183 réponses à ce sujet

[Wayning_Star]

It's really just a deception canon fan ending choice requiring destroy choice, as all others are assumed the perogative of the intelligence. The idea is to infer,through story events, unexplainable circumstances, especially the conflict of interests considering what the catalyst 'motives' are. There is a leap of faith, that the catalyst is demanding a continuance, that is maintain the status quo via indoctriantion of Shep to further it's agenda. That agenda being harvest and the cycle.

Its a disconnection of reality, that Shep undergoes over time, via different sources for the IT inception. The ending reinforces this belief system, especially the ending where Shep is supposed to be in direct contact with the catalyst, making for 'complete control' to access the supposed choices, except destroy. Destroy is the ulitimate reward for Shep via the IT. IT revolves around the idea that Shep is decieved by the catalyst to make it's choice, instead of Shep for the MEU.

Of course there are many 'other' explanations for the events that are required for the IT, but the destroy ultimatum unhinges the basis, as the intelligence is required to inact the IT. We're still 'using' the catalyst, no matter what choice is made. So there has to be 'trust' in the reality of the catalyst and the choices, this includes the necessity and use of the crucible. The IT requires 'not' to trust the catalyst, but to trust the catalyst as a tool to invoke the IT, or to destroy, if we choose it as well.

We cannot have it both ways.

So the IT is just as described in its name, a theory. Interesting, but not an equation.

[HiddenInWar]

Me1mN0t wrote...

Isn't it funny how we have civil conversations about IT...until antiITers come along and inject their "opinion" that its some kind of cult. Yeah, that's constructive.

Calling ITers delusional isn't helping anything. Does it make you feel better about the game's ending? I don't understand why ppl feel the need to disparage IT. If you don't subscribe to it, then don't post. You're only adding to the toxicity in the forums.

Agreed.

I pointed out that there's groups for every ending supporter, how is IT any different? 

[Bill Casey]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Of course there are many 'other' explanations for the events that are required for the IT, but the destroy ultimatum unhinges the basis, as the intelligence is required to inact the IT. We're still 'using' the catalyst, no matter what choice is made. So there has to be 'trust' in the reality of the catalyst and the choices, this includes the necessity and use of the crucible. The IT requires 'not' to trust the catalyst, but to trust the catalyst as a tool to invoke the IT, or to destroy, if we choose it as well.

We cannot have it both ways.

The Choices are belief systems...

science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brainwashing3.htm

Progress and harmony: If you want, you can choose good. The agent introduces a new belief system as the path to "good." At this stage, the agent stops the abuse, offering the target physical comfort and mental calm in conjunction with the new belief system. The target is made to feel that it is he who must choose between old and new, giving the target the sense that his fate is in his own hands. The target has already denounced his old belief system in response to leniency and to­rment, and making a "conscious choice" in favor of the contrasting
belief system helps to further relieve his guilt: If he truly believes, then he really didn't betray anyone. The choice is not a difficult one: The new identity is safe and desirable because it is nothing like the one that led to his breakdown.

Modifié par Bill Casey, 24 janvier 2013 - 01:41 .

[Andrew Waples]

 i'm surpised this thread has lasted this long..<_<

[vandalDX]

MattFini wrote...

I sort of took it the same way. At least the reinforcemet that Shepard was just a drop in the proverbial bucket. We had this sense throughout the trilogy, but Leviathan seemed to widen the gap even further.

Although I have to admit, it wasn't until the end of Leviathan and how closely it mirrored the confrontation with StarChild that I really started to wonder whether or not IT was valid.

And I'm willing to bet that was deliberate. Whether or not that was just the writers having fun or encouraging fans to keep the debate going - I don't know. 

But if I look at the endings literally, Leviathan also told me just how broken the Reaper logic was and how it would really be best for everyone to just destroy the damn things once and for all. 

Well, there's that.  And there's that pesky, problematic, enticing breath that Shepard is allowed if you choose just that.  Deliberateness all the way.  These guys are too good.  Too good.  The future is bright, either way.

[warblewobble]

Bill Casey wrote...

warblewobble wrote...

Can someone explain to me why IT isn't allowed anymore? I've read references to the IT thread being shut down but I couldn't find it to see the moderator post. Is that topic really no longer allowed or are people just saying that because the thread was shut down for some other reason that they feel was an excuse to end it?

People started using the IT thread as a chatroom...
To talk about things like what was on television...


It got really bad when Chris went on vacation...
If I remember correctly, he cited BansheeOwnage as having 3,000 some odd posts in Mark 3 alone...

There's another IT Mega Thread in the IT group, which is, you guessed it, being used like a chat room...

So there was indeed spamming as well then. I guess it was sort of inevitable that people would run out of things to try to cite as evidence. (Leviathan could be played with, but Omega? That was a pretty straightforward run and gun. Not that people didn't probably try to fit it in.)

[GethPrimeMKII]

warblewobble wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

warblewobble wrote...

Can someone explain to me why IT isn't allowed anymore? I've read references to the IT thread being shut down but I couldn't find it to see the moderator post. Is that topic really no longer allowed or are people just saying that because the thread was shut down for some other reason that they feel was an excuse to end it?

People started using the IT thread as a chatroom...
To talk about things like what was on television...


It got really bad when Chris went on vacation...
If I remember correctly, he cited BansheeOwnage as having 3,000 some odd posts in Mark 3 alone...

There's another IT Mega Thread in the IT group, which is, you guessed it, being used like a chat room...

So there was indeed spamming as well then. I guess it was sort of inevitable that people would run out of things to try to cite as evidence. (Leviathan could be played with, but Omega? That was a pretty straightforward run and gun. Not that people didn't probably try to fit it in.)

In a mega thread that has gone on 8000+ pages, some off topic conversation was bound to happen. I admit it did get pretty bad when we ran out of things to analyze and discuss. 

Modifié par GethPrimeMKII, 24 janvier 2013 - 01:51 .

[MattFini]

It will be interesting to see if this new DLC substantiates IT at all.

Omega did not, but the previous two DLCs certainly did.

Whether or not it was intended, it seems like the writers are having a good time harkening back to it every now and again.

[BleedingUranium]

MattFini wrote...

It will be interesting to see if this new DLC substantiates IT at all.

Omega did not, but the previous two DLCs certainly did.

Whether or not it was intended, it seems like the writers are having a good time harkening back to it every now and again.

Omega did have some great thematic dialogue though. And the scene where Aria rips open the forcefield is remarkably similar to Shepard choosing Destroy (with IT).

Ithurael wrote...

IT is more a way of viewing the ending -
not an actual option. in classic IT 3 out of the 4 choices ==
indoctrination and the entire ending is a dream.

The Literal view has 4 endings, the IT View has - essentially - two (Indoctrinated/Not Indoctrinated)

It is just a way some interpret the ending. They have the same content as the literal view and nothing more.

That's
an excellent summary Ithurael, thank you. The Indoctrination Theory is
nothing more than seeing the same events through a different lens.

Me1mN0t wrote...

Isn't it funny how we have civil
conversations about IT...until antiITers come along and inject their
"opinion" that its some kind of cult. Yeah, that's constructive.

Calling
ITers delusional isn't helping anything. Does it make you feel better
about the game's ending? I don't understand why ppl feel the need to
disparage IT. If you don't subscribe to it, then don't post. You're only
adding to the toxicity in the forums.

Agreed.

MattFini wrote...

On one hand, it seemed to cement the
idea that the StarChild should be taken at face value - a narrow-minded
VI who is executing his programming the only way it knows how...

But
then they go and have Shepard's mind get invaded by the Leviathan and
purposely design the whole sequence to mirror the end meeting with
StarChild -- suggesting that Shepard's mind could, in fact, be invaded
again at the end of the game.

It's amazing how many
people say that Leviathan's mention of an "intelligence" somehow proves
that the kid exists and the endings must be literal, while ignoring the
obvious similarities of the conversation with Leviathan and with the
kid.

Cecilia L wrote...

Have they still not fixed the Leviathan music? Anyone who knows?

Nope, sadly it's still missing

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 24 janvier 2013 - 02:22 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

Omega had some excellent ending foreshadowing. In the reactor you're give a choice by a villain to save the few (Nyreen & Aria) over the many (thousands of Omega residents). It strongly resembles the choice you are later given by the Catalyst to save the few (geth & EDI) over the many (the rest of the galaxy). The big kicker is if you saw through Petrovsky's bluff and were willing to sacrifice Nyreen and Aria to save Omega, you ended up saving everyone.

[KingZayd]

MattFini wrote...

BioWare wanted speculation around their ending.

The IT theory is certainly an interesting take on the ending.

I never much believed it myself although there are certain aspects of the EC and Leviathan that seem to have been included specifically to add fuel to the IT fire.

I like that ... and it does make a certain kind of sense.

The problem being, if you interpret the endings as IT, you've got an even worse ending to the trilogy since it literally leaves everything up in the air.

whether it's worse, is debateable. 

[MattFini]

BleedingUranium wrote...

MattFini wrote...

On one hand, it seemed to cement the
idea that the StarChild should be taken at face value - a narrow-minded
VI who is executing his programming the only way it knows how...

But
then they go and have Shepard's mind get invaded by the Leviathan and
purposely design the whole sequence to mirror the end meeting with
StarChild -- suggesting that Shepard's mind could, in fact, be invaded
again at the end of the game.

It's amazing how many
people say that Leviathan's mention of an "intelligence" somehow proves
that the kid exists and the endings must be literal, while ignoring the
obvious similarities of the conversation with Leviathan and with the
kid.

Yeah. I was surprised to find people on these boards go so far as to deny the similarities between those two scenes. 

Believe or disbelieve in IT, whatever.

But Leviathan's finish was clearly designed to muddy the waters of reality at the ending of the game.  

[BleedingUranium]

KingZayd wrote...

MattFini wrote...

BioWare wanted speculation around their ending.

The IT theory is certainly an interesting take on the ending.

I never much believed it myself although there are certain aspects of the EC and Leviathan that seem to have been included specifically to add fuel to the IT fire.

I like that ... and it does make a certain kind of sense.

The problem being, if you interpret the endings as IT, you've got an even worse ending to the trilogy since it literally leaves everything up in the air.

whether it's worse, is debateable.

If they never follow up on it it wouldn't be a great ending, as it's not actually an ending. You charge the beam, get hit by Harby's laser, and wake up later in some rubble there. The end.

It's a valid concern about IT, but not a valid complaint unless they never do future content. It's also not a point against IT being a possibility.

MattFini wrote...

Yeah. I was surprised to find people on these boards go so far as to deny the similarities between those two scenes. 

Believe or disbelieve in IT, whatever.

But Leviathan's finish was clearly designed to muddy the waters of reality at the ending of the game.

Exactly!

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 24 janvier 2013 - 02:26 .

[KingZayd]

BleedingUranium wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

MattFini wrote...

BioWare wanted speculation around their ending.

The IT theory is certainly an interesting take on the ending.

I never much believed it myself although there are certain aspects of the EC and Leviathan that seem to have been included specifically to add fuel to the IT fire.

I like that ... and it does make a certain kind of sense.

The problem being, if you interpret the endings as IT, you've got an even worse ending to the trilogy since it literally leaves everything up in the air.

whether it's worse, is debateable.

If they never follow up on it it wouldn't be a great ending, as it's not actually an ending. You charge the beam, get hit by Harby's laser, and wake up later in some rubble there. The end.

It's a valid concern about IT, but not a valid complaint unless they never do future content. It's also not a point against IT being a possibility.

MattFini wrote...

Yeah. I was surprised to find people on these boards go so far as to deny the similarities between those two scenes. 

Believe or disbelieve in IT, whatever.

But Leviathan's finish was clearly designed to muddy the waters of reality at the ending of the game.

Exactly!

If they never follow up, the correct interpretation would be that there was only 1 ending. And that was that we lost. Shepard was indoctrinated either way. Still a far better ending than the alternative in my opinion.

[Random Geth]

No. It's an explanation that can SET UP an ending, but it isn't one in itself.

[Davik Kang]

BleedingUranium wrote...

MattFini wrote...

Yeah. I was surprised to find people on these boards go so far as to deny the similarities between those two scenes. 

Believe or disbelieve in IT, whatever.

But Leviathan's finish was clearly designed to muddy the waters of reality at the ending of the game.

Exactly!

On this topic, I still don't get how those "everythingmustbeliteralists" explain the fact that the Big Bad looks like a human child from Shepard's dreams.  I was gonna make a thread about it back in the day when I came here all the time, but I run into so much blind stupidity on here that I could invisage what the thread would end up like before I'd even drafted an OP, so I didn't bother.

But in case any "LOLit'snotITit'sBadWriting" drones happen to pop into this thread, any explanation for this?  Even if your explanation is Bad Writing, any suggestion as to what they were going for that they wrote so badly?  Anything?

In case the question is not clear - why do we have a visual representation of a character, whom we saw in Dream 1, Dream 2, and Dream 3, and who is in fact the main focus if each of these dreams, appearing in the final scene of an ending sequence? An ending sequence that is confusing to say the least?  How exactly do you then go on to deny, without any doubt,  that the ending could possibly be... I don't know... Dream 4?

Modifié par Davik Kang, 24 janvier 2013 - 02:37 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

I don't understand how players arrive at the conclusion that Leviathan proves the Catalyst is real. It merely proves there is an intelligence that acts as a leader. There's nothing said that indicates the Catalyst is the intelligence.

If we're going to take everything at face value, then the Catalyst 's claim that it is the Citadel makes his story even more nonsensical. How could the Catalyst, who is the the intelligence and also the Citadel, have constructed the reapers if the Reapers constructed the Citadel?

[Wayning_Star]

KingZayd wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

MattFini wrote...

BioWare wanted speculation around their ending.

The IT theory is certainly an interesting take on the ending.

I never much believed it myself although there are certain aspects of the EC and Leviathan that seem to have been included specifically to add fuel to the IT fire.

I like that ... and it does make a certain kind of sense.

The problem being, if you interpret the endings as IT, you've got an even worse ending to the trilogy since it literally leaves everything up in the air.

whether it's worse, is debateable.

If they never follow up on it it wouldn't be a great ending, as it's not actually an ending. You charge the beam, get hit by Harby's laser, and wake up later in some rubble there. The end.

It's a valid concern about IT, but not a valid complaint unless they never do future content. It's also not a point against IT being a possibility.

MattFini wrote...

Yeah. I was surprised to find people on these boards go so far as to deny the similarities between those two scenes. 

Believe or disbelieve in IT, whatever.

But Leviathan's finish was clearly designed to muddy the waters of reality at the ending of the game.

Exactly!

If they never follow up, the correct interpretation would be that there was only 1 ending. And that was that we lost. Shepard was indoctrinated either way. Still a far better ending than the alternative in my opinion.

I'd submit that we must figure out IF there is an ending that actually 'suits' the catalyst. I didn't see any choice that favors the catalyst. Or actually ends chaos(and impossible trek, as nature refuses to be organized OR told what to do)

We mix and match realities of different ideals to contain an energy,not races or beings, but survival, as the constant. Even the basis for evolution is grounded in the 'idea' of intellect surviving.. it's self.

What motivates life to live on and what is the line drawn to omit that survival? Add technology gaining ground on organic sentience,then you end up mixing more batter for not enough biscuits... What will it take for the intelligence to survive as one intellect, become, say civilization? Should we just live with strife or figure out a better way, and then commit to our future?

The IT theory relies on the old way of thinking, locking out new ideals for some reason? Any guesses as to what/why that may be?

[HiddenInWar]

I think I would have a better understanding of where IT stands now if I finished leviathan. Does it hint at anything regarding it or help its confirmation/denial?

[KingZayd]

Wayning_Star wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

MattFini wrote...

BioWare wanted speculation around their ending.

The IT theory is certainly an interesting take on the ending.

I never much believed it myself although there are certain aspects of the EC and Leviathan that seem to have been included specifically to add fuel to the IT fire.

I like that ... and it does make a certain kind of sense.

The problem being, if you interpret the endings as IT, you've got an even worse ending to the trilogy since it literally leaves everything up in the air.

whether it's worse, is debateable.

If they never follow up on it it wouldn't be a great ending, as it's not actually an ending. You charge the beam, get hit by Harby's laser, and wake up later in some rubble there. The end.

It's a valid concern about IT, but not a valid complaint unless they never do future content. It's also not a point against IT being a possibility.

MattFini wrote...

Yeah. I was surprised to find people on these boards go so far as to deny the similarities between those two scenes. 

Believe or disbelieve in IT, whatever.

But Leviathan's finish was clearly designed to muddy the waters of reality at the ending of the game.

Exactly!

If they never follow up, the correct interpretation would be that there was only 1 ending. And that was that we lost. Shepard was indoctrinated either way. Still a far better ending than the alternative in my opinion.

I'd submit that we must figure out IF there is an ending that actually 'suits' the catalyst. I didn't see any choice that favors the catalyst. Or actually ends chaos(and impossible trek, as nature refuses to be organized OR told what to do)

We mix and match realities of different ideals to contain an energy,not races or beings, but survival, as the constant. Even the basis for evolution is grounded in the 'idea' of intellect surviving.. it's self.

What motivates life to live on and what is the line drawn to omit that survival? Add technology gaining ground on organic sentience,then you end up mixing more batter for not enough biscuits... What will it take for the intelligence to survive as one intellect, become, say civilization? Should we just live with strife or figure out a better way, and then commit to our future?

The IT theory relies on the old way of thinking, locking out new ideals for some reason? Any guesses as to what/why that may be?

IF none of the choices favors the Starchild, then why does he decide to cooperate? The Reapers had won. IT makes more sense to me than the alternative.

Modifié par KingZayd, 24 janvier 2013 - 02:52 .

[Wayning_Star]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

I don't understand how players arrive at the conclusion that Leviathan proves the Catalyst is real. It merely proves there is an intelligence that acts as a leader. There's nothing said that indicates the Catalyst is the intelligence.

If we're going to take everything at face value, then the Catalyst 's claim that it is the Citadel makes his story even more nonsensical. How could the Catalyst, who is the the intelligence and also the Citadel, have constructed the reapers if the Reapers constructed the Citadel?

the Leviathan reveal that the catalsyt is the intelligence it created that went astray, and got it's own ideas about the nature of the Leviathan problem with errant thralls creating tech that can assume sentient independent thoughts.

Levi loath independent thought, as it undermines their evolutionary realization of ther superiority in the MEU. They 'know' that  they are superior, or an Apex Race, all and everything else is just there for them to continue on. All organics tend to take this view as a survival tactic. Lessor is used as tools by greater. Rock hammer sissors paper.

Any choice given in the story reflect this aspect of existence, otherwise, there would NO need to pick the 'right' one to garner the 'best' result. It's the rigors of logic.


the catalyst used thralls of the levi to construct the first reapership and then mass produced just like any other society does, say pop tarts. Then they went about the construction of the cycles, all starting with the citadel. I suppose some of the constructs in the MEU were accomplished by upcomming societies between harvests. But the first were the citadel and relays to complete the experimental MEU for the intellligence after the realization of being a catalyst for change. Think of it as a the rule of and ultimate, give'n take.

In the end, organics must choose how to end that cycle they inadvertantly created via their very own evolutionary advances.

It's hard to imagine what exactly might just be the apex of evolution or how it could or would be achieved?

[vandalDX]

HiddenInWar wrote...

I think I would have a better understanding of where IT stands now if I finished leviathan. Does it hint at anything regarding it or help its confirmation/denial?

There are several factors that seem to suggest a theme of indoctrinaction in the game, especially advanced through Leviathan.  The first of these is the context of the Leviathan story itself: murder borne of indoctrination.  Throw in the dreamlike sequence at the ocean floor and the Leviathan-centered questions that Shepard asks the Starchild, and it seems like there's attention of a very specific nature being placed on this element of the Mass Effect universe.

Modifié par valhallaVANDAL, 24 janvier 2013 - 02:58 .

[BleedingUranium]

HiddenInWar wrote...

I think I would have a better understanding of where IT stands now if I finished leviathan. Does it hint at anything regarding it or help its confirmation/denial?

The setting and such of the end of Leviathan is very similar to the decision chamber.

Edit: Vandal explained it better ^

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 24 janvier 2013 - 03:00 .

[HiddenInWar]

valhallaVANDAL wrote...

HiddenInWar wrote...

I think I would have a better understanding of where IT stands now if I finished leviathan. Does it hint at anything regarding it or help its confirmation/denial?

There are several factors that seem to suggest a theme of indoctrinaction in the game, especially advanced through Leviathan.  The first of these is the context of the Leviathan story itself: murder borne of indoctrination.  Throw in the dreamlike sequence at the ocean floor and the Leviathan-centered questions that Shepard asks the Starchild, and it seems like there's attention of a very specific nature being placed on this element of the Mass Effect universe.

Interesting.

[draconian139]

KingZayd wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

MattFini wrote...

BioWare wanted speculation around their ending.

The IT theory is certainly an interesting take on the ending.

I never much believed it myself although there are certain aspects of the EC and Leviathan that seem to have been included specifically to add fuel to the IT fire.

I like that ... and it does make a certain kind of sense.

The problem being, if you interpret the endings as IT, you've got an even worse ending to the trilogy since it literally leaves everything up in the air.

whether it's worse, is debateable.

If they never follow up on it it wouldn't be a great ending, as it's not actually an ending. You charge the beam, get hit by Harby's laser, and wake up later in some rubble there. The end.

It's a valid concern about IT, but not a valid complaint unless they never do future content. It's also not a point against IT being a possibility.

MattFini wrote...

Yeah. I was surprised to find people on these boards go so far as to deny the similarities between those two scenes. 

Believe or disbelieve in IT, whatever.

But Leviathan's finish was clearly designed to muddy the waters of reality at the ending of the game.

Exactly!

If they never follow up, the correct interpretation would be that there was only 1 ending. And that was that we lost. Shepard was indoctrinated either way. Still a far better ending than the alternative in my opinion.

Or Shepard wasn't indoctrinated but we still lost.  Which is what I lean towards.