57139 réponses à ce sujet

[HellishFiend]

GBGriffin wrote...


*edit* Just a smaller point as well: if IT is supported, it would force people to reasses their choices, which some of them actually seem content to make right now. Again, some people support Synthesis and Control as they are right now. I personally don't agree with them, but some make valid points as to why their Shep would choose them. IT would basically reframe all of these choices, and the people who originally picked, say, Control and like it as is would then have to ask themselves "Would I like my Shep to become indoctrinated?"

TBH, I don't think anyone, regardless of their current choice, actually wants their Shep to become indoctrinated. I believe that even true Renegade players would want their Shep to retain his or her individuality, not become a Reaper slave. To me, Destroy would still feel a bit forced...but, again, if they could actually come up with a way to make it work for those non-Destroy choosing players, I'd be more supportive of it.

Well if IT turns out to have been Bioware's plan all along (which I believe it is), then it would make sense that they want you to see what happens if you, as the player, bought into the star child's BS. After witnessing the consequences, you can then go back after reevaluating the situation to see what happens if you resist indoctrination. 

If you think about it, this is really the only way to soft-force the consequences of having their Shepard be indoctrinated onto the player, while also giving them the opportunity to overcome it. The only other ways to do it would involve gameplay mechanics (which Bioware said in an interview they tried to do but couldnt pull off) or reputation/decision related choices, which is more of a hard force on the player that doesnt have nearly the same immersion. 

[holyDEATHTRAP]

I eagerly await promised DLC. I wonder if Bioware realizes that their fans have given them a way out of the mess their in by accepting IT. If they reject IT saying IT is untrue it will be very hard for them to come out of this unscathed. Word of advice if IT isn't true take the way out your fans have provided you.

[Outlaw704]

So does Patrick Weeks interview debunk the IT theory?

[Big_Choppa]

My God. I just watched some of the Indoctrination stuff and I'm shocked how much this fits with the endings. O_O

Bioware should have adopted this idea. Damn...

[GBGriffin]

HellishFiend wrote...

Well if IT turns out to have been Bioware's plan all along (which I believe it is), then it would make sense that they want you to see what happens if you, as the player, bought into the star child's BS. After witnessing the consequences, you can then go back after reevaluating the situation to see what happens if you resist indoctrination. 

If you think about it, this is really the only way to soft-force the consequences of having their Shepard be indoctrinated onto the player, while also giving them the opportunity to overcome it. The only other ways to do it would involve gameplay mechanics (which Bioware said in an interview they tried to do but couldnt pull off) or reputation/decision related choices, which is more of a hard force on the player that doesnt have nearly the same immersion. 

If it forces you to go back and evalute your choice over again...is it truly an ending? Why not just end the game on three different and distinct notes instead of showing you two negative consequences and hoping you'll be...I dunno, "smart enough" to pick the third, the "correct" option? Again, your implementaion would leave Destroy as the "true" ending if the others end on a similar tone, which would be "Reload and pick Destroy to find out what really happens next."

To me, the biggest selling point of IT was always that more content would happen after Shep "wakes up", even if he/she wakes up and is indoctrinated. If they implement IT, and only use cinematics, then Shep wakes up and does...what? More specifically, what does the player do? Shep would have to "finish the fight" with the Reapers in a cutscene, one that the player wouldn't even be able to control without gameplay elements. We'd be talking about possible MGS4-length cutscenes which would have to end the Reaper threat and then show a resolution...that seems like asking for quite a bit in terms of cutscene content with no gameplay.

[GBGriffin]

Outlaw704 wrote...

So does Patrick Weeks interview debunk the IT theory?

I think it doesn't exactly support it. For example, he actually addresses the deaths on the Citadel, the Mass Relay explosions, and who lives or dies...meaning that the Citadel and relay explosions actually happened. Otherwise, if they didn't, why describe the difference between the relay explosions in the ending and Arrival? Why clarify that some plot characters survive if all of it takes place in Shep's mind?

If it all takes place in Shep's mind, then none of those issues matter because they never actually happened. His comments, to me, suggest they did.

Modifié par GBGriffin, 08 avril 2012 - 07:24 .

[Jaxitty]

protognosis wrote...

No problem....it could be 1213....or 1333.....this forum loves fast when I'm asleep.
Actually I think there is a link in his signature.

At some point I'm going to apply my writing skills and put together the info from this thread into a coherent essay. If I can successfully argue that the Kensington Stone is authentic I should be able to argue in a balanced way for Indoctrination....right?

I suggested waay back before we hit 1000 that someone should gather the salient points and make a wiki. One person agreed. I still think it's a damn good idea, would make for an easy link and we'd have all the info in one place so that if someone forgets, they can always refresh

[Lyria]

Maybe because the reapers do invade the citadel and so does Cerberus.
That would explain the talk about survivors.

[Lyria]

Jaxitty wrote...

protognosis wrote...

No problem....it could be 1213....or 1333.....this forum loves fast when I'm asleep.
Actually I think there is a link in his signature.

At some point I'm going to apply my writing skills and put together the info from this thread into a coherent essay. If I can successfully argue that the Kensington Stone is authentic I should be able to argue in a balanced way for Indoctrination....right?

I suggested waay back before we hit 1000 that someone should gather the salient points and make a wiki. One person agreed. I still think it's a damn good idea, would make for an easy link and we'd have all the info in one place so that if someone forgets, they can always refresh

I'll begin work on it this week.Ill start from the top.

If anyone sees an important post. PM me. No spam please.

[GBGriffin]

protognosis wrote...

Maybe because the reapers do invade the citadel and so does Cerberus.
That would explain the talk about survivors.

Well, let's assume the indoctrination takes place as Shep gets blasted. Then, yes, Cerberus and the Reapers have already invaded the Citadel.

If the rest of the game takes place in Shep's mind, though, then that still leaves no reason to clarify the relays blowing up or whether or not plot characters died. The Citadel and relays are clearly shown blowing up...so do those explosions take place in Shep's mind to symbolize him/her breaking free of indoctrination? If the Citadel blowing up takes place in Shep's head...then the deaths that would presumably be caused by the explosion, which he is saying wouldn't kill off major plot characters, never happened in the ending we got.

Why would it matter, then, if the Citadel is shown blowing up or the relays are destroyed in the same fashion as Arrival if they're simply mental projections of Shep overcoming his/her mental "test"?

Modifié par GBGriffin, 08 avril 2012 - 07:32 .

[nighthawk132651]

dude guys and girls havent been on for a while but we get or ending extensions http://social.biowar...11028404-1.html agian havent been on last page before leving i was on 109.. so dont get pissy if this was mentioned before

[GBGriffin]

nighthawk132651 wrote...

dude guys and girls havent been on for a while but we get or ending extensions http://social.biowar...11028404-1.html agian havent been on last page before leving i was on 109.. so dont get pissy if this was mentioned before

Yep, it isn't exactly fresh news, but I think people are speculating over whether or not it will back up that Shep is indoctrinated. I personally believe it will not and, if it does, it would be ambiguous at best. Posters here clearly feel otherwise, though.

[Arian Dynas]

GBGriffin wrote...

Outlaw704 wrote...

So does Patrick Weeks interview debunk the IT theory?

I think it doesn't exactly support it. For example, he actually addresses the deaths on the Citadel, the Mass Relay explosions, and who lives or dies...meaning that the Citadel and relay explosions actually happened. Otherwise, if they didn't, why describe the difference between the relay explosions in the ending and Arrival? Why clarify that some plot characters survive if all of it takes place in Shep's mind?

If it all takes place in Shep's mind, then none of those issues matter because they never actually happened. His comments, to me, suggest they did.

Or, maybe he's just ****ing with us, who knows? Not aswering those questions would have looked worse than if they did, and notice he never explicitly stated anything that infers that IT is untrue, just the info that he gave about the suituation is possible.

Also, Nullobject, I refer you to my earlier post, in aswer to your question;

Arian Dynas wrote...

Also, for the purposes of ze theory makink und funnery, I'll quote myself and give people hope by reiterating my theories on human greed and PR.

Arian Dynas wrote...

McWhitey3 wrote...

I know wishful thinking but wouldn't it be great if next weeks MP DLC turns out to have something related to the endings or IT... I mean why call it the Resurgence Pack? Resurgence = rise again

Considering it's exactly what the Truth DLC leak indicated, yeah that's kind of the implication. In the end it makes sense.

Let's assume you're EA, you have an ending leak, Bioware wants to re-write the ending to keep it memorable, but they know, as well as you, they don't have the time to. You can't push back te date again, you did that already, and pushing back dates is sheer suicide PR wise, it makes you look bad, unprofessional.You want the ending to be memorable, it gets people interested, and interested people pay money. What do you do? You play for time of course!

Bioware writes up this little half-assed ending and slips in hints to make it clear "Hey something's not right here." it's simple, fast and easy to do by compasrsion to writing and coding an entire new ending. And of course, since the ending is "not right" and therefore a hallucination, finding out about it doesn't matter, "you don't need to know about that."

They attempt to make it as obvious as possible something is not right here, even going in so far as to show a breathing scene defying all logic before, showing obvious inconsistencies and numerous other things, they get disappointed, upset and bothered by the fact that that it's lost on some fans.

So then, the fans are in uproar, EA badly underestimated the backlash of this, expecting polite theory tossing until the summer when they can release the DLC and be hailed as heroes.

They find thet have 3 options.

1. Tell the fans to ****** off and defend their artistic integrity, saying "this is all you get". They wont, and already haven't done this, appealing to simple base greed, EA knows this could kill the franchise, and they, being rather fond of money won't kill a golden goose like Bioware. When it takes a minimal amount of effort and money to do things, like "fixing" the ending, the smart thing is (and don't deny EA are canny, they have shown many times that they are.) to gomia culpa, admit your mistake and move on, because it ensures a returning customer base. 

2. Reveal the thing you had planned all along, which at this point would be pointless, redering the outrage pointless, making the fans feel betrayed, and failing to justify the loss of sales the outrage caused, especially when the DLC itself is not yet ready.

3 Or three, they do what they have done. Officially deny anything, make no comment about theories of any kind, allow people to speculate calmly as you look at the DLC you have planned, and cut off a bit to give the fans now, to tide them over until you bring out the real thing, keeping them interested while you do your thing, letting them know "Hey we got more planned, be patient, keep yourselves busy with Resurgence, and you'll see more later, trust us." Resurgence is free because the whole thing they had planned was free, like Cerberus network, to keep people from buying used, which in this case, even considering they have people doing returns or selling the games, they still win, since the old owners might buy another copy, they get twice the sales, and they still get something from the new users, since they need to pay for the DLC, and they still get something out of ppl buying used. So give your fans free DLC so you look apologetic, but since you planned on having it free (notice, Resurgence is only for currently registered members btw) you lose nothing, and you keep them interested while you have time to finish.

 

[GBGriffin]

Heh, going to have to draw the line here shortly and go to bed, but building off of my prior remarks regarding the interview, one of the very first questions asked is this:

-Will long-distance superluminal travel still be possible post-Ending? (will Tali or Wrex or Garrus see their homeworlds again? Will everyone starve?)

Galactic civilization will rebuild. The mass relays were not necessary for interstellar flight. Remember, what does it say in the Codex about the speed of ships? That's right, 12 lightyears per (day? hour? minute?). And that's only the cruising speed, not the maximum speed.

People have never needed to research basic FTL improvements before because they have mass relays. With the relays gone, new technology will increase that speed. Additionally, the element zero cores of the dead/controlled Reapers can be used to improve FTL drives. Starflight will continue using conventional FTL.

And I guess my question would be this: what does Shepard indoctrination have to do with Tali, Garrus, or FTL travel in general? If the final choice is made to break free of indoctrination and wake up to continue the fight...then how does that relate to space travel? Why even clarify that it's still possible?

After all, if the ending takes place in Sheps' head...then it wouldn't even be an issue at the moment because Shep would wake up and the relays would still be there since he destroyed them in his mind, not in reality since the real fight, the war for Earth, hasn't been finished.

Modifié par GBGriffin, 08 avril 2012 - 07:43 .

[GBGriffin]

Arian Dynas wrote...



Or, maybe he's just ****ing with us, who knows? Not aswering those questions would have looked worse than if they did, and notice he never explicitly stated anything that infers that IT is untrue, just the info that he gave about the suituation is possible.

So, rather than choosing to believe that he is answering these questions honestly, you're choosing to believe that he is "
just ****ing with us"? That seems pretty dismissive.

Whether or not answering them vs not answering them would have made him look worse, he actually did answer them, and he actually answered them in a way that would work in game with clarification..

Did he directly say the IT was false? No, he did not say this verbatim. What he did do, though, is offer answers that support a theory other than IT, which is that what we got is simply what we got, but not explained clearly enough. I suppose you can call that my opinion, but, to me, the general feel of that thread is that he is telling the truth by clarifying the endings as is, and people seem to love his candor.

[Earthborn_Shepard]

so.. why is everyone talking about Patrick weeks? Wasn't his statement debunked as fake by CH himself? Or are we talking about some new stuff?

[Ravel1992]

GBGriffin wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...



Or, maybe he's just ****ing with us, who knows? Not aswering those questions would have looked worse than if they did, and notice he never explicitly stated anything that infers that IT is untrue, just the info that he gave about the suituation is possible.

So, rather than choosing to believe that he is answering these questions honestly, you're choosing to believe that he is "
just ****ing with us"? That seems pretty dismissive.

If he answered "come on, that didnt happen" that would be too simple.

[GBGriffin]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

so.. why is everyone talking about Patrick weeks? Wasn't his statement debunked as fake by CH himself? Or are we talking about some new stuff?

That old statement was indeed false.

This is the unofficial interview to which we are referring, including a tweet from Weekes himself concerning it.

[GBGriffin]

DuskRose wrote...

GB, if anyone else jumps on you as a troll, point them my way. You are reasonable and make valid arguments without being derogatory towards others in the thread (unless provoked)

Thanks

Like I said, I do get emotional at times, and I'll admit it. I don't always catch myself as early as I should when I do.

Anyways, I really do need to take off for the night, so, please, no more summoning until tomorrow!

[Earthborn_Shepard]

GBGriffin wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

so.. why is everyone talking about Patrick weeks? Wasn't his statement debunked as fake by CH himself? Or are we talking about some new stuff?

That old statement was indeed false.

This is the unofficial interview to which we are referring, including a tweet from Weekes himself concerning it.

Oh. Duh. So apparently, not even the writers themselves know for sure what the hell happened.
Great.

[nullobject]

So Arian, to summarize:

a) The "Truth DLC" post on 4chan was legit. (Why do you think this?)

Bioware originally intended the Starchild ending to be real, but decided to alter it after the leak. Releasing the Starchild ending as originally scripted was a desperate play for time measure meant to give Bioware space to work out the "real" ending. Bioware actually had no idea what the final ending would be on release day, other than maybe a broad outline, and working out the "true" ending was to occupy the bulk of post-release effort. The reason they have chosen to use every public statement to imply that the released endings were the actual endings is...?

[MothrascoolerthenGodzilla]

Liarra dumped my femshep after I banged my comm officer. Woops!

[Lyria]

Hark GBGriffin, I summon thee. with the light of Forummancy I bid thou comith!

ha.

I'm passing out as well got an Easter Magic tourney to win.