148 réponses à ce sujet

[69_Gio_69]

Guys, The ending was confirmed as real. I wish the bioware forum wasn't in such a **** storm about it. #Falsehope to people who believe in IT.

No they haven't confirmed this. They actually said that indoctrination was a viable possibility. Do you have a source? 

 

 

What? I thought that it had been established right after the game was released that the child was in fact real.

So you there was really a kid in the vent huh. Strange.  

 

a. The kid goes trough a closed door. This can't most certainly not be a glitch. This was the same level as the demo in E3 all the way back. Even then the discussion was what was up with the child. So it cannot be a oversight. So it must be this is some kind of real super kid or something then.

b. Goes into a building that then gets destroyed by a f.cking reaper blast. 

c. Shepard finds him perfectly fine in a ventilation shaft. 

d. A 'real' little kid who just got saved by hiding in a vent, says to the most respected, well known human soldier in the universe that 'he can't save' him. Typical child stuff there.

e. When Shepard looks away the kid disappears into thin air, and you hear a very obvious reaper growl.

f. The kid goes through the vents (which is clearly marked with a 'dangour' sign) and gets down the building all the way to the rescue shuttles.

g. Regarding the picture. Look at Leviathan DLC. Indoctrination can have delusions (the same as the child) so why can't this picture be a delusion? Leviathan makes it clear that it is possible.

 

If your senses don't go of when looking at these facts, than you are brain dead. Maybe you can have a different interpretation for these facts, but these things should be noticed at least. 

 

Now I will go a little farther. The writers let us know that the child is one of the, maybe the most important character of Mass Effect 3. He is not some by product. He is the main theme of the story. Think back to the moment when we see the child. 

 

1. The child is the very first person we see in the game. The game starts with a cruiser flying through the air. However, as the camera pans out slowly we notice that it is actually the child playing with a toy version of the ship. In retrospect this is clear a nod to the whole story of Mass Effect 3. Something like 'not everything is what it seems' / 'the reapers are toying with us'. Or do you think the writers just put it in randomly? It is the opening cinematic. It has meaning.

 

2. After the Reapers hit earth we see him again, looking very shady as I already described extensively above. At the very least it is clear that the child wants to bring doubt to Shepards abilaties and is behaving in a very un-childlike manner.

 

3. The child is then seen in the three dreams. The dreams are very much out of place compared to the rest of the trillogy. It is the first time emotions are forced on us, thus providing a possible disconnect between Shepard and the player. The dreams are very clear. It represents that shepard is lost (the woods), the growing number of shadows are the people which couldn't be saved, and he hears the voices of his fallen comrades. In every dream the kid burns and in the last dream you burn with him. Saying you cannot save the people and you cannot save yourself (one ending shows these dreams are wrong). Shepards doubt in himself is increasing. Some say it's  PTSD, I think it has more to do with the Reapers.

 

4. So the purpose of the child is still pretty vague so far. The only thing that is certain is that the kid is shady forcing us to doubt ourselves and that he is important for the story and Shepard. But now the writers do the thing that makes it completely obvious what is going on. After some crazy manouvres Shepard finally reaches the citadel. After a final show down with TIM and a final moment with Anderson (Anderson transports his shot wound to Shepard, a big movie cliché that Anderson and Shepard were actually the same person and a clear sign that 'not everything is what it seems' ). Then Shepard opens the arms of the Citadel and is teleported by some magical elevator to 'the dicision chamber'. Who is waiting there? The Child! Better yet, this child claims to be the collective conciousness of all the Reapers making it some kind of ultimate Reaper god. This kid is going to tell us what our choices are and which choice is the best option. This is the most important choice of the whole trillogy (the writers way of a 'end boss' because a different way was too 'video gamey'). Shep0ard fighting the reapers! 

 

This is why I said that people that don't understand this, don't understand writing. Writers don't open with a cinametic of the child if he isn't important. The writers won't let the kid do impossible things like going into explosive buildings if they don't want to tell us something with it. The writers don't use the kid in dreams symbolising a doubtfull shepard if they don't have intentions with it. And writers won't curtainly not make a clear connection between the reapers and the child if they don't want to tell us there is a connection.

 

The writers made it clear. There is a clear connections between Reapers - The Child - Dreams - Ending. It is very obvious. The Reapers' most powerfull tool is indoctrination. The writers wanted to do a boss battle in 'Mass Effect Style', meaning choices. It isn't rocket science. It is actually VERY obvious.    

[Farangbaa]

*snip*

 

I know IT is true. Because I never equip a pistol, yet Shepard always carries one.

[GreyLycanTrope]

No they haven't confirmed this. They actually said that indoctrination was a viable possibility. Do you have a source? 

So viable the topic was officially removed from the main discussion forum and banished to groups.

[jasonxxsatanna]

We all agree this topic has been beat to death ......but one thing is obvious, BW wanted all the fans to be taken back  or shocked about the endings .

No dev has ever came forth to clear up or explain what actually was suppose to be interpreted by the ending or what Shep was going through.

They want to keep the conversations going .....its good publicity and it keeps the hype up for future installments of the franchise.

You look at the PAX panel they did few years back (which you can watch on YOUTUBE) and not one question about the ending was really answered or if Shep was indoctrinated at any point , how Shep survived the destroyer ending.

 Its like once that script was leaked they needed to come up with something to cover it up ,so speculation became the answer for the whole game .....too much speculation which lead to EC which still left some speculation.

So I think we will never truly have a solid answer.

 

They left it up to the player to speculate what they themselves felt really happen.      

[ImaginaryMatter]

No they haven't confirmed this. They actually said that indoctrination was a viable possibility. Do you have a source? 

 

 

...

 

Okay, except there is a certain VI character who doesn't detect that Shepard is Indoctrinated on two occasions. If the kid is a hullicination (I think that's what you're claiming, in the Indoctrination Codex entry it's the closest symptom that fits) then means Shepard is in a later stage of Indoctrination, which surely means the VI would pick up on it; afterall the . I've never actually scene an ITer come up with valid explanation around this, so I'm very anxious to see what you can come up with.

 

The kid is important, because as most people have assumed and what the artbook states, the kid is supposed to represent all the people Shepard couldn't save, hence his statement about Shepard not being able to help him, this causes guilt; the dreams are a manifestation of that guilt. As for the stuff about him running into the building and surviving, if we had to suspect every weird, seemingly impossible thing Shepard and friends do during the entire series as some attempt at something subversive we might as well accept the Ryncol Theory, because that stuff happens all the time.

 

If you want to believe the IT because it makes you feel better about choosing the Destroy option or whatever go ahead. The rest of us accept the ending for what it is whether we deem it bad, or awful, or whatever. Just don't come around here stating things like it's sooooo obvious like a David Icke reader, because the rest of us that see unrelated oddities that most likely have no connection to the hard in-game facts of Indoctrination (rather than speculation), are just that, unrelated.

[GreyLycanTrope]

I like the Ryncol Theory, but I usually end up regretting it in the morning.

[SwobyJ]

Undergoing indoctrination =/= 'Indoctrinated Presence detected'

 

Kai Leng --> Fully brought into the Cerberus Reaper tech

 

Shepard (in IT) --> Still undergoing process of being brought into the Reapers, and actively fighting it every step of the way

 

Therefore, Shepard =/= an indoctrinated person, even if experiencing symptoms. He's not working FOR the Reapers. He doesn't BELIEVE what they want him to. His mind is his OWN.

 

Seriously, if the Prothians had tech to detect even the hints of indoctrination, we'd have known it by now. Though then again, Crucible and Javik etc, haha.

 

~~~

 

That said, I get your point, and how the Prothian VI weakens the case for IT.

 

But my counterpoint would be something else that you'd completely deny too, so it's not really worth it to elaborate lol. It's so far beyond IT that ITers don't agree at all.

 

I'll just say that it's less 'Shepard being Indoctrinated' and more 'Shepard being challenged'.

[69_Gio_69]

Okay, except there is a certain VI character who doesn't detect that Shepard is Indoctrinated on two occasions. If the kid is a hullicination (I think that's what you're claiming, in the Indoctrination Codex entry it's the closest symptom that fits) then means Shepard is in a later stage of Indoctrination, which surely means the VI would pick up on it; afterall the . I've never actually scene an ITer come up with valid explanation around this, so I'm very anxious to see what you can come up with.

 

The kid is important, because as most people have assumed and what the artbook states, the kid is supposed to represent all the people Shepard couldn't save, hence his statement about Shepard not being able to help him, this causes guilt; the dreams are a manifestation of that guilt. As for the stuff about him running into the building and surviving, if we had to suspect every weird, seemingly impossible thing Shepard and friends do during the entire series as some attempt at something subversive we might as well accept the Ryncol Theory, because that stuff happens all the time.

 

If you want to believe the IT because it makes you feel better about choosing the Destroy option or whatever go ahead. The rest of us accept the ending for what it is whether we deem it bad, or awful, or whatever. Just don't come around here stating things like it's sooooo obvious like a David Icke reader, because the rest of us that see unrelated oddities that most likely have no connection to the hard in-game facts of Indoctrination (rather than speculation), are just that, unrelated.

1. Has been explained a 1000 times. Swoby explaines it again. You also suggest you know how the VI reads indoctrination, which you don't.  

 

2. I don't believe in IT because it makes me 'feel better'? Don't insult me. I played the games extensively and interpreted it in my own way. I have seen enough movies and played enough games to know when a writer wants to tell me something and when it is just a plain oversight. You are also missing my point regarding the kid completely. I am saying the writers let the kid do impossible things ON PURPOSE. They let him walk through a closed door ON PURPOSE. He survived a impossible situation in the building ON PURPOSE. He disappears when Shepard looks away ON PURPOSE. They play a Reaper noise ON PURPOSE. The Kid reacts in a un-childlike way ON PURPOSE. In your interpretation where the kid is real. What is the added value of those scenes? There is no added value. It is just stupid to put those scenes in. If they wanted to let us know the child was real they would have executed those scenes in a totally different way. 

 

If the child was real. The kid would go hide in a corner, not go running through closed doors. He would have cried, and pleaded to Shepard to save his life. Asking for his mother or whatever. Shepard would have taken the child with him and told him to stay close.  Shepard would have failed and it would have haunted him. If you execute it that way, you show that the kid is actually real and the impact would be even greater. But they didn't. They choose to let the kid impossible things. In the few scenes he has. I'm saying they choose this direction on purpose, you say it was handy for the story to progress. What is more probable? 

 

3. I don't write all these things so you can just selectively comment on the parts you find convenient and then come to the conclusion that I'm just making stuff up to make me feel better. Comment on all the parts if you want a fair discussion. 

 

4. Where is this source that claims the child is actually real? Or did he just make that up? 

[ImaginaryMatter]

1. Has been explained a 1000 times. Swoby explaines it again. You also suggest you know how the VI reads indoctrination, which you don't.  

 

2. I don't believe in IT because it makes me 'feel better'? Don't insult me. I played the games extensively and interpreted it in my own way. I have seen enough movies and played enough games to know when a writer wants to tell me something and when it is just a plain oversight. You are also missing my point regarding the kid completely. I am saying the writers let the kid do impossible things ON PURPOSE. They let him walk through a closed door ON PURPOSE. He survived a impossible situation in the building ON PURPOSE. He disappears when Shepard looks away ON PURPOSE. They play a Reaper noise ON PURPOSE. The Kid reacts in a un-childlike way ON PURPOSE. In your interpretation where the kid is real. What is the added value of those scenes? There is no added value. It is just stupid to put those scenes in. If they wanted to let us know the child was real they would have executed those scenes in a totally different way. 

 

If the child was real. The kid would go hide in a corner, not go running through closed doors. He would have cried, and pleaded to Shepard to save his life. Asking for his mother or whatever. Shepard would have taken the child with him and told him to stay close.  Shepard would have failed and it would have haunted him. If you execute it that way, you show that the kid is actually real and the impact would be even greater. But they didn't. They choose to let the kid impossible things. In the few scenes he has. I'm saying they choose this direction on purpose, you say it was handy for the story to progress. What is more probable? 

 

3. I don't write all these things so you can just selectively comment on the parts you find convenient and then come to the conclusion that I'm just making stuff up to make me feel better. Comment on all the parts if you want a fair discussion. 

 

4. Where is this source that claims the child is actually real? Or did he just make that up? 

 

Has not been explained 1000 times, ITers usually avoid it. The VI explains that it has security protocals in place to avoid revealing information to Indoctrinated personel. If the child is an hullicination caused by a symptom of Indoctrination that means Shepard is Indoctrinated, not that they are attempting Indoctrination on Shepard, just straight up Indoctrinated. Most of us have a pretty good idea on what the writers intended, they did afterall, put a message in the game after the Stargazer scene that states that Shepard beat the Reapers; it may not be super subtle, but it's intention seems fairly straight forward.

[SwobyJ]

Well that's where I diverge from IT.

 

I think Shepard defeated the Reapers no matter what. He's cool like that.

[AlanC9]

Personally, Alan, I'd like you to just stop complaining about the ending and enjoy the rest of the game. People can't seem to do that though. Or move on to play some other game if it still bothers you..

I was complaining about the ending?

[69_Gio_69]

Has not been explained 1000 times, ITers usually avoid it. The VI explains that it has security protocals in place to avoid revealing information to Indoctrinated personel. If the child is an hullicination caused by a symptom of Indoctrination that means Shepard is Indoctrinated, not that they are attempting Indoctrination on Shepard, just straight up Indoctrinated. Most of us have a pretty good idea on what the writers intended, they did afterall, put a message in the game after the Stargazer scene that states that Shepard beat the Reapers; it may not be super subtle, but it's intention seems fairly straight forward.

 

Not true. If I have stuffed nose it doesn't mean I have the flu. But it is a sign that it is coming. In the end, the true 'symptom' of indoctrination is when you are controlled by the Reapers. Shepard is not yet controlled, although you can say that in the end of the game he is very susceptical to their suggestions. In my opinion, Shepard will be indoctrinated when he chooses 'control' or 'synthesis'. Because then he would have changed his resolve. He nog longer believes that destroying the reapers is the right path. But rather controlling them or becoming one with them. That change in thought process is the moment he really becomes indoctrinated. It is also the difference for instance, with TIM, Saren and also Kai Leng. They all believed that the reapers shouldn't/cannot be destroyed. 

 

The codex states that there are different forms of indoctrination. Slowly and rapidly. How do you explain that? Are both methods the same? Are they both evenly powerful, or are there graduations? If so, how does that work?

 

Also, again you are not commenting on anything I have said. You just ignore it and go on with your own arguments.  

 

 

 

 

[Village_Idiot]

As I stated before, this debate is utterly fruitless. Trying to say "my dreams and visions are more valid than yours" is about as subjective as it gets. I could very well reason that the same oddities IT followers latch onto are in fact being caused by psychic space monkeys from another galaxy. Is it true? Unlikely, but good luck trying to disprove it.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Not true. If I have stuffed nose it doesn't mean I have the flu. But it is a sign that it is coming. In the end, the true 'symptom' of indoctrination is when you are controlled by the Reapers. Shepard is not yet controlled, although you can say that in the end of the game he is very susceptical to their suggestions. In my opinion, Shepard will be indoctrinated when he chooses 'control' or 'synthesis'. Because then he would have changed his resolve. He nog longer believes that destroying the reapers is the right path. But rather controlling them or becoming one with them. That change in thought process is the moment he really becomes indoctrinated. It is also the difference for instance, with TIM, Saren and also Kai Leng. They all believed that the reapers shouldn't/cannot be destroyed. 

 

The codex states that there are different forms of indoctrination. Slowly and rapidly. How do you explain that? Are both methods the same? Are they both evenly powerful, or are there graduations? If so, how does that work?

 

Also, again you are not commenting on anything I have said. You just ignore it and go on with your own arguments.  

 

 

 

 

 

There's no point to arguing everything. When discussing the validity of something like Newtonian mechanics I don't have to discuss every instance it is wrong to disprove it, I only have to do that once. And while a story isn't science or math, if there are a few points in the game where it is straight forward that the writers never intended for any form of IT to be true and that drawing such a conclusion is not obvious, then there is no point in discussing anything else; it would just be a waste of time. You're right there is a lot of oddities about the child scene, but those oddities are scattered throughout the game; it will take forever to go through them all. It's not like the BioWare writing staff is trying to tell us something when Shepard keeps pulling out Avengers and Predator weapons from out of thin air, it's just a sign that the cutscene animators cut a few corners. To use your stuffy nose analogy your stuffy nose could be caused by a large number of factors, cold weather, flu, allergies, etc.

So, I think when the end of the game says, "Congratulations on bringing an end to the Reaper threat. Commander Shepard has become a legend, and from here you can continue to build that legend..." Most of us take that as a sign that the ending was to be taken at face value. End of story. And then there are scenes like the ones with Vendetta. It's been established that the Prothean VIs can detect Indoctrination and while the exact in game mechanics of this process are unknown, the fact that there are two points, both later in the game, that an Indoctrination detector never pings Shepard seems like a sign that the authors never intended Indoctrination. Authorial intent seems pretty clear and the only reason to doubt the security protocol lies in a super dense haze of speculation that cannot hold up to scrutiny and is only reached working backwards from the presumption that Shepard has to be Indoctrinated.

 

Not to mention that the Indoctrination hallucinations Shepard is experiencing are radically different than the described hallucinations seen by those who are actually Indoctrinated. To wit, not all hallucinations are created equal and Shepard's Hollywood brand is different than the lore version. The fact that Shepard is apparently already at the "hallucination" stage while skipping a few of the proceeding and accompanying symptoms is a little odd. Also, there are actual data log entries of people going through the Indoctrination process that are all quite different than what Shepard is going through. While this isn't definitive either way the IT version requires much more speculation about these symptoms and we all know about Mr. O's razor. Also, again none of these would be question if players weren't working backwards from the presumption that IT is true.

 

To humor you. Yes, we all noticed the kid. We all think the kid is important. However, the art book stated reason and the fact that everyone asks how Shepard is coping with stress, leads us to assume the conclusion that Shepard is stressing out over the fact that people are dying and he can't save them. Hence the quote from the kid, "You can't help me." And no the building was not completely destroyed, obviously the vent is still there; maybe, just maybe, the kid remained intact because he was in the intact vent (presumably this is similar to how Shepard survives a Reaper running back and forth on a 20-ft platform or how Harbinger's beams can't actually kill Shepard until cutscene magic happens). Maybe, the kid doesn't know who Shepard is or what he looks like. Maybe, the kid can go through the door the same way characters can bend their neck 180 degrees or pull weapons out of mid air (also, seeing the kid go through the door isn't obvious as most people are busy shooting, learning vaulting mechanics, and chasing after Anderson). Maybe, the Reaper growl occurred because Shepard is in the vicinity of a bunch of Reapers and they make those noises; maybe when Shepard had his back turned the kid just crawled down the vent. The kid reaching the shuttles afterwards isn't the only instance of distance discrepancy, the Cerberus HQ mission and Normandy layout also does this. A lot of this goes back to what I said earlier, there are a lot of 'obvious' oddities in this game and none of them have significance as they go back to development issues; or they have perfectly reasonable explanations besides it was an illusion.

 

And finally, this is very meta-physical. But Indoctrination has never been about tricking it's victims into making the wrong choice, it is about subverting that process entirely. At the end it wouldn't be Shepard choosing between 3 arbitrary options. It would be about choosing what the Reapers wanted or pushing the Renegade interrupt to have Shepard shooting himself in the head.

[Eterna]

An IT thread? How exciting. 

[69_Gio_69]

There's no point to arguing everything. When discussing the validity of something like Newtonian mechanics I don't have to discuss every instance it is wrong to disprove it, I only have to do that once. And while a story isn't science or math, if there are a few points in the game where it is straight forward that the writers never intended for any form of IT to be true and that drawing such a conclusion is not obvious, then there is no point in discussing anything else; it would just be a waste of time. You're right there is a lot of oddities about the child scene, but those oddities are scattered throughout the game; it will take forever to go through them all. It's not like the BioWare writing staff is trying to tell us something when Shepard keeps pulling out Avengers and Predator weapons from out of thin air, it's just a sign that the cutscene animators cut a few corners. To use your stuffy nose analogy your stuffy nose could be caused by a large number of factors, cold weather, flu, allergies, etc.

So, I think when the end of the game says, "Congratulations on bringing an end to the Reaper threat. Commander Shepard has become a legend, and from here you can continue to build that legend..." Most of us take that as a sign that the ending was to be taken at face value. End of story. And then there are scenes like the ones with Vendetta. It's been established that the Prothean VIs can detect Indoctrination and while the exact in game mechanics of this process are unknown, the fact that there are two points, both later in the game, that an Indoctrination detector never pings Shepard seems like a sign that the authors never intended Indoctrination. Authorial intent seems pretty clear and the only reason to doubt the security protocol lies in a super dense haze of speculation that cannot hold up to scrutiny and is only reached working backwards from the presumption that Shepard has to be Indoctrinated.

 

Not to mention that the Indoctrination hallucinations Shepard is experiencing are radically different than the described hallucinations seen by those who are actually Indoctrinated. To wit, not all hallucinations are created equal and Shepard's Hollywood brand is different than the lore version. The fact that Shepard is apparently already at the "hallucination" stage while skipping a few of the proceeding and accompanying symptoms is a little odd. Also, there are actual data log entries of people going through the Indoctrination process that are all quite different than what Shepard is going through. While this isn't definitive either way the IT version requires much more speculation about these symptoms and we all know about Mr. O's razor. Also, again none of these would be question if players weren't working backwards from the presumption that IT is true.

 

To humor you. Yes, we all noticed the kid. We all think the kid is important. However, the art book stated reason and the fact that everyone asks how Shepard is coping with stress, leads us to assume the conclusion that Shepard is stressing out over the fact that people are dying and he can't save them. Hence the quote from the kid, "You can't help me." And no the building was not completely destroyed, obviously the vent is still there; maybe, just maybe, the kid remained intact because he was in the intact vent (presumably this is similar to how Shepard survives a Reaper running back and forth on a 20-ft platform or how Harbinger's beams can't actually kill Shepard until cutscene magic happens). Maybe, the kid doesn't know who Shepard is or what he looks like. Maybe, the kid can go through the door the same way characters can bend their neck 180 degrees or pull weapons out of mid air (also, seeing the kid go through the door isn't obvious as most people are busy shooting, learning vaulting mechanics, and chasing after Anderson). Maybe, the Reaper growl occurred because Shepard is in the vicinity of a bunch of Reapers and they make those noises; maybe when Shepard had his back turned the kid just crawled down the vent. The kid reaching the shuttles afterwards isn't the only instance of distance discrepancy, the Cerberus HQ mission and Normandy layout also does this. A lot of this goes back to what I said earlier, there are a lot of 'obvious' oddities in this game and none of them have significance as they go back to development issues; or they have perfectly reasonable explanations besides it was an illusion.

 

And finally, this is very meta-physical. But Indoctrination has never been about tricking it's victims into making the wrong choice, it is about subverting that process entirely. At the end it wouldn't be Shepard choosing between 3 arbitrary options. It would be about choosing what the Reapers wanted or pushing the Renegade interrupt to have Shepard shooting himself in the head.

 

If you really think the child sequence with the destroyed building, vent and reaper growl are unintended/unimportant events and compare them with things like 180 degrees neckturns, a 'boss-battle' with a reaper. then we are done. 

 

Like I said many times before. These scenes were used in the demo mission for the E3. They wouldn't have a very noticable glitch, what was even speculated about at that point, in the game if it wasn't their intent. 

 

Also your comparison with a boss-battle reaper where Shepard can't be hit while being close to the reaper blast is apples and oranges. Because that game mechanic has a clear purpose! If the blast destroyed you wherever you were, the whole game mechanic wouldn't be possible. Unlike that sequence, the kid going through a closed door and surviving a the reaper blast in the building has no purpose at all if the writers wanted to convey that the kid is real. This is storytelling vs gameplay principles. Apples and Oranges.

 

I think I made it very plausable that the scenes with the child were not full of glitches and unpurposefull scenes, but actually convey meaning to the story. If then you still believe these scenes are just 'bad writing' then our discussion is over. I cannot think of convincing you of other arguments, if you can't even admit these.

[ImaginaryMatter]

If you really think the child sequence with the destroyed building, vent and reaper growl are unintended/unimportant events and compare them with things like 180 degrees neckturns, a 'boss-battle' with a reaper. then we are done. 

 

Like I said many times before. These scenes were used in the demo mission for the E3. They wouldn't have a very noticable glitch, what was even speculated about at that point, in the game if it wasn't their intent. 

 

Also your comparison with a boss-battle reaper where Shepard can't be hit while being close to the reaper blast is apples and oranges. Because that game mechanic has a clear purpose! If the blast destroyed you wherever you were, the whole game mechanic wouldn't be possible. Unlike that sequence, the kid going through a closed door and surviving a the reaper blast in the building has no purpose at all if the writers wanted to convey that the kid is real. This is storytelling vs gameplay principles. Apples and Oranges.

 

I think I made it very plausable that the scenes with the child were not full of glitches and unpurposefull scenes, but actually convey meaning to the story. If then you still believe these scenes are just 'bad writing' then our discussion is over. I cannot think of convincing you of other arguments, if you can't even admit these.

 

Well now you have an another reason why I didn't respond to much about the kid. Yes, the scene has oddities in it. But they all have valid explanations. Maybe the kid survived the Reaper blast because he was in the vent, which was also intact. Do all doors in the future have little red things in front of them to tell people they can't go through them? Or is it a mechanic to insure Shepard beats down the husks before going through the door, maybe it's a security protocol in the future.

 

The whole thing isn't exactly "noticeable" in the first place. It's in the game yes, but as I said this mission is a tutorial. People are learning how to play, they aren't taking in the view. If such a thing were truly important you think the developers would draw attention to it. I don't have a poll but I'm sure more people noticed the weapon thing than the kid.

 

Point is none of this proves or disproves IT, it is an oddity but one with a valid explanation besides being a peculiar hallucination. I did use the word "maybe" a lot. That's why there's nothing to be gained by talking about it. We might as well start speculating that Shepard is a clone because there was no way his body could survive atmospheric reentry and Miranda can lie to Shepard in DLCs featuring Shepard clones.

 

That's why I'm focusing on Vendetta, the epilogues, the star gazer scene, and that little data pad entry at the end that says you beat the Reapers. These things are much more definitive. You have a VI with Indoctrination detecting capabilities that doesn't detect Shepard as Indoctrinated. We have straight forward epilogues with no hint of subversion to them. We have an in game message from the developers that says you beat the Reapers, congratulations.

 

As I said before I have no problem with people wanting to interpret the ending as IT. However, it is a niche theory with no more validity than something like the Ryncol Theory.

[SwobyJ]

But we did beat the Reapers.   (I actually believe that)

 

Wouldn't say IT is a niche theory. It's actually the most prominent one about Mass Effect 3. In fact, I've brought up the game to new people at events and THEY'VE brought up IT to ME.

 

(Oh and lol a friend of my boyfriend's, who worked at Bioware Montreal, also said they know IT and like/love it (can't remember the exact word I heard). It's second hand info though - third for you - so whatever.)

[AlanC9]

Well, it's not all that surprising that IT is the most popular theory. Literalists don't need a theory.

[SwobyJ]

Well, it's not all that surprising that IT is the most popular theory. Literalists don't need a theory.

 

Literary theory.

 

lol

[AlanC9]

Hey, I did hard time in a lit department myself, once upon a time. Just pointing out that a literalist wouldn't typically think of himself as having a theory.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Literary theory.

 

lol

 

How about: "reality" - ?

 

[69_Gio_69]

But we did beat the Reapers.   (I actually believe that)

 

Wouldn't say IT is a niche theory. It's actually the most prominent one about Mass Effect 3. In fact, I've brought up the game to new people at events and THEY'VE brought up IT to ME.

 

(Oh and lol a friend of my boyfriend's, who worked at Bioware Montreal, also said they know IT and like/love it (can't remember the exact word I heard). It's second hand info though - third for you - so whatever.)

Do you believe we defeat the reapers with regards to every end choice (synthesis, control and destroy). And what do you define as 'defeating'? 

 

I think only destroy is the right choice, although I have my doubts that we actually defeat the reapers.

[SwobyJ]

Do you believe we defeat the reapers with regards to every end choice (synthesis, control and destroy). And what do you define as 'defeating'? 

 

I think only destroy is the right choice, although I have my doubts that we actually defeat the reapers.

 

When I brought in Oleg Petrovsky, I still defeated him.

When I rewrote the Geth Heretics, I still defeated them.

When I shot EVA and EDI took over the platform, we still defeated it and did something more with that.

 

When I cured the Genophage with Wrex and Eve (at the cost of Mordin), I didn't defeat anyone (the Reaper was only in the way), but I defeated their point of disharmony.

When I caused Rannoch Peace with Legion and Tali (at the cost of Legion), I didn't defeat anyone (the Reaper only forced the issue), but I defeated their point of conflict.

When Thane died in the way of Kai Leng, he still defeated him and brought on more support than otherwise would come.

 

 

So yeah:

Destroy - True victory in defeating the Reapers and ending the Reaper threat, barely addressing any larger scale issues

Control - Defeating the Reapers and halting the Reaper threat, somewhat addressing larger scale issues

Synthesis - Defeating the Reaper threat itself, addressing larger scale issues

All endings - Technically ending the Reaper threat at minimum, defeating the Reapers in some way at minimum, addressing larger scale issues in some minimal way. That's what we customize here. The Breath Scene wasn't even going to be in (at first; maybe patched in later on).

 

Yes I think we do something that causes the defeat of the Reapers, no matter what. However, "fight or die". Don't fight at the end, you die. Is that worth the personal cost? Some would say yes - and choose Synthesis, for example. Some would say no - like me - and pick whatever option that gets Shepard out of the rubble just like in ME1 (Citadel) and ME2 (Collector Base).

 

I think what we view works on various levels (even if the ending finally overtly showcased the 'higher level' storytelling, suddenly and to many peoples' annoyance). The basic facts of everything is legit enough though.

If you're done with Shepard and want to work for something greater, I'd say make sure you have the better EMS (for Control) and try to have everything sorted out as perfectly as possible (for Synthesis). Or not, if you want something more imperfect.

 

Just in case a sequel-ish title ever happens. lol

 

Do I think some form of indoctrination is happening? Yes. Perfected.

 

Do I think that's all that's going on? No. And it'll be fine. Maybe a rude awakening, but still overall (to narrative) fine regardless of choice taken. Except maybe Refuse, but even those guys got the news that the next Cycle deals with it their own way, meaning that even though everyone of this cycle died (like the Prothians and all before), this Cycle did enough to spell out the end of the Reapers' reign of control over the galaxy.