57139 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

someone is claiming to be from the art department in Bioware on /vg/.

I smell massive troll.

http://i.imgur.com/fJBTH.png

[BatmanTurian]

EpyonX3 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

I'd also present the fact that people who take the endings literally are pretty much believing in a god that has the power to rewrite dna on a whim. A magic child in the sky that can teleport people, save someone from an explosion kilometers wide.

And you say the it theorists are taking things on faith? What?

^this. I quote this for it's truth!

We do realize that this is a video game we're discussing right?

But the attitude in approaching the discussion is telling.

[MaximizedAction]

EpyonX3 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

I'd also present the fact that people who take the endings literally are pretty much believing in a god that has the power to rewrite dna on a whim. A magic child in the sky that can teleport people, save someone from an explosion kilometers wide.

And you say the it theorists are taking things on faith? What?

^this. I quote this for it's truth!

We do realize that this is a video game we're discussing right?

For me that ship has sailed the day I decided to check out this forum for answers after my first playthrough.
Now I've been checking out BSN more often then memebase and facebook and it pays.
Because now I know about so many clues in the game, they helped me regain my trust in Bioware a little.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 18 avril 2012 - 04:48 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

SS2Dante wrote...

The Captainator wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

The Captainator wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

posted from another thread because this is how I see the fundamental divide.

ZajoE38 wrote...

So.. the ME3 has turned to religion. Two dogmatic sides. And dogmatic because Bioware haven't explained the ending properly, so we can't get the conclusion.

religion requires no proof, only faith.

Both sides believe they have evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted differently. IT theorists try to take a more scientific approach while it sometimes seems the Anti-IT people just take it on faith that the ending is literal and don't want to think about it too hard.

The fundamental argument is " Bioware just wrote a bad ending and everything at face value just proves that and I refuse to question my own assumptions" ("God is real and I'll believe it no matter how much evidence you show me") and " IT seems logical based on evidence collected from the game, however we can't completely prove it but it seems to make sense. Until further evidence is aquired or we have a true confirmation of proof, it's up in the air. However, a conclusion follows logical evidence used to prove a hypothesis and slowly make it a theory." (like scientists and others who have a more analytical viewpoint and don't take the world at face value and strive to make logical sense of the universe. If they did take the world at face value, the Earth would still be rotating around the sun and the body would be sustained by humors in our modern textbooks).

So either you take life at face value without questioning your assumptions, or you choose to investigate something that doesn't make sense to you. Again, I ask you sincerely, which one of these really sounds like religion and which one sounds like someone taking a more analytical approach?

You know, it'd be interesting to find out the number of athiests and religious types on each side

I'd say it's the other way around.  IT theorists are trying to prove that there is a God, give sense to chaos by imposing an unseen, all powerful force that is guiding things.  Atheists are the ones who take things as they are, without looking deeper.   Evolution happened by chance, 1 out of billions of stars.

The only way you could say that those who oppose IT are the religious is because of one's upbringing, that everything about God is how it is and not to question it.

You can look at it both ways.

I happen to be against IT theory.  The starchild in the vent theory means nothing.  To implant thoughts in someone's mind is powerful technology, and they surely can read those thoughts as well.  They would know that Shepard has been tormented by the death of this boy, so in this climactic moment he chose that form to throw him off more in order to believe the lies about the only ways to resolve things.

Indoctrination did happen, but only slightly, to convince Shepard to go for the control or synthesis endings, for self preservation.  Otherwise the destroy ending wouldn't have been an option, because Shepard knew he could destroy them, and they couldn't change that at the level of indoctrination they were able to get him to.

It's true you can look at it that way, but Athiest accepting things the way they are doesn't mean blind acceptance. They need to know why. Similarly, we need to know why all these strange occurences happen at the end. The explanation offered (lazy or bad writing) has been rejected for various reasons, none faith based.

Wait, I'm confused, you say you aren't for IT but then you are? Also, I'm not sure you understand the idea of "indoctrination" completely. It's stated over and over that it is not hypnosis, it cannot "force" you to do anything. That is why you are given the red option at all times (unless you have low EMS, in which case you get the red option if you destroyed the Collector base (chose to fight) or the blue if you kept it (already fallen).

I wrote a post about not that long ago (maybe half a page up?) about why this choice is so important to Mass Effect, considering it's a video game. The interactivity is crucial.

I'm against the IT in its fullest form, that the whole thing is a like a dream and Shepard wakes up and nothing happened.  But it's obvious they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard, it just didn't work.  That's why I said it only happened slightly.  It doesn't have to be an all or nothing battle, that's the same fallacy that religion vs science poses, it's not all or nothing, but a combination of both.

If they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard then they simply needn't present the destroy option at all.

You are assuming the Reapers had any choice as to the Destroy option beeing there.

Instead of seeing the Destroy option as a flaw in the Reapers Indoctrination what about turning it around and seeing it as Shepards basic instincts and beliefs. It will always be there until Shepard succumbs fully to indoctrination and the two other options are there to trick him into walking the Reapers path, to give in.

[SS2Dante]

BatmanTurian wrote...

someone is claiming to be from the art department in Bioware on /vg/.

I smell massive troll.

http://i.imgur.com/fJBTH.png

*shrug* it's possible he's for real, although he directly contradicts the apparent heirarchy of endings by saying that they consider control the neutral option, since (if that pic can be trusted, has it been confirmed?) the rods you grasp in control are labelled BadEnding.

Modifié par SS2Dante, 18 avril 2012 - 04:52 .

[halbert986]

the option for sarren to kill himself, the option for TIM to kill himself was always there. They didn't lose full cognitive function. They could still see reason if it was thrown in their face.

I support indoctrination, but I'm not sure if I support hallucination. It seems like an awfully big leap, but I see no other explanation for anderson being fresh to death after following you up, and shepard waking up back on earth. I've nto seen anyone explain those things in a rational manner.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

halbert986 wrote...

the option for sarren to kill himself, the option for TIM to kill himself was always there. They didn't lose full cognitive function. They could still see reason if it was thrown in their face.

I support indoctrination, but I'm not sure if I support hallucination. It seems like an awfully big leap, but I see no other explanation for anderson being fresh to death after following you up, and shepard waking up back on earth. I've nto seen anyone explain those things in a rational manner.

Yeah bit hard to explain even Shepard surviving a 8 km wide fireball with him near Ground Zero and then Orbital reentry...without functioning armor or helmet.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 18 avril 2012 - 04:55 .

[SS2Dante]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

The Captainator wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

The Captainator wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

posted from another thread because this is how I see the fundamental divide.

ZajoE38 wrote...

So.. the ME3 has turned to religion. Two dogmatic sides. And dogmatic because Bioware haven't explained the ending properly, so we can't get the conclusion.

religion requires no proof, only faith.

Both sides believe they have evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted differently. IT theorists try to take a more scientific approach while it sometimes seems the Anti-IT people just take it on faith that the ending is literal and don't want to think about it too hard.

The fundamental argument is " Bioware just wrote a bad ending and everything at face value just proves that and I refuse to question my own assumptions" ("God is real and I'll believe it no matter how much evidence you show me") and " IT seems logical based on evidence collected from the game, however we can't completely prove it but it seems to make sense. Until further evidence is aquired or we have a true confirmation of proof, it's up in the air. However, a conclusion follows logical evidence used to prove a hypothesis and slowly make it a theory." (like scientists and others who have a more analytical viewpoint and don't take the world at face value and strive to make logical sense of the universe. If they did take the world at face value, the Earth would still be rotating around the sun and the body would be sustained by humors in our modern textbooks).

So either you take life at face value without questioning your assumptions, or you choose to investigate something that doesn't make sense to you. Again, I ask you sincerely, which one of these really sounds like religion and which one sounds like someone taking a more analytical approach?

You know, it'd be interesting to find out the number of athiests and religious types on each side

I'd say it's the other way around.  IT theorists are trying to prove that there is a God, give sense to chaos by imposing an unseen, all powerful force that is guiding things.  Atheists are the ones who take things as they are, without looking deeper.   Evolution happened by chance, 1 out of billions of stars.

The only way you could say that those who oppose IT are the religious is because of one's upbringing, that everything about God is how it is and not to question it.

You can look at it both ways.

I happen to be against IT theory.  The starchild in the vent theory means nothing.  To implant thoughts in someone's mind is powerful technology, and they surely can read those thoughts as well.  They would know that Shepard has been tormented by the death of this boy, so in this climactic moment he chose that form to throw him off more in order to believe the lies about the only ways to resolve things.

Indoctrination did happen, but only slightly, to convince Shepard to go for the control or synthesis endings, for self preservation.  Otherwise the destroy ending wouldn't have been an option, because Shepard knew he could destroy them, and they couldn't change that at the level of indoctrination they were able to get him to.

It's true you can look at it that way, but Athiest accepting things the way they are doesn't mean blind acceptance. They need to know why. Similarly, we need to know why all these strange occurences happen at the end. The explanation offered (lazy or bad writing) has been rejected for various reasons, none faith based.

Wait, I'm confused, you say you aren't for IT but then you are? Also, I'm not sure you understand the idea of "indoctrination" completely. It's stated over and over that it is not hypnosis, it cannot "force" you to do anything. That is why you are given the red option at all times (unless you have low EMS, in which case you get the red option if you destroyed the Collector base (chose to fight) or the blue if you kept it (already fallen).

I wrote a post about not that long ago (maybe half a page up?) about why this choice is so important to Mass Effect, considering it's a video game. The interactivity is crucial.

I'm against the IT in its fullest form, that the whole thing is a like a dream and Shepard wakes up and nothing happened.  But it's obvious they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard, it just didn't work.  That's why I said it only happened slightly.  It doesn't have to be an all or nothing battle, that's the same fallacy that religion vs science poses, it's not all or nothing, but a combination of both.

If they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard then they simply needn't present the destroy option at all.

You are assuming the Reapers had any choice as to the Destroy option beeing there.

Instead of seeing the Destroy option as a flaw in the Reapers Indoctrination what about turning it around and seeing it as Shepards basic instincts and beliefs. It will always be there until Shepard succumbs fully to indoctrination and the two other options are there to trick him into walking the Reapers path, to give in.

I think you've misunderstood, I'm for IT, and I've previously stated I think the red ending always has to be there because indoctrination is all about choice. The guy I'm aruing with claims he thinks the endings are literal but that they are still trying to indcotrinate into not killing them, hence the red option sounding bad. but if it's a literal scene, the starchild doesn't need to show you the red ending, does he? The literal and IT view makes no sense.

[SS2Dante]

halbert986 wrote...

the option for sarren to kill himself, the option for TIM to kill himself was always there. They didn't lose full cognitive function. They could still see reason if it was thrown in their face.

I support indoctrination, but I'm not sure if I support hallucination. It seems like an awfully big leap, but I see no other explanation for anderson being fresh to death after following you up, and shepard waking up back on earth. I've nto seen anyone explain those things in a rational manner.

The hallucination is symbolic, it makes the options appear more appealing to the player, which is exactly how indoctrination functions. You'll notice that the scene between Anderson and TIM and the starchild scene are essentially the same choice, but once Anderson (your resisting will) is gone, it suddenly seems far more appealling to agree with TIM. 

EDIT - it makes the options sound more appealing EXCEPT destroy, which is made to sound a lot worse, out of nowhere.

Modifié par SS2Dante, 18 avril 2012 - 05:05 .

[dreamgazer]

SS2Dante wrote...

If they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard then they simply needn't present the destroy option at all.

I think Shepard's too strong-willed to allow his/her subconscious to completely look past the goal (s)he has been working toward this entire time (Liara, who knows a thing or two about the strength of the mind, even says so at one point).  

It also could be an attempt for the catalyst to lure in Shepard's trust: "yeah, the thing you've wanted all along is still an option, and you're still free to do that, but there's this better, peaceful option ... and then this even better, even more advanced and pacifistic option".  Maybe -- and this is what I'm thinking -- he's hoping Shepard doesn't call his bluff, and that humanity's savior ultimately pulls the trigger.

Sounds almost like a car salesman. (laughs)

[SS2Dante]

@dreamgazer - read the post 2 above yours

Modifié par SS2Dante, 18 avril 2012 - 05:03 .

[dreamgazer]

SS2Dante wrote...

@dreamgazer - read the post 2 above yours

That's what I get for starting a post and leaving for a minute. 

[SS2Dante]

Yeah I'm posting this again, sorry, my inner fanboy is out and desperately wants them to make it the Extended Cut theme

(first words - "The cycle repeated" )

[Rifneno]

SS2Dante wrote...

@Rifneno sick burn on Udina

But give AresCrusader a break, he seems at least willing to debate if we give him a chance.

Burn Udina?  I like the way you think!  BRB, respeccing to an incinerate engineer.

People who compare us to 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the like show a blatant lack of respect.  So I show them a blatant lack of respect in return.

[SS2Dante]

Rifneno wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

@Rifneno sick burn on Udina

But give AresCrusader a break, he seems at least willing to debate if we give him a chance.

Burn Udina?  I like the way you think!  BRB, respeccing to an incinerate engineer.

People who compare us to 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the like show a blatant lack of respect.  So I show them a blatant lack of respect in return.

Hey, the first thing I thought when I heard about IT was "idiot whiney fanboys". So if I didn't know too much and came into this thread I probably wouldn't be too respectful

[BatmanTurian]

BatmanTurian wrote...

someone is claiming to be from the art department in Bioware on /vg/.

I smell massive troll.

http://i.imgur.com/fJBTH.png

regarding this from the same thread: http://social.biowar...ndex/11508288/5

Michael Gamble wrote...

Don't worry. This is not legit. In
fact, we aren't yet at a state in production where mr "art monkey"
could even see what he is describing.

Glad he nipped that in the bud quick.

[Skillz1986]

@ss2 dante...yeah but you were at least decent enoungh to inform yourself before opening your mouth...or putting your fingers on the keyboard, whatever.

[spotlessvoid]

AresCrusader wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...


Both sides believe they have evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted differently. IT theorists try to take a more scientific approach while it sometimes seems the Anti-IT people just take it on faith that the ending is literal and don't want to think about it too hard.

Somebody else here stated that it is the other way round, and that's how I see it.  Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and you can believe whatever tickles your fancy.    But to me, IT people are like truthers or 9/11 conspiracy  theorists -seeing meaning in each and everything when there is really just coincidence and no greater "master plan". Human beings are really good at that. For instance, the art book states that the child represents everybody who couldn't be saved - that's also evident in the re-occuring dreams. THis symbolism is quite obvious, rather than soemthing related to IT. Something else that has been discussed concerned similarities in graphics (e.g. bushes) across different game sequences. Ever considered that re-using such "items" in the game just makes it a bit easier to create the finished product?  After all, this is just a computer game sold for profit. 


Kind regards,
Me (Atheist & very scientific indeed)

Quite the broad brush you paint with. No idea what happened on 9/11, but I can tell you this: Governments are corrupt and lie, constantly. Some people find that tremendously important and dedicate their lives to research. As with all large groups, there is a diverse set of personalities and goals. To label such a substantial and varied group of people as a pejorative stereotype is ignorant and dangerous. Questioning what the people running your government are up shouldn't be ridiculed and marginalized. A lot of nonsense comes out of the alternate media, but so does a lot of good. Regardless, independent research is something to be applauded and encouraged.

Same goes for IT. Much of it is well researched and substantial in weight. This thread is a goldmine. In any case, your condescending opinion is unmerited and false headed. Let us do our thing, we decided to take an analytical, deconstructive approach and aren't hurting you in any way.

[Rifneno]

SS2Dante wrote...

Hey, the first thing I thought when I heard about IT was "idiot whiney fanboys". So if I didn't know too much and came into this thread I probably wouldn't be too respectful

Okay?  I don't see the point.  You seem to be saying they're shooting their mouths off without bothering to listen to what we're saying.  I still don't see any reason to show respect to people like that.  I mean, granted, I'm a snarky ****** to a lot more people than actually deserve it and I'm sure I still owe some people apologies... but the "lulz u prolly think 9/11 was an inside j0b" crowd is not one of them.

[halbert986]

If someone could point me in the direction of a good counter-argument for IT I'd appreciate it. Something to the affect of acayvous's IT video but the opposite would be nice.

I've yet to see any evidence that gives a halfway decent reason against any of the following...
- The reaper growl at the beginning when anderson interrupts the kid.
- Anderson being perfectly fine, following you up, and beating you to the console after the hell harbinger unleashed. (No one made it fall back)
- Shepard waking up in a pile of earth rubble.
- Why no one acknowledges the child's existence except for shepard.

I don't think any theory has hit the nail on the head perfectly. But "it was all a dream" is the only way any of this makes any logical sense.

[Golferguy758]

@rifneno
You just don't get it, mannnn. It's like you dont even know, mannn. You are like way totally too connected into the machine.

Ugh typing like that hurts me, shepard.

[The Captainator]

SS2Dante wrote...

If they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard then they simply needn't present the destroy option at all.

Also, religion versus science is mutually exclusive. Religion postulates a being outside of universal laws. This means it works by magic. If there were a great, powerful being, but its abilities could be explained by science, then it's not religion, it's science. It's either outside of science, or inside. Mutually exclusive.

Cutting off some long quotes.

Making religion and science mutually exclusive is wrong.  Miracles are simply manifestions of a law we do not understand, which is what the IT is trying to explain.

Alas, attempting to explain how they're not exclusive to someone who believes they are is nigh impossible.  It is a concept that is difficult to grasp.

[BatmanTurian]

halbert986 wrote...

If someone could point me in the direction of a good counter-argument for IT I'd appreciate it. Something to the affect of acayvous's IT video but the opposite would be nice.

I've yet to see any evidence that gives a halfway decent reason against any of the following...
- The reaper growl at the beginning when anderson interrupts the kid.
- Anderson being perfectly fine, following you up, and beating you to the console after the hell harbinger unleashed. (No one made it fall back)
- Shepard waking up in a pile of earth rubble.
- Why no one acknowledges the child's existence except for shepard.

I don't think any theory has hit the nail on the head perfectly. But "it was all a dream" is the only way any of this makes any logical sense.

it's less a dream and more like a guided nightmare with a splash of brainwashing.

[SS2Dante]

Rifneno wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

Hey, the first thing I thought when I heard about IT was "idiot whiney fanboys". So if I didn't know too much and came into this thread I probably wouldn't be too respectful

Okay?  I don't see the point.  You seem to be saying they're shooting their mouths off without bothering to listen to what we're saying.  I still don't see any reason to show respect to people like that.  I mean, granted, I'm a snarky ****** to a lot more people than actually deserve it and I'm sure I still owe some people apologies... but the "lulz u prolly think 9/11 was an inside j0b" crowd is not one of them.

Hate to sound like a priest, but we can't CONVERT THE PEOPLE like that

Nah, don't really mean that, but it still pays to be polite, on the off chance he would have looked up IT and maybe been more convinced. 

[SS2Dante]

The Captainator wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

If they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard then they simply needn't present the destroy option at all.

Also, religion versus science is mutually exclusive. Religion postulates a being outside of universal laws. This means it works by magic. If there were a great, powerful being, but its abilities could be explained by science, then it's not religion, it's science. It's either outside of science, or inside. Mutually exclusive.

Cutting off some long quotes.

Making religion and science mutually exclusive is wrong.  Miracles are simply manifestions of a law we do not understand, which is what the IT is trying to explain.

Alas, attempting to explain how they're not exclusive to someone who believes they are is nigh impossible.  It is a concept that is difficult to grasp.

"Manifestations of a law we don't understand". Therefore there is system of laws. Therefore this being cannot override them. If it could, it would be breaking these laws. Like I said, a being with all the abilities and knowledge we attribute to "God" that DID obey these laws is not a religious God, simply a large entity like us.

Mutually exclusive.

Edit - the fallacy here is that you attribute the properties of 'magic' to laws we don't yet understand. No matter what "miraculous" things they can do, they are basic laws by which the universe operates. If a being could violate these laws then they don't exist.

Modifié par SS2Dante, 18 avril 2012 - 05:39 .