57139 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

I thought you were "impartial" LOL

I am. The intellectually honest thing to believe is that neither interpretation is true or false until Word-of God states what the merits and faults of either are. That does not mean I do not find one more interesting than the other. I am just as open to it being wrong and it would not bother me in the least if it was.

[Dwailing]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Hey people, excuse me for not searching and reading through this massive thread, I just finished the game last night and I've read the first post. The question I have, and wondering if it's been addressed is, why give the player two choices that end up indoctrination and one that causes you to break free?

I mean, assuming the IT is true why would Mac Walters and Casey Hudson give you two choices that are indoctrination and one that's not?

Um, are you working under the assumtion that the legend of the Walters and Hudson ending is true?  Because it has been confirmed by Bioware, I believe, that they were not the only ones who wrote the ending.  Additionally, if you haven't read the front page, I would suggest you do so because I think it would probably answer your question.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Hey people, excuse me for not searching and reading through this massive thread, I just finished the game last night and I've read the first post. The question I have, and wondering if it's been addressed is, why give the player two choices that end up indoctrination and one that causes you to break free?

I mean, assuming the IT is true why would Mac Walters and Casey Hudson give you two choices that are indoctrination and one that's not?

The choice out is not so much created by Indoctrination as it is the persons own will struggling against Indoctrination that manifests it. As such the Indoctrination makes that choice seem like the wrong choice, the choice that will lead to the greatest loss of life or similar in order to trick the person away from it.

At least that is the way we interpret it.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 21 avril 2012 - 09:00 .

[ThinkIntegral]

Dwailing wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Hey people, excuse me for not searching and reading through this massive thread, I just finished the game last night and I've read the first post. The question I have, and wondering if it's been addressed is, why give the player two choices that end up indoctrination and one that causes you to break free?

I mean, assuming the IT is true why would Mac Walters and Casey Hudson give you two choices that are indoctrination and one that's not?

Um, are you working under the assumtion that the legend of the Walters and Hudson ending is true?  Because it has been confirmed by Bioware, I believe, that they were not the only ones who wrote the ending.  Additionally, if you haven't read the front page, I would suggest you do so because I think it would probably answer your question.

Well whoever were the writers or supervisors that gave the final green light on how the game should end.  I did read teh first page, but I can double check to see if I glossed over something, but that could you help me out and show me a hint?

[Dwailing]

Skillz1986 wrote...

Jeez...seems like people in here don't like the quiet and peaceful discussions, so they go out there waking trolls. Well thanks for that.

What?  Is this in regards to my summoning of GBGriffin?  'Cause I'm actually starting to like the guy, despite his disagreement with us.  And he actually does sometimes present points for discussion.

[BatmanTurian]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Hey people, excuse me for not searching and reading through this massive thread, I just finished the game last night and I've read the first post. The question I have, and wondering if it's been addressed is, why give the player two choices that end up indoctrination and one that causes you to break free?

I mean, assuming the IT is true why would Mac Walters and Casey Hudson give you two choices that are indoctrination and one that's not?

Because the Reapers always stack the deck. Do you really expect them to play fair?

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

Or I find the weight of explaining the complete lack of logic in using Occam's Razor to ferret out which interpretation is true to an illogical and close-minded person nauseating.

All you have debated is that it is illogical to draw complete conclusions based on Occam's Razor on whether IT is right or wrong, and I agree with you. Doesn't mean one explanation isn't more likely than the other (you conveniently seem to "forget" that I say this to further your own argument).

I am debating with you whether it is logical to draw complete conclusions on any piece of literature without clear intent of the author(s) provided. It has nothing to do with whether IT is right or wrong. It has to do with misusing Occam's Razor. That's all. I have seen it misused by many and I had to say something. That it was you that I finally confronted about it when you seemed to be using it to further your interpretation is irrelevant. It applies regardless of who I might be speaking to.

You must have dived into debating me, thinking that you knew my position completely, and were wrong about what I thought, as I have told you many times (and still keep misinterpreting my view). There seems to be some agreement; Occam's Razor can't be used to draw complete conclusion, but if used correctly, can be useful in determining which explanation is more likely, which is what I have been saying all along!

[Rifneno]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Seconded. I'm not the hoodie type, but I would wear the **** out of that jacket.

Ditto. ... Well. If they come in "krogan" size.

First time I saw him, it was the fact he disappeared without a trace in the next scene that made me leery.

But it's just because he crawled backwards! It's not like that would make noise or anything. And even if it didn, BW didn't just establish 4 seconds earlier that they put such a noise in the game. Man, BW sure is lazy! *cough*

I disagree. Do I think the Reapers are evil? Oh hells yes. Do I think THEY beleive they are evil? Absolutely not.

Not this crap again! Who gives a vorcha's ass what they think?! I'm talking about whether they ARE evil.

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

N7 leather jacket like Shepard's would be pretty sweet, probably cost over $100 USD though. I've already got a N7 hoodie (non-elite) and track jacket so I'm iffy on shelling out for that.

I saw an offical Mass Effect 3 mousepad for $35. And the punchline is I'm not joking.

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

People who think Occam's Razor applies to fiction understand Occam's Razor about as well as people who scream "Godwin's Law!" at **** comparisons to templars understand that law. Which is to say, not even a microscopic shred.

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Though I like it if a villian acknowledges that by common society view what he does is evil, can lead to some fun comments on villiany.

Just as long as it doesn't lead to that retarded Joker quote about wanting to watch the world burn. I can't believe how many people I've seen quote that line without realizing the Joker is one of the most unrealistic characters by a company that once did a plotline where the moon turned out to be a giant egg for a malevolent planetoid-sized insect.

SubAstris wrote...

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

byne wrote...

I never really saw wasldstr18 as a troll. He disagreed with us, yeah, but that didnt make him a troll.

He only came in to talk about how he was going to scream "I TOLD YOU SO!" when we're proven wrong, then acted off-the-charts levels of butthurt when people treated him like the formless manifestation of pure belligerence that he is. I'm not really sure what more one could do to get labeled a troll, short of linking shock sites.

[Skillz1986]

No it was rather referring to batmanturian..returning to hq followed by a tail of trolls.

But i was kidding anyway.

[byne]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Hey people, excuse me for not searching and reading through this massive thread, I just finished the game last night and I've read the first post. The question I have, and wondering if it's been addressed is, why give the player two choices that end up indoctrination and one that causes you to break free?

I mean, assuming the IT is true why would Mac Walters and Casey Hudson give you two choices that are indoctrination and one that's not?

Probably to try and get you to agree with the logic of two indoctrinated agents.

Green represents Saren, Blue represents TIM.

[BatmanTurian]

Skillz1986 wrote...

Jeez...seems like people in here don't like the quiet and peaceful discussions, so they go out there waking trolls. Well thanks for that.

it was an accident. I didn't know he'd follow me in here. It's not like we have a bouncer or this is a private club.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I thought you were "impartial" LOL

I am. The intellectually honest thing to believe is that neither interpretation is true or false until Word-of God states what the merits and faults of either are. That does not mean I do not find one more interesting than the other. I am just as open to it being wrong and it would not bother me in the least if it was.

But by interesting, you mean more likely? Hence your rage against "anti-ITers" as you seem to be displaying? Your presumed veneer of objectivity is wearing thin, it is an illusion

[Skillz1986]

As i said...kidding

[byne]

Dwailing wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Hey people, excuse me for not searching and reading through this massive thread, I just finished the game last night and I've read the first post. The question I have, and wondering if it's been addressed is, why give the player two choices that end up indoctrination and one that causes you to break free?

I mean, assuming the IT is true why would Mac Walters and Casey Hudson give you two choices that are indoctrination and one that's not?

Um, are you working under the assumtion that the legend of the Walters and Hudson ending is true?  Because it has been confirmed by Bioware, I believe, that they were not the only ones who wrote the ending.  Additionally, if you haven't read the front page, I would suggest you do so because I think it would probably answer your question.

Has it really?

Last I heard Bioware's response to that whole thing was 'The person who said that doesnt work for Bioware. Please ignore the fact that it was posted on an account known to be owned by Patrick Weekes.'

And for some reason everyone was like 'Ok, yeah that makes sense.' and believed them.

[Rifneno]

byne wrote...

Has it really?

Last I heard Bioware's response to that whole thing was 'The person who said that doesnt work for Bioware. Please ignore the fact that it was posted on an account known to be owned by Patrick Weekes.'

And for some reason everyone was like 'Ok, yeah that makes sense.' and believed them.

Hacking isn't just a MP objective.  It's a real thing.

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

You must have dived into debating me, thinking that you knew my position completely, and were wrong about what I thought, as I have told you many times (and still keep misinterpreting my view). There seems to be some agreement; Occam's Razor can't be used to draw complete conclusion, but if used correctly, can be useful in determining which explanation is more likely, which is what I have been saying all along!

No we are not in agreement. You have used Occam's Razor to further your interpretation and proposed suppositions as fact. We are not arguing about the definition, but its use in determining which interpretation ( or "explanation" as you like to say ) is more likely in a work of fiction.

[Dwailing]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Hey people, excuse me for not searching and reading through this massive thread, I just finished the game last night and I've read the first post. The question I have, and wondering if it's been addressed is, why give the player two choices that end up indoctrination and one that causes you to break free?

I mean, assuming the IT is true why would Mac Walters and Casey Hudson give you two choices that are indoctrination and one that's not?

Um, are you working under the assumtion that the legend of the Walters and Hudson ending is true?  Because it has been confirmed by Bioware, I believe, that they were not the only ones who wrote the ending.  Additionally, if you haven't read the front page, I would suggest you do so because I think it would probably answer your question.

Well whoever were the writers or supervisors that gave the final green light on how the game should end.  I did read teh first page, but I can double check to see if I glossed over something, but that could you help me out and show me a hint?

OK, here I go.  Have you ever actually seen anyone truly beat indoctrination before?  If Shepard was going to be able to beat it, it would not be easy.  And think about it, up to this point, Shepard's only goal has been the destruction of the Reapers.  If he sticks to his beliefs, he can beat them.  If he sacrifices his beliefs to try and take the easy way out, he is indoctrinated.  And Control and Synthesis are kind of the easy way out, when you think about it.  I think the general consensus is that Bioware would not WANT to make it easy to beat Indoc.  If they did, it would undermine the power of indoctriation and the Reapers. 

[BatmanTurian]

Skillz1986 wrote...

As i said...kidding

I know. I like it as much as you do though...

[Dwailing]

Rifneno wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Seconded. I'm not the hoodie type, but I would wear the **** out of that jacket.

Ditto. ... Well. If they come in "krogan" size.

First time I saw him, it was the fact he disappeared without a trace in the next scene that made me leery.

But it's just because he crawled backwards! It's not like that would make noise or anything. And even if it didn, BW didn't just establish 4 seconds earlier that they put such a noise in the game. Man, BW sure is lazy! *cough*

I disagree. Do I think the Reapers are evil? Oh hells yes. Do I think THEY beleive they are evil? Absolutely not.

Not this crap again! Who gives a vorcha's ass what they think?! I'm talking about whether they ARE evil.

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

N7 leather jacket like Shepard's would be pretty sweet, probably cost over $100 USD though. I've already got a N7 hoodie (non-elite) and track jacket so I'm iffy on shelling out for that.

I saw an offical Mass Effect 3 mousepad for $35. And the punchline is I'm not joking.

BatmanTurian wrote...

Having an argument/debate with SubAstris and CavScout here about why using Occam's Razor on fiction is illogical. It's going as well as you'd imagine. I don't know why I'm bothering. Maybe I should just stay in here. The logical people obviously reside within the confines of this thread.

People who think Occam's Razor applies to fiction understand Occam's Razor about as well as people who scream "Godwin's Law!" at **** comparisons to templars understand that law. Which is to say, not even a microscopic shred.

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Though I like it if a villian acknowledges that by common society view what he does is evil, can lead to some fun comments on villiany.

Just as long as it doesn't lead to that retarded Joker quote about wanting to watch the world burn. I can't believe how many people I've seen quote that line without realizing the Joker is one of the most unrealistic characters by a company that once did a plotline where the moon turned out to be a giant egg for a malevolent planetoid-sized insect.

SubAstris wrote...

The conspiracy theorist has retreated to safer ground...

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

byne wrote...

I never really saw wasldstr18 as a troll. He disagreed with us, yeah, but that didnt make him a troll.

He only came in to talk about how he was going to scream "I TOLD YOU SO!" when we're proven wrong, then acted off-the-charts levels of butthurt when people treated him like the formless manifestation of pure belligerence that he is. I'm not really sure what more one could do to get labeled a troll, short of linking shock sites.

Oh Rifneno, your posts always make me laugh. 

[byne]

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Has it really?

Last I heard Bioware's response to that whole thing was 'The person who said that doesnt work for Bioware. Please ignore the fact that it was posted on an account known to be owned by Patrick Weekes.'

And for some reason everyone was like 'Ok, yeah that makes sense.' and believed them.

Hacking isn't just a MP objective.  It's a real thing.

If I say something stupid on a forum, and claim 'Oh wait, turns out I was actually hacked!' no one ever believes me.

But if Bioware says it, it must be true? Maybe my trust in Bioware has been eroded from all their false statements about the game before launch, but still.

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Hey people, excuse me for not searching and reading through this massive thread, I just finished the game last night and I've read the first post. The question I have, and wondering if it's been addressed is, why give the player two choices that end up indoctrination and one that causes you to break free?

I mean, assuming the IT is true why would Mac Walters and Casey Hudson give you two choices that are indoctrination and one that's not?

Um, are you working under the assumtion that the legend of the Walters and Hudson ending is true?  Because it has been confirmed by Bioware, I believe, that they were not the only ones who wrote the ending.  Additionally, if you haven't read the front page, I would suggest you do so because I think it would probably answer your question.

Has it really?

Last I heard Bioware's response to that whole thing was 'The person who said that doesnt work for Bioware. Please ignore the fact that it was posted on an account known to be owned by Patrick Weekes.'

And for some reason everyone was like 'Ok, yeah that makes sense.' and believed them.

What's wrong with believing Biowar.... oh, wait, never mind. 

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Has it really?

Last I heard Bioware's response to that whole thing was 'The person who said that doesnt work for Bioware. Please ignore the fact that it was posted on an account known to be owned by Patrick Weekes.'

And for some reason everyone was like 'Ok, yeah that makes sense.' and believed them.

Hacking isn't just a MP objective.  It's a real thing.

If I say something stupid on a forum, and claim 'Oh wait, turns out I was actually hacked!' no one ever believes me.

But if Bioware says it, it must be true? Maybe my trust in Bioware has been eroded from all their false statements about the gam

But if IT is true, wouldn't it still be possible for their promises to be fulfilled?

Modifié par Dwailing, 21 avril 2012 - 09:12 .

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I thought you were "impartial" LOL

I am. The intellectually honest thing to believe is that neither interpretation is true or false until Word-of God states what the merits and faults of either are. That does not mean I do not find one more interesting than the other. I am just as open to it being wrong and it would not bother me in the least if it was.

But by interesting, you mean more likely? Hence your rage against "anti-ITers" as you seem to be displaying? Your presumed veneer of objectivity is wearing thin, it is an illusion

Again, you are making assumptions. I can find one more interesting and still dismiss it as being as probable as the literal interpretation. Do not put words in my mouth. Your mistake is believing I am close-minded, when my debate with you has shown I am actually more open-minded than you are. I just take issue with, again, using a logical tool meant to be used in a scientific laboratory on a work of fiction.

[byne]

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Has it really?

Last I heard Bioware's response to that whole thing was 'The person who said that doesnt work for Bioware. Please ignore the fact that it was posted on an account known to be owned by Patrick Weekes.'

And for some reason everyone was like 'Ok, yeah that makes sense.' and believed them.

Hacking isn't just a MP objective.  It's a real thing.

If I say something stupid on a forum, and claim 'Oh wait, turns out I was actually hacked!' no one ever believes me.

But if Bioware says it, it must be true? Maybe my trust in Bioware has been eroded from all their false statements about the gam

But if IT is true, wouldn't it still be possible for their promises to be fulfilled?

Even if IT is true, their statements are still false until they release the DLC proving it.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Has it really?

Last I heard Bioware's response to that whole thing was 'The person who said that doesnt work for Bioware. Please ignore the fact that it was posted on an account known to be owned by Patrick Weekes.'

And for some reason everyone was like 'Ok, yeah that makes sense.' and believed them.

Hacking isn't just a MP objective.  It's a real thing.

If I say something stupid on a forum, and claim 'Oh wait, turns out I was actually hacked!' no one ever believes me.

But if Bioware says it, it must be true? Maybe my trust in Bioware has been eroded from all their false statements about the gam

But if IT is true, wouldn't it still be possible for their promises to be fulfilled?

Even if IT is true, their statements are still false until they release the DLC proving it.

True, but IT opens up the possibility of the promises beeing fulfilled unlike the current ending.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 21 avril 2012 - 09:18 .