432 réponses à ce sujet

[Knubbsal]

@OP
If your quotes and the way you interpret them have anything to do with some kind of future dlc or game, then BioWare implemented some terrible, terrible metagaming. This also counts for the whole indoctrination theory: It can't be true, else BioWare violated everything RPG stands for. They should be punched if they actually put ending hints in dialogue from npcs and data pads.

Luckily, none of your speculations will come true; It's all nitpicking and made up facts.

[SimonTheFrog]

SwobyJ wrote...

What I'm saying is that its either:
1)From Reapers tracking that specific child and Shepard looking at him and knowing it would be a good form somehow (sadistic bastards in that case)
2)From Reapers tracking what's happening on the Normandy and Shepard talking about the child (also sadistic bastards in that case)
3)From Shepard's memories (sadistic bastards)
4)From Shepard's memories, because the whole things is an illusion like the ENTIRE ending part of Leviathan itself <------------------------

Yes!
They stole that part from the film "contact". An alien species tries to communicate with humans via an interface which uses imagery ripped from the humans mind.

How is that connected to my suggestion that quotes should be evaluated very careful from within the context they are taken from?

[count_4]

Now here's a straw grasped tightly if I ever saw one.

I was rather fond of the IT after the release of ME3 because the writing couldn't possibly have been that bad. But by now, 8 months and several announcements towards ME4 later, it's getting a little ridiculous.
Even if it's just for the fact that ME4 is now developed by an entirely different team. If ME4 continues Shepards story, you wouldn't do that. And you certainly wouldn't release a fake press statement claiming the transition of the development because that would be just plain stupid.

[tettenjager]

count_4 wrote...

Now here's a straw grasped tightly if I ever saw one.

I was rather fond of the IT after the release of ME3 because the writing couldn't possibly have been that bad. But by now, 8 months and several announcements towards ME4 later, it's getting a little ridiculous.
Even if it's just for the fact that ME4 is now developed by an entirely different team. If ME4 continues Shepards story, you wouldn't do that. And you certainly wouldn't release a fake press statement claiming the transition of the development because that would be just plain stupid.

I agree, but these people are in a state of denial, and nothing we say can prove them otherwise. We just have to wait until bioware releases its last ME3 dlc and then we will see the RAAAAGE from the IT's in pure form.

Lots of tears will be shed

Modifié par tettenjager, 30 novembre 2012 - 04:09 .

[NoReapers]

I am kind of torn here. I hope that you're right, because I like the indoctrination theory, but I don't believe that they invested that much thought into it. However if they did, I will be really happy and congratulate them on this successful fourth wall breaking. Hell, I would even appreciate them taking this idea from the community and sell it as their own... if it wasn't planned all along...

Edit: Isn't 'Omega' the last ME3 DLC. You know, it would fit all this theories to call the last DLC 'Omega', right?

Modifié par Kamiloni, 30 novembre 2012 - 04:12 .

[SimonTheFrog]

SwobyJ wrote...

I'm telling you an exact example of an illusion for the ending.

BTW why did you think it chose the form of a child?

The child that Shepard saw burning in his arms with shadows surrounding them,

My personal assumption about what BioWare is trying to do here is the following:

The catalyst is surprised by the resourcefulness and vigor of this cycles organics in general and by the actions of Shep specifically. He then decides that is is time to end his role as guardian of the organics because the organics appearantly learned to rely on themselves and use their unity as strength to overcome threats caused by AI's.
(he warns that they will have to pick up the weapons later again if destroy is picked and at the same time says that only synthesis ends the conflict for good).
And because he decided to step away from his role as guardian and because he needs Shep to set his new plan in motion he needs to talk to Shep in a non-hostile way. Therefore he assumes this form of a child (out of Sheps brain) to have a conversation with Shepard whilst not to alianate him/her by his appearance.

The child is a symbol for the peace that the catalyst is offering.

(Please note: i hate the ending with a veangance but that is what i think Bioware tries to tell us).

[DoomsdayDevice]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

@ OP / Quotes.

To me this feels like insanity. The quotes are completely out of context. It feels like you are in that specific mindset and you find fitting words everywhere due to that fixation.

Have you seen the film "Pi" from Aronofsky? The protagonist does the same there.

Yes, I've seen it. And I know exactly what you are talking about. If this were a real life thing, I'd agree with you. I don't believe in real life conspiracy theories, I'm an extremely rational person.

I also didn't come to the conclusion that the ending was indocrination because of all this. I came to that conclusion after finishing the game the first time.

For me it was relatively simple. Illusive Man wanted control, and Saren had advocated synthesis. Both were indoctrinated. I didn't trust it for a second. Especially because this thing just so happened to look exactly like that kid I saw die back on Earth. A kid I have been having nightmares about. Nightmares that make me feel guilty about not being able to save everyone. Nightmares in which I hear voices of dead companions, and chase this child who always burns in the end, no matter how hard I try to save him. And here's a thing that looks like that kid. And he's telling me my friends will die if I pick the option that is the least favourable to him. It's clearly manipulation.

I didn't even know about indoctrination theory until I shared my own theory with a friend, and he pointed out that I wasn't the only one to interpret it this way.

I've been helping finding evidence in the IT thread, I've researched and debated the game for months now, and all of that has only reinforced my belief. With all that new information, I recently started a new playthrough for Omega, and my 4th wall kept being broken by all these subtle references. Could this be confirmation bias? Absolutely. I know exactly how confirmation bias works.

However, this isn't real life. It is fiction. In real life, I'd take Occam's Razor and be done with it. A work of fiction, however, can be intentionally complicated, misleading, and can contain hidden messages.

I personally think that some of these hints (especially the ones referring to the catalyst as an unshackled AI telling us what reality is, and introducing him as a personal assistance mech, and not wanting to reveal it is a Reaper AI, etcetera) are so obvious and hilarious that there's no doubt in my mind Bioware is just fooling around with us.

It is entirely possible to pick up on the ending being an indoctrination attempt without noticing any of this stuff. These quotes, in my opinion, are meant to be seen as hilarious foreshadowing after we've played the next game and know with hindsight how it all played out. Most of it wasn't intended to be picked up on a first playthrough.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 30 novembre 2012 - 04:23 .

[Jamie9]

Modifié par Jamie9, 30 novembre 2012 - 04:15 .

[dreamgazer]

I breached the darkness last night. (gasp)

A lot of well-reasoned, interesting ideas in the OP, and I appreciate the interpretation, but thinking that they'll capitalize on such an idea this long after the game's release is dubious. They didn't strike when the iron was hot.

[Jamie9]

The thing is about indoctrination, let's go back to ME1...

"Once the effects are noticeable, it's already too late." If the Reapers are indoctrinating you at the finale of ME3, Shepard is dead.

EDIT: Sorry about the empty post above. Don't know what happened there.

Modifié par Jamie9, 30 novembre 2012 - 04:17 .

[SimonTheFrog]

SwobyJ wrote...

"How is that connected to my suggestion that quotes should be evaluated very careful from within the context they are taken from?"

That's not how writing always works, I'm afraid. There are several contexts and layers to dialogue in the best of stories.

I have to say that I strongly believe that MassEffect is not one of thoses texts which is composed as one big piece of literature that has hidden secrets in its various layers of meta-structure. There are too many different writers involved and the planning of a game is too much subject to change and re-arrangement to make such a convoluted cryptic text possible. Some singular references, yes, of course. But not an overarching secret layer of meta-hints and clues. Not likely for such a game because the planning for that is simply not possible.
Therefore the best approach, I think, is to find out which themes seem to be linked intentionally and then work from there.

As I edited to my post earlier, Javik's theme is strongly linked to the characteristics of the Reaper war. He therefore would be a very likely candidate to be used as provider of quotes that say something of significance about the Reapers and about the catalyst.

Other characters maybe not so much because they are in the game for a different purpose and the writer would focus on getting that focus right.

[dreamgazer]

SwobyJ wrote...

Expansion, 1-2 years after launch, is a possibility, but I admit that's a total guess by me.

Oh, I like the idea of that kind of expansion some time after the game's release, but I could appreciate it in a few different forms if it's done well enough.  The iron-striking I was referring to was the more elaborate "DLC payoff" form of the indoctrination theory, not capitalizing on interest in further content for ME3. 

[Jamie9]

SwobyJ wrote...
The one thing I find disturbing is how many are willing to take the 'I control the Reapers, they are my solution' being at its word.

"Well does it have any reason to lie?" Heh, at minimum, it really doesn't want you to pick Destroy, yet still offers the option. To kill all Reapers. Yep. Just built into some pipes on the outside of the Crucible.

The catalyst doesn't have a choice, the Crucible overrides it's systems.

And it's hinted in Leviathan that the Leviathans themselves may have built, or at least heavily influenced the Crucible's design.