233 réponses à ce sujet

[Wowky]

Tov01 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Bhatair wrote...

Sorry, I just think the time has come and gone for them to come out and say IT was the plan all along. It's been a month, there is a huge fan outcry over the ending in the game and a 1000+ page thread speculating on indoctrination. Besides there is no logical reason to remove the ending after the twist unless they wanted to sell it to us later, which I would find despicable.

Would IT have been awesome? Yes, I like it much better than what we actually got. It's up there with the whole "Would you kindly?" twist from Bioshock in terms of cleverness. I'm too cynical to actually believe Bioware intended it though and if they did, well screw them I'm not paying extra for what should have been part of the game from the get go.

Extra missions? Extra weapons? Sure, that's acceptable as DLC. The ending to a trilogy? No, that is just blatant exploitation.

If it is true, they would not say anything...The idea was to trick the player...To have them experiance indoctrination. If they say anything about the ending, people would not fall for the trick. It's a psycological test.

Well that's just stupid. You do not play with your fans like that and expect them to keep buying your stuff.

If anything, that would encourage me to buy more of their stuff. The first thing that even got me playing ME1 was someone telling me that the story is really awesome and it's not just your standard "here's the plot, swallow it" kind of game. If Bioware pull this sort of trickery off, I give them massive kudos, because I love that sort of ****. To be that invested in a game and care that much about the ending not being that great as it is and then being all like "OMG BIOWARE YOU CRAFTY S.O.B.'S THAT WAS GENIUS" is the sort of reaction I would WANT to have from a game...they barely happen in movies these days anymore, so hey, I'll take them when I can get them.

[Hingjon]

I would be happier then the normal crap

[B3ckett]

Oh oh and maybe they'll introduce a boss fight? You know, I felt that Udina was it for the original ME3 game? definately not Kai Lang, who got ~45 secs of screen time and felt just like a better Cerberus soldier (I know who he is, but he was forced into the game and not introduced properly).

[sirjimmus86]

Well if people want to complain that they can't get the DLC due to lack of internet, at least we won't have to put up them whining here. Plus how will they even know about it...

[the slynx]

dreman9999 wrote...

Yourmissing the point that the repaers have full control over it and it's subtle. It can easilly be hidden and shown to be easilly hidden.

I’m not missing the point; I understand that indoctrination is amorphous and malleable and defined so generally as to imply effectively any sort of manipulation, through any process it opts to take. I understand that whether it can be hidden or not is contestable, and that, given how little we understand of its processes, it may be possible for Reapers to use it sparingly when being scanned for its presence. My point is that it’s so amorphous and malleable as to mean absolutely anything as a plot device, without falsifiability or regard for consistency; it’s an ‘easy out’ button writers can press whenever they want, the way Saturday cartoons used ‘it was all a dream,’ or ‘as long as we have love, we win’. That’s what makes it a bad pillar for a narrative.


And this isn’t the only point on which I think IT has problems, as my other thread suggests.

Regardless, I’ve said my part, and you’ve said your part. We’re just going to have to disagree here. If IT ends up being endorsed by BioWare, you’ll get an ending you like, and the ending I already don’t like won’t get worse or better, it’ll just be incomplete. I guess that means in a sort of utilitarian sense, their endorsement will satisfy more people than otherwise. I just hope they try something a little more reasonable and fulfilling (either in IT or face value terms) in Dragon Age 3.

As an aside, I’m surprised that I haven’t seen any indoctrination theorists suggest what seems possible about the Prothean VI. Most anti-IT posters believe it shuts down due to the presence of Cerberus and Kai Leng; however, we’re never shown that Kai Leng specifically is indoctrinated, and it’s possible he’s not. Perhaps the VI belatedly detects Shepard’s indoctrination.

Note as well that it only agrees to speak with him once more, and it specifically notes that it is doing so only because its safety protocols have been disabled; why bother mentioning that if all local Cerberus (and thus presumably indoctrinated presences) have been eliminated? It might mean that it is only taking to Shepard despite his indoctrination because of its safety protocols being killed.  That could presumably be construed as further ‘proof’ for IT. Or something like that: I haven’t given the matter great thought, but I also haven’t seen it brought up by indoctheorists - though I might have missed it, with how many threads there now are.  I don't find it convincing, but some might.

I’m turning off my computer. I shouldn’t be doing this at work in the first place. Have fun.

Modifié par torudoom, 03 avril 2012 - 07:21 .

[R3MUS]

As long as i get a final confrontation and a conclusion to Harbinger, i will be so happy and satisifed. :innocent:

Modifié par R3MUS, 03 avril 2012 - 07:22 .

[Allison_Lightning]

Celebrate, write a thank you to Bioware and go back to almost never posting.

[dreman9999]

torudoom wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Yourmissing the point that the repaers have full control over it and it's subtle. It can easilly be hidden and shown to be easilly hidden.

I’m not missing the point; I understand that indoctrination is amorphous and malleable and defined so generally as to imply effectively any sort of manipulation, through any process it opts to take. I understand that whether it can be hidden or not is contestable, and that, given how little we understand of its processes, it may be possible for Reapers to use it sparingly when being scanned for its presence. My point is that it’s so amorphous and malleable as to mean absolutely anything as a plot device, without falsifiability or regard for consistency; it’s an ‘easy out’ button writers can press whenever they want, the way Saturday cartoons used ‘it was all a dream,’ or ‘as long as we have love, we win’. That’s what makes it a bad pillar for a narrative.


And this isn’t the only point on which I think IT has problems, as my other thread suggests.

Regardless, I’ve said my part, and you’ve said your part. We’re just going to have to disagree here. If IT ends up being endorsed by BioWare, you’ll get an ending you like, and the ending I already don’t like won’t get worse or better, it’ll just be incomplete. I guess that means in a sort of utilitarian sense, their endorsement will satisfy more people than otherwise. I just hope they try something a little more reasonable and fulfilling (either in IT or face value terms) in Dragon Age 3.

As an aside, I’m surprised that I haven’t seen any indoctrination theorists suggest what seems possible about the Prothean VI. Most anti-IT posters believe it shuts down due to the presence of Cerberus and Kai Leng; however, we’re never shown that Kai Leng specifically is indoctrinated, and it’s possible he’s not. Perhaps the VI belatedly detects Shepard’s indoctrination.

Note as well that it only agrees to speak with him once more, and it specifically notes that it is doing so only because its safety protocols have been disabled; why bother mentioning that if all local Cerberus (and thus presumably indoctrinated presences) have been eliminated? It might mean that it is only taking to Shepard despite his indoctrination because of its safety protocols being killed.  That could presumably be construed as further ‘proof’ for IT. Or something like that: I haven’t given the matter great thought, but I also haven’t seen it brought up by indoctheorists - though I might have missed it, with how many threads there now are.  I don't find it convincing, but some might.

I’m turning off my computer. I shouldn’t be doing this at work in the first place. Have fun.

You are missing thepoint. You're saying a machine race, that has eons of time to have develop, fine tune, and test indoctrintion in every way, that when they do have some indcotrinated they are always watching the person a forcing their will on that perso tirlessly due to the fact that they are time less machines with infinat pacance, would never be able to use indoctrinationthe way they are using it.

You literally say that the reaper never mastered it, even though they had eons, too.
That why it makes sense, the very fact they had all the time in the universe to fine tune it.

[nexesotaku]

I'd simply say thank you, and go about my day once more with the glimmer of hope in my step.

[Poison_Berrie]

That wouldn't be actual clarification.

That would be actually getting an ending (and have what they call the ending right now be a false ending).
In other words that would mean that you get the ending as a DLC.

If this was their intent they had better release it free of charge. If they rolled with it, they're changing the ending rather than clarifying.

[MstrJedi Kyle]

That would depend on how much we have to spend on it.

[bluewolv1970]

dreman9999 wrote...

 How will you react?

What if it starts with Shepard walking up while being dragged away by the conduit by a solider or squadmate. It will be fuzy and we see Harbinger being fired on by fleet ships and ground forces as it fights back...It will be disorienting and will fade to black to later have Shepard wake up somewhere else....Then you go on with the game...to finish the fight or to sabotage the crucible as an indoctrinated agent based on your choice at the crucible.

I would find it to be more than acceptable...at any rate it would keep me from trading in my game and probably get me to buy the other dlc (story based anyway)

[Demonburnt]

dreman9999 wrote...

 How will you react?

What if it starts with Shepard walking up while being dragged away by the conduit by a solider or squadmate. It will be fuzy and we see Harbinger being fired on by fleet ships and ground forces as it fights back...It will be disorienting and will fade to black to later have Shepard wake up somewhere else....Then you go on with the game...to finish the fight or to sabotage the crucible as an indoctrinated agent based on your choice at the crucible.

made a thread about that idea a while ago

http://social.biowar.../index/10119542

[dreman9999]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

That wouldn't be actual clarification.

That would be actually getting an ending (and have what they call the ending right now be a false ending).
In other words that would mean that you get the ending as a DLC.

If this was their intent they had better release it free of charge. If they rolled with it, they're changing the ending rather than clarifying.

But that not changing the ending. The fact this it illustraes what was seen earlier was adream clarifies what going on in the ending...It extends the ending, not changes it.

[macrocarl]

I just wanna rabbit punch Harby in the crotch. I hope it's IT cause that's a WAY smarter way to handle things than some sort of end boss. So if the DLC starts with punching Harby's lights out then goes from there that'd be sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!!!111

[Mushufasa1512]

Honestly, I do not really care if it is IT or some other storlyine they come up. Anything that allows me to say phew, that crap on the citadel never actually happened, and go on my way hitting harbinger in the face is fine with me.

[the slynx]

dreman9999 wrote...
You are missing thepoint. You're saying a machine race, that has eons of time to have develop, fine tune, and test indoctrintion in every way, that when they do have some indcotrinated they are always watching the person a forcing their will on that perso tirlessly due to the fact that they are time less machines with infinat pacance, would never be able to use indoctrinationthe way they are using it.

You literally say that the reaper never mastered it, even though they had eons, too.
That why it makes sense, the very fact they had all the time in the universe to fine tune it.

No, I'm not missing the point, and no, that is not 'literally' what I'm
saying at all. I didn't say anything like that. The Reapers may have done this or they may not have. I am not attempting to put any limits on how Reapers use indoctrination, but I am trying to understand how it's used in game - and there, it's ambiguous. My issue is entirely with whether or not the mechanic is explained in-game in a way that makes it fully comprehensible, so that we can, with any certainty, suggest whether or not a given outcome is likely, without resorting to speculation about the processes or effects involved. I don't believe this has been achieved in the games to the extent that it's demanded to make IT desirable.

I said multiple times times in the thread to which you're responding that I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not IT is true or not (I think there are arguments to be made both ways, neither certain). I said, repeatedly, that I'm treating whether or not IT as a narrative device is desirable. I invite you to check it again here. My overall argument remains that the indoctrination twist as presented is imperfect in purely narrative terms. Whether it's true or not is not my concern, and I have nothing to add to that discussion. I suspect BioWare will have the final say on that.

I'm not sure how to be clearer than I've tried to be in the earlier thread, or with my comments in this one.  I think I comprehend your position, and I'm not trying to discredit it or IT in any sort of general way.

[Schief724]

If it's just "clarification" then I'll not buy the DLC and just watch a video of what happens on YouTube. I'll then proceed to never buy a BioWare game again.

[Cobra's_back]

Mushufasa1512 wrote...

Honestly, I do not really care if it is IT or some other storlyine they come up. Anything that allows me to say phew, that crap on the citadel never actually happened, and go on my way hitting harbinger in the face is fine with me.

This

[Tanis1983]

Ya know, I'm not a big subscriber to IT. And I loathe the current state of the endings as much as the next line-holder. But if they did this right ... it could turn around to be their most epic, memorable stunt of all time ... for all of the RIGHT reasons. Here's to hope, may it not be ground into dust.

[dreman9999]

torudoom wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You are missing thepoint. You're saying a machine race, that has eons of time to have develop, fine tune, and test indoctrintion in every way, that when they do have some indcotrinated they are always watching the person a forcing their will on that perso tirlessly due to the fact that they are time less machines with infinat pacance, would never be able to use indoctrinationthe way they are using it.

You literally say that the reaper never mastered it, even though they had eons, too.
That why it makes sense, the very fact they had all the time in the universe to fine tune it.

No, I'm not missing the point, and no, that is not 'literally' what I'm
saying at all. I didn't say anything like that. The Reapers may have done this or they may not have. I am not attempting to put any limits on how Reapers use indoctrination, but I am trying to understand how it's used in game - and there, it's ambiguous. My issue is entirely with whether or not the mechanic is explained in-game in a way that makes it fully comprehensible, so that we can, with any certainty, suggest whether or not a given outcome is likely, without resorting to speculation about the processes or effects involved. I don't believe this has been achieved in the games to the extent that it's demanded to make IT desirable.

I said multiple times times in the thread to which you're responding that I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not IT is true or not (I think there are arguments to be made both ways, neither certain). I said, repeatedly, that I'm treating whether or not IT as a narrative device is desirable. I invite you to check it again here. My overall argument remains that the indoctrination twist as presented is imperfect in purely narrative terms. Whether it's true or not is not my concern, and I have nothing to add to that discussion. I suspect BioWare will have the final say on that.

I'm not sure how to be clearer than I've tried to be in the earlier thread, or with my comments in this one.  I think I comprehend your position, and I'm not trying to discredit it or IT in any sort of general way.

Again, the thing you missingis that fact that the reapers can modify the process and have done so for eons. I know your say it just a story element that explain and warp everything butthe thing you don't understand that it always is seen like that. That's the very nature ifindoctrination, it's process is so flexible that it can be done and changed in many ways. There really is no limit to how it is used on organics outside of the fact that they need lenthy exposer first. It's always been like that in ME1. 

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 avril 2012 - 02:50 .

[Poison_Berrie]

dreman9999 wrote...
But that not changing the ending. The fact this it illustraes what was seen earlier was adream clarifies what going on in the ending...It extends the ending, not changes it.

It is if they decided to go with Indoc Theory after the fact (if they do that I'd suggest they look at Intoxication theory).

If this what they planned, we never got an ending, so this wouldn't actually be clarification of the ending, but rather just regular clarification.

[dreman9999]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But that not changing the ending. The fact this it illustraes what was seen earlier was adream clarifies what going on in the ending...It extends the ending, not changes it.

It is if they decided to go with Indoc Theory after the fact (if they do that I'd suggest they look at Intoxication theory).

If this what they planned, we never got an ending, so this wouldn't actually be clarification of the ending, but rather just regular clarification.

And why do you thing bw is so tight liped about any clarifiction about what happened?

It's obvious by now that the game has no ending. The ending is similar to inception, total recall, and blade runner where it done in a way to question what was seen at the end was real or what is seen can be taken at face value. The think is the ending is too warped to be consider realistic. Form a gun that never runs out bullet, to an Anderson that waros infornt of you, to TIM coming out of the shadows from no where, toShepard bleeding where he was not shot, the starchild and everything with joker.....After seeing all that in the end, did what we see really happen, being that non of it makes sense?

[pfellahX]

I would give them credit for a great idea from a gaming standpoint. IT, if true, is some really sneaky fourth-wall stuff that tests YOU as the player, instead of Shepard -- how much did you learn about the Reapers playing three games?

I would send them a followup email suggesting that the conclusion of a flagship franchise is the wrong time to be creating viral marketing campaigns that involve pissing your fans off for a month and leaving them in the lurch. The email would, however, be far more polite than if I wrote it today. If this is something they planned all along but implemented poorly or didn't know how to control when it got out of hand... well... feed some marketing guys to the volcano and move on.

(As an aside, I would also point out that if true, it relies a little too much on retaining knowledge from Games 1 and 2, which some players might not have played in months or even YEARS. You can't assume a recent replay, if you're asking users to solve a three-game puzzle. I didn't even remember Jack didn't survive the suicide mission until I got to the end and realized I never saw her.)

And then I would play the ever-lovin' s**t out of that game because a fitting ending is all I've ever wanted out of this situation. And I'd go back and pick Red, because the Reapers suckered me into picking Green.