Ce sujet est fermé
Uncle Jo wrote...
No I can't agree with you. I'm aware that vendetta introduces somehow the Starbrat, but it doesn't justify his presence. It comes very late (you could object that Sovereign too in ME1) breaks the narrative coherence and makes the REAPERS (the most fearful, powerful threat the galaxy ever experienced looking like toys).paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
And for the starkid's logic, I've posted a something about a few pages ago (it's just my opinion though)
So even if the IT is not true, than BioWare should work really hard on an alternative explanation, because they're going to get the backlash of their life. What happend till now, will be in comparison a light and gentle small diagreement....
MegumiAzusa wrote...
The pattern that VI talked about was bigger than the Reapers or the child. It's also very very much similar to either the Matrix, or Peter Pan/Battlestar Galactica ("All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.")Uncle Jo wrote...
No I can't agree with you. I'm aware that vendetta introduces somehow the Starbrat, but it doesn't justify his presence. It comes very late (you could object that Sovereign too in ME1) breaks the narrative coherence and makes the REAPERS (the most fearful, powerful threat the galaxy ever experienced looking like toys).paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
And for the starkid's logic, I've posted a something about a few pages ago (it's just my opinion though)
So even if the IT is not true, than BioWare should work really hard on an alternative explanation, because they're going to get the backlash of their life. What happend till now, will be in comparison a light and gentle small diagreement....
Especially Battlestar Galactica comes to mind when playing ME, because of the Organics vs Synthetics (Humans vs Cylons). The outcome was some sort of synthesis and destroy, the "good" human models went with the colonials while the "good" centurions went on their way alone. True Geth / Heretics come to mind here.
It especially resembles BSG where Leoben was interrogated by Kara and he said the players change, but the story remains the same, which is basically exactly what the VI said.
waldstr18 wrote...
@dwailing
whats actually sad is, that you have a greates enemy and (!) that you found him on an online forum about a video game ending theory. i dont think i have enemies at all. if you think of me that way, sad, but i dont think of any of you that way. even while still wanting to troll you guys, but enemies? cmon... arent we all fans of the same game? arent we all not sadisfied by the endings? (some more some less)
thanks for the anti cancer wishes, though. its probably nothing. luck is on my side. i dont want to jinx it though.
Simon_Says wrote...
paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
Nanite's? Where did they come from? How were they made? Where were they developed? Who developed them? How did they enter Anderson ?Did they go into Shepard when he was ressurrected?
More explanation pls.
Modifié par SS2Dante, 26 avril 2012 - 09:48 .
Simon_Says wrote...
paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
Nanite's? Where did they come from? How were they made? Where were they developed? Who developed them? How did they enter Anderson ?Did they go into Shepard when he was ressurrected?
More explanation pls.
Modifié par paxxton, 26 avril 2012 - 09:49 .
SS2Dante wrote...
I got halfway down your post, and I think that what you're saying is what i've been saying, but then you mentioned BSG and I'm like "AAAAH MY EYES!" and had to look away. Only just started watching it (late to the party much?) and it's BADASS. Me no risky spoilers
...so yeah. kind of a redundant post but blegh
Uh yeah, should have added a spoiler warning there, it definitely isSS2Dante wrote...
MegumiAzusa wrote...
The pattern that VI talked about was bigger than the Reapers or the child. It's also very very much similar to either the Matrix, or Peter Pan/Battlestar Galactica ("All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.")Uncle Jo wrote...
No I can't agree with you. I'm aware that vendetta introduces somehow the Starbrat, but it doesn't justify his presence. It comes very late (you could object that Sovereign too in ME1) breaks the narrative coherence and makes the REAPERS (the most fearful, powerful threat the galaxy ever experienced looking like toys).paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
And for the starkid's logic, I've posted a something about a few pages ago (it's just my opinion though)
So even if the IT is not true, than BioWare should work really hard on an alternative explanation, because they're going to get the backlash of their life. What happend till now, will be in comparison a light and gentle small diagreement....
Especially Battlestar Galactica comes to mind when playing ME, because of the Organics vs Synthetics (Humans vs Cylons). The outcome was some sort of synthesis and destroy, the "good" human models went with the colonials while the "good" centurions went on their way alone. True Geth / Heretics come to mind here.
It especially resembles BSG where Leoben was interrogated by Kara and he said the players change, but the story remains the same, which is basically exactly what the VI said.
I got halfway down your post, and I think that what you're saying is what i've been saying, but then you mentioned BSG and I'm like "AAAAH MY EYES!" and had to look away. Only just started watching it (late to the party much?) and it's BADASS. Me no risky spoilers
...so yeah. kind of a redundant post but blegh
And BSG is just huge, best show to date imo :3
Fixed.Jon The Wizard wrote...
IF THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS TRUE: Bioware may be the most clever writers ever.
IF THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS FALSE: Bioware, you just skipped a HUGE opportunity. And if you don't come up with something else that's satisfactory, you're gonna commit public-image-suicide.
HellishFiend wrote...
SS2Dante wrote...
I got halfway down your post, and I think that what you're saying is what i've been saying, but then you mentioned BSG and I'm like "AAAAH MY EYES!" and had to look away. Only just started watching it (late to the party much?) and it's BADASS. Me no risky spoilers
...so yeah. kind of a redundant post but blegh
BSG is great, despite the fact that the quality of the storytelling takes a bit of a hit after the first couple of seasons. In order to protect your ability to enjoy it though, make sure you dont expect all of the questions to be answered by the end.
TheConstantOne wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
No I can't agree with you. I'm aware that vendetta introduces somehow the Starbrat, but it doesn't justify his presence. It comes very late (you could object that Sovereign too in ME1) breaks the narrative coherence and makes the REAPERS (the most fearful, powerful threat the galaxy ever experienced looking like toys).paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
And for the starkid's logic, I've posted a something about a few pages ago (it's just my opinion though)
So even if the IT is not true, than BioWare should work really hard on an alternative explanation, because they're going to get the backlash of their life. What happend till now, will be in comparison a light and gentle small diagreement....
I often considered Starkid's logic to be skewed because his logic itself was somewhat constrained. He may be an AI but he could be shackled to a particualr directive similarly to how EDI was in ME 2. The logic he uses is how he justifies what the Reapers do. My personal take: the Reapers don't trust the galaxy to rest in the hands of solely organics or synthetics. They want to preserve their dominance and their own vision of synthesis. This is also how I interpreted the smile the kid has when you choose control: even if you take the Reapers in a different direction, they are still the most powerful beings in the galaxy and will be calling the shots to some extent.
paxxton wrote...
Simon_Says wrote...
paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
Nanite's? Where did they come from? How were they made? Where were they developed? Who developed them? How did they enter Anderson ?Did they go into Shepard when he was ressurrected?
More explanation pls.
Did you play the game at all? If not, go through Sanctuary and listen to every audio log and read every PDA.
SS2Dante wrote...
Ok, can we clear this up once and for all? I thought the spelling was "nanites", but a lot of people are spelling it "nanides". So...what's up with that? Off-spelling or are "nanides" a specific ME thing?
Modifié par paxxton, 26 avril 2012 - 09:53 .
TheConstantOne wrote...
TheConstantOne wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
No I can't agree with you. I'm aware that vendetta introduces somehow the Starbrat, but it doesn't justify his presence. It comes very late (you could object that Sovereign too in ME1) breaks the narrative coherence and makes the REAPERS (the most fearful, powerful threat the galaxy ever experienced looking like toys).paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
And for the starkid's logic, I've posted a something about a few pages ago (it's just my opinion though)
So even if the IT is not true, than BioWare should work really hard on an alternative explanation, because they're going to get the backlash of their life. What happend till now, will be in comparison a light and gentle small diagreement....
I often considered Starkid's logic to be skewed because his logic itself was somewhat constrained. He may be an AI but he could be shackled to a particualr directive similarly to how EDI was in ME 2. The logic he uses is how he justifies what the Reapers do. My personal take: the Reapers don't trust the galaxy to rest in the hands of solely organics or synthetics. They want to preserve their dominance and their own vision of synthesis. This is also how I interpreted the smile the kid has when you choose control: even if you take the Reapers in a different direction, they are still the most powerful beings in the galaxy and will be calling the shots to some extent.
Actually has anyone considered the possibility that ReaperBieber's logic is faulty because of a programming constraint. A cycle was alluded to on Thessia but what if this cycle was brought into existence by the race that created the Reapers? By ensuring that no synthetic races other than the Reapers survived and all of the best of organic (unpredicatable) life was preserved in the Reapers, the race behind the Reapers would have a HUGE amount of galactic control. Sounds like that could be a brewing conflict for a ME 4...
Dwailing wrote...
waldstr18 wrote...
@dwailing
whats actually sad is, that you have a greates enemy and (!) that you found him on an online forum about a video game ending theory. i dont think i have enemies at all. if you think of me that way, sad, but i dont think of any of you that way. even while still wanting to troll you guys, but enemies? cmon... arent we all fans of the same game? arent we all not sadisfied by the endings? (some more some less)
thanks for the anti cancer wishes, though. its probably nothing. luck is on my side. i dont want to jinx it though.
The enemy comment is in jest. You're not really an enemy. I don't hate you enough to call you that. In fact, I really don't hate you, so much as just get frusterated by you. I don't see why you have to come here and keep saying that you oppose IT without actually bringing up any points for debate. It seems as if you enjoy coming here and trading insults. I mean, look at me. I've been getting kind of punchy lately, haven't I? That's not something that happens often, if you look back. How about we settle things this way? We make a pact that whoever is right will buy whoever is wrong a virtual drink, and will rub the fact that he was right all along in the other's face. That's what I did with GBGriffin, and we have established an insult free relationship.
SS2Dante wrote...
HellishFiend wrote...
SS2Dante wrote...
I got halfway down your post, and I think that what you're saying is what i've been saying, but then you mentioned BSG and I'm like "AAAAH MY EYES!" and had to look away. Only just started watching it (late to the party much?) and it's BADASS. Me no risky spoilers
...so yeah. kind of a redundant post but blegh
BSG is great, despite the fact that the quality of the storytelling takes a bit of a hit after the first couple of seasons. In order to protect your ability to enjoy it though, make sure you dont expect all of the questions to be answered by the end.
I did hear that, yes :S Which is a shame. Did it get cancelled, or just go the Lost route?
Redbelle wrote...
Hoping for a new ending........ but the BW/EA stance seems to be on clarity of the existing ending from what I can gather.
Why CH cannot play through his ending and see it through consumer eye's is beyond me. He may have written it with love but one of the first rules of writing a story is to approach it with the mindset of 'murder your darling'. The story is your darling but you have to be harsh and actively rip it apart to see if there is any flaw's in the construction.
Dwailing wrote...
paxxton wrote...
Simon_Says wrote...
paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
Nanite's? Where did they come from? How were they made? Where were they developed? Who developed them? How did they enter Anderson ?Did they go into Shepard when he was ressurrected?
More explanation pls.
Did you play the game at all? If not, go through Sanctuary and listen to every audio log and read every PDA.
Well, I played the game, and I don't remember any mention of nanites being implanted in Shepard or Anderson. In fact, just to get this out of the way, do you actually know what nanites are? I don't mean any offence, but I'm just curious because that will shape my future responses.
Dwailing wrote...
TheConstantOne wrote...
TheConstantOne wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
No I can't agree with you. I'm aware that vendetta introduces somehow the Starbrat, but it doesn't justify his presence. It comes very late (you could object that Sovereign too in ME1) breaks the narrative coherence and makes the REAPERS (the most fearful, powerful threat the galaxy ever experienced looking like toys).paxxton wrote...
Because everything in the ending is explained throughout the game and makes sense.
Vendetta hints at the existence of starkid on Thessia.
TIM uses nanides to control Shepard and Anderson.
Starkid's logic makes sense.
But I also appreciate the Indoctrination Theory.
And for the starkid's logic, I've posted a something about a few pages ago (it's just my opinion though)
So even if the IT is not true, than BioWare should work really hard on an alternative explanation, because they're going to get the backlash of their life. What happend till now, will be in comparison a light and gentle small diagreement....
I often considered Starkid's logic to be skewed because his logic itself was somewhat constrained. He may be an AI but he could be shackled to a particualr directive similarly to how EDI was in ME 2. The logic he uses is how he justifies what the Reapers do. My personal take: the Reapers don't trust the galaxy to rest in the hands of solely organics or synthetics. They want to preserve their dominance and their own vision of synthesis. This is also how I interpreted the smile the kid has when you choose control: even if you take the Reapers in a different direction, they are still the most powerful beings in the galaxy and will be calling the shots to some extent.
Actually has anyone considered the possibility that ReaperBieber's logic is faulty because of a programming constraint. A cycle was alluded to on Thessia but what if this cycle was brought into existence by the race that created the Reapers? By ensuring that no synthetic races other than the Reapers survived and all of the best of organic (unpredicatable) life was preserved in the Reapers, the race behind the Reapers would have a HUGE amount of galactic control. Sounds like that could be a brewing conflict for a ME 4...
ReaperBieber!?!? YES!!!!!! WE'VE FOUND OUR NAME FOR THE STAR-BRAT!!!!!!!
paxxton wrote...
SS2Dante wrote...
Ok, can we clear this up once and for all? I thought the spelling was "nanites", but a lot of people are spelling it "nanides". So...what's up with that? Off-spelling or are "nanides" a specific ME thing?
In the game it's spelled "nanides". But I think they meant "nanites".
Modifié par lex0r11, 26 avril 2012 - 09:55 .
Retour en haut