaching third-thread status, ya'll.

Personally, I've had to take some time away from ME, and the threat, after the bitter disappointment that was the EC. I played a little Assassin's Creed: Revelations, but then I discovered DARK SOULS. Wow. If you need something to clear your head, it's definitely the ticket.

Hope everyone is having fun in the thread- peace!

[masster blaster]

Well since everyone is a sleep I will wait for the other side of the world to wake up, since I got a feeling once byne, or everyone else is gone. There will be an attack on the IT thread. Since I have been looking at the other threads and some peoplethink that it's high time they are going to try to move IT to the fan forum.

[Auralius Carolus]

byne wrote...

Nah, I still find the idea that the entire game was a hallucination to be ludicrous.Thats just me though.

(If that is indeed what you're suggesting. I'm tired so it may not be.)

Indeed, the concept of making an entire game a dream is a risky move, but it's been done before. While I'm not saying that it is, I think it's worth leaving an open mind about.

The more I rewatch the Courtroom scene, the more I wonder if Shepard's K.O. was foreshadowing, or him only believing he's waking up; kind of like they say that the spirits of the deceased don't always know they're dead. Given the amount of evidence regarding the influence of the paranormal on Reaper Indoctrination, I'd say such a comparison is valid.

It would also explain the highly limited dialogue choices, even though a rushed schedule is far more likely.

[masster blaster]

If the whole game was fake, then I am either going to be pissed, or happy. For one I think ME3 has a good storyline, well except you know, and I like that Mordin died honorable in my playthrough as a hero.But if it ment I could see everyone alive again, then hell yes, but what does this make of our LI in ME3, and that night.

If that was all fake then Harbinger you have not seen Commander f****** Shepard get angry at all. And when the time comes for your dimise. I will carve every persons name that has died under my command, and I will kill Harbinger slowly and painfully without a second thought.

[Lokanaiya]

Two things:

There are a lot of ridiculously bright white flashes in Vancouver, at least 3 off the top of my head.

It was once theorized that Shepard lost consciousness at Thessia, when he fell down into the pit, I believe. It's been a long time. It would explain how the asari didn't he Shepard after Kai Leng flew off, and Thessia probably has wind and curvy metal objects. I personally don't believe this since Cronos is the official point of no return, but we might mark it down as the point where it becomes hard to separate illusion from reality.

Also, a fun random fact I noticed when recently playing through London again: The Hades Cannon makes the "serve us" Reaper grumble before shooting down the shuttle next to you.... With a long sweeping beam that should have hit your shuttle also. It would be easier for it to hit your shuttle than not. You can argue that it didn't because the Reapers want Shepard alive, but how would the Reapers know that this one random shuttle was the one with Shepard in it? As far as I know, there's nothing to distinguish your shuttle from other Alliance ones.

[Hrothdane]

Greetings, everyone. First-time poster.

I am relatively new here, as I only became indoctrinated into the Mass Effect series recently. Having already known about the controversy about the endings (though not much about the endings themselves), I still started playing them (because of a Gamestop sale and tvtropes) and have managed to finish all three over the course of the last month and a half. As all of you probably could guess, the ending of Mass Effect 3 left quite a few questions in my mind, and I came here looking for opinions. Maybe you can chalk it up to me being an english major, but I find analysis entertaining. Thus, fan theories intrigue me, though most fail to convince of their validity. I do not know what I believe about the ending quite yet, but I am convinced that not all is as we are told.

Disregarding for the moment the idea of indoctrination and the dreamlike elements of everything post-Harbinger beam, I just cannot bring myself to take ANYTHING the Catalyst says at face value. One of my pet peeve tropes is Villains Never Lie and the Catalyst very clearly explains that he is the collective intelligence of the Reapers, thus the villain. These are villains that have proven many times to not only be extremely careful and ruthless in their plans, but are known to use manipulation so constantly that they can literally do it while brain dead for millions of years. When Shepard stands moments away from defeating them, why would they not do everything to stop him/her up to and including lying through their teeth? The Catalyst even appears in perhaps the most manipulative form the Reaper consciousness could have pulled from Shepard's mind.

This leads to a little theory I have on why the Catalyst's explanations and dialogue seems so self-contradictory and hollow (that isn't the doylist "bad writing" theory). The Reapers have never been great conversationalists in any of their appearances. Their dialogue basically amounts to "We will destroy you. It is inevitible. You could never understand us so I'm not going to explain anything, fleshbag." They talk like an angry stereotype of 90s goth kids. It seems odd that such old and otherwise savvy creatures wouldn't be a little more eloquent or convincing in their arguments, until you realize they never HAVE to. Benezia said that the longer she stayed around Saren, the more his arguments started sounding more correct. When you can reliably mind-control people and time is not an object, why bother with sophisticated speeches? Therefore, when the Catalyst/Reaper Consciousness starts contradicting himself:

Chaos is inevitible. vs. Synthesis is inevitible.
Synthesis cannot be forced. vs. You could synthesize everyone without their consent.
I was created to stop conflict between synthetics and organics. vs. ...So I start a war between them every 50k years.

Non-sequitur logic:

Given
A: Advanced organic civilizations always create synthetics
B: Synthetics will always go to war with organics
C: Chaos
D: A=>B
E: B=>C
F: An organic reached me (the Catalyst) on the Citadel
_____________________________________________
Inverse D=> !A=>!B
Inverse E=> !B=>!C
Transitive !A=>!C
Given F
Conclusion: !A=>!C is not true.

Or just flat-out refusing to give an answer:

Sherpard: Who designed the Crucible?
Catalyst: You wouldn't know them, and it would take longer than I would like to tell you.

This is because the Reaper Consciousness can't argue any better than this. Regardless of whether Shepard is partly indoctrinated or not, the Reaper's need him/her to listen to them NOW; they cannot wait for full indoctrination, nor would they be inclined to risk Shepard breaking free like Saren or TIM did.

[masster blaster]

Where is byne, or Arain when you need them. If they let me talk to the first time people, then get ready for more of me. HaHa

[masster blaster]

Loka have you read the last 15 pages. They are funny as heck.

[byne]

Great first post, Hrothdane. I always enjoy posts that point out how the godchild is full of crap, but rarely see any that explain why he is full of crap.

[masster blaster]

Oh and welcome Dane. You are wlcome to speculate with us to your hearts content, though I worn you we are a good weird bunch manily me, but we are all good friends.

[Pacifien]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...
And those interpretations aren't true reflections of the author's intent. It is insulting to the author to believe in a fan-theory rather than the author's work.

I believe, perhaps, that saying the authors are insulted is just a feint for the true cause of your diatribe. If you can make the people of this thread feel bad about the Indoctrination Theory by making them feel they are somehow disrespecting the very people who provided them with the material they're using, then perhaps they'll hang their head in shame and realize the error in their ways, yes?

Only none of the authors have ever said anything against the Indoctrination Theory. You don't even know if they were insulted. You could say if you were the author, you'd have been insulted, but I do know of one case where one creator actually welcomed a fan-theory with open arms: Ridley Scott accepted the fan-theory of Deckerd being a replicant in Bladerunner.

So, no, I don't think we need to worry about the authors here. They probably have taken enough insults from people saying their endings outright were horrible. Nevermind creating theories that work within the limitations of what the game gives them: just fans who outright say "no, everything about it is bad." That probably hurts, but every author goes through that once or twice or a dozen times throughout their career.

What we do need to worry about is how the fans treat each other, and I get the feeling that *you* personally were insulted. Because I quote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote... 
It supporters believe in a fan-theory and the fact that after the ec dlc, they are waiting that Bioware makes some announcement that the IT is right is both insulting and doesn't make them "true-fans" in that they want their own ending, not the authors. Then some supporters who have the audacity to call people who don't believe in the IT as blind, that the ec dlc was made to quell the "large people" and that the IT is reserved for the "small true fans". Then they follow on the "evidence" of the theory but get so engrossed into this behavior that they can't understand the endings were not meant to be hallucinations. They were real.

Yes, it must suck when someone says that the ending you accept isn't real and theirs will be the Promised Land. I have seen a supporter of Indoctrination Theory ask why people don't support it and then proceed to then argue how it would fix all the problems. At that point, they turn into preachers who suck the life out of the forum just as much as, I don't know, those who still claim that BioWare lied to them and still owe them a good ME3 or something.

But this is the Indoctrination Theory thread. It's all about discussing one theory in one thread, and so coming into the thread and screaming "you guys need to stop believing!" seems a bit rude. I mean, if you simply wanted to tell them "you guys need to stop telling nonbelievers they're blind," then that I could understand.

I don't actually believe in the Indoctrination Theory. And I didn't much care for the Extended Cut, because it actually hurt my own preferred ending. When I heard the Catalyst say the Mass Relays were going to blow up, my gut reaction was "YES!" Obviously, I'm on the same page as the authors. I am a TRUE FAN! WOOHOO!

Alright, peace, I'm out. 

[masster blaster]

Byne do you ever think I am like Caboose in a why.

[Hrothdane]

Thanks for the pleasant feedback. Finally got to use some of that symbolic logic class I took 5 years ago

[byne]

masster blaster wrote...

Byne do you ever think I am like Caboose in a why.

If I said yes, I feel like I would be both insulting you and Caboose.

So no.

[masster blaster]

So I am like Caboose, but it would insult Caboose because he is awsome. I get it.

[lex0r11]

Hrothdane wrote...

[...]

Given
A: Advanced organic civilizations always create synthetics
B: Synthetics will always go to war with organics
C: Chaos
D: A=>B
E: B=>C
F: An organic reached me (the Catalyst) on the Citadel
_____________________________________________
Inverse D=> !A=>!B
Inverse E=> !B=>!C
Transitive !A=>!C
Given F
Conclusion: !A=>!C is not true.

[...]

Ah, yes. That one Logic class I took for a semester...

You Sir/Madam are most welcome.

Modifié par lex0r11, 02 août 2012 - 04:46 .

[byne]

masster blaster wrote...

So I am like Caboose, but it would insult Caboose because he is awsome. I get it.

Thats not what I said.


But I'm not denying it either.

[masster blaster]

So you are neither comfirming, nor dening that I could be like Caboose at times.