SubAstris wrote...
Arian Dynas wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
byne wrote...
liggy002 wrote...
Indoc theorists, please reassure so that I don't get pissed off and hate Mass Effect for this. At PAX East, they were explaining to the fans why the Citadel wasn't completely destroyed? Doesn't that mean they are telling us indirectly that the ending wasn't a dream and that the IT was untrue?
Please provide a strong counterargument because this is pissing me off. I just refuse to accept this mess of an ending.
Considering we actually see the Citadel blow apart, unless IT is true they're pretty much just lying.
Also Weekes + Merizan comments. No IT theorists has provided a solid counterargument to this, instead ignoring them by saying they are "toying with us".
I am going to explain this once.
Comments from the Penny Arcade forums have been denied. So those don't count and should not be, being debunked as having not come from the mouth of Patrick Weekes. That is counter argument one.
Merizan's comments have been explicitly stated BY HER to be her opinion and NOTHING else. She is speculating as a fan, just like everyone else is. Counter argument two.
Comments from the Weekes interveiw are, by his own admission HEAVILY paraphrased, and therefore nearly usesless and unreliable, but every explantation concerns things that are not necessarily related to the ending and are facts that are true, yet never denies IDT, never dismisses the evidence or for that matter, never explains some of the more outrageous things, like how Shepard could survive an explosion that makes the Tsar Bomba look like a firecracker without being atomized, or how in the HELL Synthesis is supposed to work. Counter argument three. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
1) Fair enough
2) She is the point between the fans and BW, informed by BW what to release and when to release certain information, as well as having good contact with fans. Many people cite her as a reliable source when it comes to supporting IT, yet when it doesn't, she is suddenly not credible anymore.
3) Yes they are paraphrased, however he himself has seen the comments and commented on the aspects he thought misrepresented him, which the thing about the Citadel doesn't include. He could have retracted his state on all plot important characters surviving, but he didn't. "never explains some of the more outrageous things"- Ask the interviewer why he didn't ask more question you would have liked seen. I can only base my conclusions on the evidence we have at the moment
1) Agreed.
2) Yes but she has explicitly stated at the time she commented that Shepard was on the Citadel, she knew nothing OF, or any details about the EC. Also, for the record, we do not "cite her as a reliable resource." We DO however cite that now that she HAS seen the pre-work on the EC and yet still maintains a playthrough as being Indoctrination Theory interpretation, as being something promising, but in the end is merely a morale booster.
3). The fellow whom gave the interveiw himself not only stated he wrote what he did from memory, and thus there are sure to be errors. And I never claimed he misrepresented Mr. Weekes, but merely that what he wrote could very well be subject to poor memory, poor interpretation of Mr. Weekes statements, or something of the like. But in the end, Weekes never broached the subject of indoctrination OR indeed, really the endings themselves. What DID he talk about? Let's read between the lines and examine each thing on it's own;
FTL - Yes, not saying if it is needed or not, but in the event it should be, remember what FTL drives can do, remember there's a bunch of Dead Reapers around with Eezo to make their cores better.
Joker - Refused to answer or cite a good reason, saying "Wait for the Extended Cut" If the meaning of the ending was intended to be literal, and they never planned on making the EC, then why be secretive?
EDI - Argued she should be destroyed, but turned down for some reason, with interveiwer failure here, due to him apparently misunderstanding or not hearing the comments Weekes made here.
Citadel - Gave a non answer as to whether it was destroyed or not, stating explosion as an example, thrown out casually, not necessarily reality, while also stating that they never want the player to feel as though they accomplished nothing (nice thought at least Pat.)
Relays - Note the Interveiwer explicitly says he is heavily paraphrasing and requests that he not be interpreted too hard, but the answer itself, and in fact states that people interpreted the endings in ways they did NOT intend. And apparently gives some kind of explanation that makes no sense even gramatically speaking, leading me to again think "paraphrase" and badly so.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
