Ce sujet est fermé
GBGriffin wrote...
That's not the mistake I'm drawing attention to. I'm drawing attention to the fact that my theory is valid initially, but he edited his stance to make it invalid after the fact. That is what I would like him to acknowledge
balance5050 wrote...
Those are all not based on ingame content and Geoff Keighly's AMA says that they were planning the ground work for this ending for a long time. The infamous paper that said "Shepard dies----->Speculation" was given to him early in development.
We are trying to stick to in game interpretation, not what we think happened in the development cycle
GBGriffin wrote...
CLB17 wrote...
I'd like to ask a question. what is your explanation for the (Red) renegade option being potrayed as what Captain Anderson would do who we all know is clearly a paragon and the (Blue) paragon option being potrayed by the Illusive man who we know is a pure Renegade. Why the sudden color switch?
It was a design choice. Red could be seen as more reckless, whereas Blue could be seen as more calculated.
It doesn't have to mean anything beyond that. It doesn't prove anything unless you make it prove something.
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
If you're agreeing that interpretation was their intent and any is valid (hence my original argument), why do you think indoc isn't a valid interpretation?
GBGriffin wrote...
DashingSplash wrote...
It does really seem that you guys are rather stubborn and wont listen.
Do you find pleasure in constantly arguing? In the end, you are both as right as it stands now.
Discussion can be held in a more civil way, no need to fuel each other anger, which you seem to have a store of.
I'm actually not angry. I'm waiting for him to acknowledge his mistake, and finding joy that he isn't
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
Hence a theory.
GBGriffin wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
What was the evidence to the contrary?
Just off the top of my head: Final Hours, developer reactions, as well as the lack thereof, Dr. Ray's blog defending the endings as is, the rejection of the cupcakes, the artistic integrity line, the fact that the same evidence can be explained as some combination of poor writing and design, and the fact that they haven't backed the theory, remarking only that the fans are "committed".
But again, the beauty of IT is that you can dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit the theory, and if you believe the theory is the only truth, then all of that must be false.
By n00bsauce2010's initial argument, I am correct in making these asusmptions. In his second argument, I am not. That is why I would like him to acknowledge that he switched his stance to prove me wrong when I pointed out his flaw
GBGriffin wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
If you're agreeing that interpretation was their intent and any is valid (hence my original argument), why do you think indoc isn't a valid interpretation?
I'm not agreeing with you; that was your initial argument. I do not agree with it, but you said, initially, that all interpretations are valid, then changed it when I asked if my theory would be valid by your logic.
GBGriffin wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
Those are all not based on ingame content and Geoff Keighly's AMA says that they were planning the ground work for this ending for a long time. The infamous paper that said "Shepard dies----->Speculation" was given to him early in development.
We are trying to stick to in game interpretation, not what we think happened in the development cycle
You're right. They're based on out of game content that appeared after the launch. This theory did not exist prior to launch; it was formed later to make sense of it. The theory shaped the evicdence; the evidence did not shape the theory until players made it shape the theory.
Jade8aby88 wrote...
See it's comments like this that I probably said what I said tbh.
If you think you have won, accept your victory and stop poking dead issues...
Or as Harbinger would say..
"leave the dead where they fall."
Jade8aby88 wrote...
See it's comments like this that I probably said what I said tbh.
If you think you have won, accept your victory and stop poking dead issues...
Or as Harbinger would say..
"leave the dead where they fall."
GBGriffin wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
Hence a theory.
Yep. It's a theory, one that was valid by your first argument, invalidated by your second
CLB17 wrote...
GBGriffin wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
You really think too highly of yourself. My argument really shouldn't matter. But your sh*tty theory is based off the assumption that we not include the last 15 minutes of the game. It's just as flawed as mine.
It shouldn't, but it does, because I am debating directly with you, and one argument confirms my theory, while the other says it is not valid. You goofed up by editing/"clarifying" it.
Also, my theory is that they just dropped the ball on the last 15 minutes and didn't take everything into consideration. Another theory is that they wrote it for the sake of "artistic integrity" and because they liked it...both of which are valid by your first argument, but invalid by your second.
I'd like to ask a question. what is your explanation for the (Red) renegade option being potrayed as what Captain Anderson would do who we all know is clearly a paragon and the (Blue) paragon option being potrayed by the Illusive man who we know is a pure Renegade. Why the sudden color switch?
lex0r11 wrote...
Now look what you did guys, the pets have to pay the prize for so much hate.
balance5050 wrote...
GBGriffin wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
What was the evidence to the contrary?
Just off the top of my head: Final Hours, developer reactions, as well as the lack thereof, Dr. Ray's blog defending the endings as is, the rejection of the cupcakes, the artistic integrity line, the fact that the same evidence can be explained as some combination of poor writing and design, and the fact that they haven't backed the theory, remarking only that the fans are "committed".
But again, the beauty of IT is that you can dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit the theory, and if you believe the theory is the only truth, then all of that must be false.
By n00bsauce2010's initial argument, I am correct in making these asusmptions. In his second argument, I am not. That is why I would like him to acknowledge that he switched his stance to prove me wrong when I pointed out his flaw
Those are all not based on ingame content and Geoff Keighly's AMA says that they were planning the ground work for this ending for a long time. The infamous paper that said "Shepard dies----->Speculation" was given to him early in development.
We are trying to stick to in game interpretation, not what we think happened in the development cycle
GBGriffin wrote...
Jade8aby88 wrote...
See it's comments like this that I probably said what I said tbh.
If you think you have won, accept your victory and stop poking dead issues...
Or as Harbinger would say..
"leave the dead where they fall."
He's continuing to post as if it never happened, yet I feel it presents not only a critical flaw in his argument, but it throws his entire character into question.
When he addresses it, and all he has to do is explain why he changed his stance, which should be an easy answer, I'll drop the issue. ntil then, though, my theory is both valid by his first argument and invalid by his second. Until he clears up why he shifted his position, how am I supposed to continue debating him?
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
But you never actually stated your "theory"....
GBGriffin wrote...
CLB17 wrote...
So what is you main point that IT isn't true? I'm willing to listen.
Yes, that is my point. IT is not true, and the game as it stands came about as a combination of a rushed product and bad writing/design. They're defense of the endings as is, and their reaction overall, confirms this for me.
Again, the evidence for IT came about after the theory was formed. The evidence did not form the theory. People proposed the idea and then went back to twist game elements to make it work, while simultaneously discarding any evidence to the contrary.
That is my main point.
GBGriffin wrote...
Jade8aby88 wrote...
See it's comments like this that I probably said what I said tbh.
If you think you have won, accept your victory and stop poking dead issues...
Or as Harbinger would say..
"leave the dead where they fall."
He's continuing to post as if it never happened, yet I feel it presents not only a critical flaw in his argument, but it throws his entire character into question.
When he addresses it, and all he has to do is explain why he changed his stance, which should be an easy answer, I'll drop the issue. ntil then, though, my theory is both valid by his first argument and invalid by his second. Until he clears up why he shifted his position, how am I supposed to continue debating him?
GBGriffin wrote...
He's continuing to post as if it never happened, yet I feel it presents not only a critical flaw in his argument, but it throws his entire character into question.
When he addresses it, and all he has to do is explain why he changed his stance, which should be an easy answer, I'll drop the issue. ntil then, though, my theory is both valid by his first argument and invalid by his second. Until he clears up why he shifted his position, how am I supposed to continue debating him?
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
Sadly I still don't think you understand the definition of interpretation or what a theory actually is. My arguments don't really mean anything in determining that.
GBGriffin wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
Sadly I still don't think you understand the definition of interpretation or what a theory actually is. My arguments don't really mean anything in determining that.
All I'm asking is why you felt the need to clarify your stance, making it more specific and, in doing so, ruling out my interpretation of the ending.
If what I am presenting is not an interpretation, what is it? Fact?
killnoob wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
GBGriffin wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
What was the evidence to the contrary?
Just off the top of my head: Final Hours, developer reactions, as well as the lack thereof, Dr. Ray's blog defending the endings as is, the rejection of the cupcakes, the artistic integrity line, the fact that the same evidence can be explained as some combination of poor writing and design, and the fact that they haven't backed the theory, remarking only that the fans are "committed".
But again, the beauty of IT is that you can dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit the theory, and if you believe the theory is the only truth, then all of that must be false.
By n00bsauce2010's initial argument, I am correct in making these asusmptions. In his second argument, I am not. That is why I would like him to acknowledge that he switched his stance to prove me wrong when I pointed out his flaw
Those are all not based on ingame content and Geoff Keighly's AMA says that they were planning the ground work for this ending for a long time. The infamous paper that said "Shepard dies----->Speculation" was given to him early in development.
We are trying to stick to in game interpretation, not what we think happened in the development cycle
Ah but developement cycle is extremely relevent.
Let's assume indoctrination theory stands.
Shepard is indoctrinated and he woke up after choosing destroy.
What IS the real ending?
We still dont know what crucible does.
We still don't know how he's gonna get there.
Or if he fires the thing.
We're left with "shepard wakes up in the rubble"
And then what?
We're getting a clarification DLC , sure, but it has no gameplay.
therefore, indoctrination theory is not intentional, unless they were planning to show the ending in a hour long cinematics.
Modifié par GBGriffin, 07 avril 2012 - 05:42 .
Retour en haut