1057 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

You guys need to look at the symbolism and the metaphors.

Control: Shepard is trying to hold onto something he can't control, something that will kill him.

Synthesis: This is appealing to Shep's heroic side, he is sacrificing himself to save everyone. But it is a false hope because; half synthies could still create full synthies. (the created always rebel against the creator) and is also based on the lie that Synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution. Its actually the end of evolution and is the same fallacy that Saren believed in.

Destroy: You keep fighting, you keep resisting, you destroy the reapers no matter the cost.

[estebanus]

ajm317 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sorry, I.T. is a better story then the endings at face value, cliffhanger and all...

That may be true, but it doesn't necessarily imply IT was what the developers intended.

I think a far more likely interpretation is just that Bioware wrote a bad ending.

You're right. The IT doesn't necesarrily imply that Bioware actually did this. Why? because it's a theory.
If we knew that Bioware actually did this... Why, then it wouldn't be a theory, it would be FACT.

[CerealWar]

STEEEEVE wrote...


3.) I don't like fan fiction, and that's literally all IT is. BAD fan fiction at that.

Why is it BAD fan fiction?

[Tirian Thorn]

TheTrueObelus wrote...

Main issue with IT...you have less choice than the crappy ending that Bioware actually wrote.

Lets break down the ending choices.

With "control" or "synthesis" you are indoctrinated. You dont wake up. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick "destroy" and you escape indoctrination but you die (because of low war assets). Nothing is resolved. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick destroy and escape being indoctrinated and wake up (because you have enough war assets). But that means you didn't actually witness the end of the game...you still have to defeat the Reapers. So this would also mean they gave us a totally unfinished game. This is beyond lame.

So basically the only way to win and the only choices that mattered were the few that gave you the "perfect" destroy ending. Having only one choice basically means you have no choice.

In ME2 the only way to get a "perfect ending" and save everyone required you to do certain things.  You had a choice to do those things or not.  But you had/have a choice.  You don't have to get everyone's loyalty.  You don't have to upgrade the Normandy.  But if you don't do things right, Shepard can die and the Collectors/Reapers can win. 

So let's assume IT is true. 

If you don't get enough war assets and pick Control/Synthesis and the Reapers win - how is that not enough choice?

So ok, maybe you don't like that.  My interpretation of IT is that no matter what you choose - Blue, Red or Green the battle isn't over yet. 

In Control/Synthesis I believe Shepard does get Indoctrinated, but perhaps that leaves the finale up to the rest of the squad.  Or Shepard might get a moment of clarity and end up dying because you picked those options. 




IT is not just an explanation of the ending - it is hope that there is more to the ending than just what we've seen. 

[OdanUrr]

estebanus wrote...

Oh, I meant no disrespect, it just seems like a pretty lame argument IMO.

Don't worry about it. As for your Reapers hanging about the Citadel, there could be a number of explanations:

- the Reapers are fighting the Allied Fleet
- the Reapers are afraid they might end up blowing up the Citadel
- Reapers fighting in the background is just coolB)
- etc.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 13 avril 2012 - 07:01 .

[balance5050]

ajm317 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Sorry, I.T. is a better story then the endings at face value, cliffhanger and all...

That may be true, but it doesn't necessarily imply IT was what the developers intended.

I think a far more likely interpretation is just that Bioware wrote a bad ending.

Bioware wanted "speculation", most people who speculate end up at I.T.. I don't think they wanted to convey "bad ending" even if most people do. Me/Shepard, aren't most people.

[EpyonX3]

[balance5050]

CerealWar wrote...

STEEEEVE wrote...


3.) I don't like fan fiction, and that's literally all IT is. BAD fan fiction at that.

Why is it BAD fan fiction?

Steeeve is oneof those people who thinks everything sucks. We can't help him if that's the way his mind works.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

You guys need to look at the symbolism and the metaphors.

Control: Shepard is trying to hold onto something he can't control, something that will kill him.

Synthesis: This is appealing to Shep's heroic side, he is sacrificing himself to save everyone. But it is a false hope because; half synthies could still create full synthies. (the created always rebel against the creator) and is also based on the lie that Synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution. Its actually the end of evolution and is the same fallacy that Saren believed in.

Destroy: You keep fighting, you keep resisting, you destroy the reapers no matter the cost.

I think you are overanalyzing this way too much, assuming IT to be true (with all its grand and questionable assumptions) instead of the simple explanation that Control is Control, Synthesis is Synthesis, Destroy is...Destroy.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

I appreciate that video because it disproves like 1 and 1/2 tidbits of the MOUNTAIN of evidence and speculation that I.T. has going for it.

Pretty weak IMO

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

You guys need to look at the symbolism and the metaphors.

Control: Shepard is trying to hold onto something he can't control, something that will kill him.

Synthesis: This is appealing to Shep's heroic side, he is sacrificing himself to save everyone. But it is a false hope because; half synthies could still create full synthies. (the created always rebel against the creator) and is also based on the lie that Synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution. Its actually the end of evolution and is the same fallacy that Saren believed in.

Destroy: You keep fighting, you keep resisting, you destroy the reapers no matter the cost.

I think you are overanalyzing this way too much, assuming IT to be true (with all its grand and questionable assumptions) instead of the simple explanation that Control is Control, Synthesis is Synthesis, Destroy is...Destroy.

You're not anylyzing enough^_^

[estebanus]

As for the eyes, there is an assumption that that means indoctrination, instead of Reaper tech, which is unfounded. Not all Reaper items do indoctrinate for example





[/quote]  

errmm... Yes they do.

[balance5050]

[quote]estebanus wrote...


As for the eyes, there is an assumption that that means indoctrination, instead of Reaper tech, which is unfounded. Not all Reaper items do indoctrinate for example





[/quote]  

errmm... Yes they do.

[/quote]

Yeah, all reaper tech indoctrinates.

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

You guys need to look at the symbolism and the metaphors.

Control: Shepard is trying to hold onto something he can't control, something that will kill him.

Synthesis: This is appealing to Shep's heroic side, he is sacrificing himself to save everyone. But it is a false hope because; half synthies could still create full synthies. (the created always rebel against the creator) and is also based on the lie that Synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution. Its actually the end of evolution and is the same fallacy that Saren believed in.

Destroy: You keep fighting, you keep resisting, you destroy the reapers no matter the cost.

Why do we need to see it that way? There's nothing in the story that makes us lean towards looking at things symblically. Especially at the last ten minutes.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

You guys need to look at the symbolism and the metaphors.

Control: Shepard is trying to hold onto something he can't control, something that will kill him.

Synthesis: This is appealing to Shep's heroic side, he is sacrificing himself to save everyone. But it is a false hope because; half synthies could still create full synthies. (the created always rebel against the creator) and is also based on the lie that Synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution. Its actually the end of evolution and is the same fallacy that Saren believed in.

Destroy: You keep fighting, you keep resisting, you destroy the reapers no matter the cost.

Why do we need to see it that way? There's nothing in the story that makes us lean towards looking at things symblically. Especially at the last ten minutes.

Uhh, the dreams... and the Geth Consensus.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

I appreciate that video because it disproves like 1 and 1/2 tidbits of the MOUNTAIN of evidence and speculation that I.T. has going for it.

Pretty weak IMO

Of course the video is only to consider some of the claims of IT; the fact is that they happen to be strong evidences against it. However, in typical conspiracy theorist fashion, you can always bring up endless piles of "evidence" and "arguments" and claim victory as long as they are all not defeated.

[Tirian Thorn]

Without repeating everything in IT here are my cliff notes.

1) Indoctrination is a significant focus of the series (the loss of one’s self to Reaper influence.)

2) Two Antagonists (who everyone knows are Indoctrinated) pick either Control or Synthesis. Do you really want to pick options that they believed in? But that is a choice. Maybe your Shepard believes in Cerberus’ ultimate goals or maybe your Shep believes Saren (even though indoctrinated) was right.

A) Saren (who was indoctrinated) believed Synthesis was the only way to win.
The Illusive Man believes/d that Controlling the Reapers was the best option.

3) At the end Control is colored Blue (always in ME associated with Paragon) but TIM is being show as a proponent of this. While the Destroy option is colored Red (always in ME associated with Renegade) and Anderson (considered a very Paragon character) is show supporting this decision.

4) In picking Control or Synthesis Shepard’s eye take on the same features as TIM (who is indoctrinated)

5) Listen to the music when making your decision on the Red, Blue or Green. The Blue & Green choices has more sinister sounding music, while destroy is more upbeat.

6) The starchild says that it is the Citadel. If that were the case then how did the Protheans sabotage the Keepers, etc. If the Star Kid was that all powerful then ME1 should never have happened and the Reapers should have already won. And also on the subject of the kid, if the kid has the solution, why does it even do what Shepard wants? If I were the Citadel and master of the reapers I’d just have shot Shepard or something like that or just said “no. I win. You lose. Now die.” And then laugh! But no, he does whatever you want.

So there you go.

You don’t have to agree with it, but IT addresses many of the issues with the ending as it stands now.
At this point saying IT is or isn’t true is a matter of debate. Bioware wanted discussion; they knew the ending would be polarizing. If they wanted it to be clear, then they would have done so from the beginning.

Modifié par Tirian Thorn, 13 avril 2012 - 07:09 .

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

I appreciate that video because it disproves like 1 and 1/2 tidbits of the MOUNTAIN of evidence and speculation that I.T. has going for it.

Pretty weak IMO

Of course the video is only to consider some of the claims of IT; the fact is that they happen to be strong evidences against it. However, in typical conspiracy theorist fashion, you can always bring up endless piles of "evidence" and "arguments" and claim victory as long as they are all not defeated.

But, common sense tells me that Shep isn't on the Catalyst.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 avril 2012 - 07:13 .

[ajm317]

estebanus wrote...

errmm... Yes they do.

In the past they have because the Reapers goal is to destroy the advanced organics in the galaxy and indoctrination gives them valuable agents.

If the ending is taken at face value there is no reason to assume indoctrination still occurs.  That is no longer the Starchilds goal.

Modifié par ajm317, 13 avril 2012 - 07:12 .

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

estebanus wrote...


As for the eyes, there is an assumption that that means indoctrination, instead of Reaper tech, which is unfounded. Not all Reaper items do indoctrinate for example

  

errmm... Yes they do.



Yeah, all reaper tech indoctrinates.

Where in the story is this evident?

Each reaper and it's tech has a specific role. The only objects that seem to be able to indoctrinate people are Object Rho and certain Reapers.

Modifié par EpyonX3, 13 avril 2012 - 07:13 .

[OdanUrr]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

5) Listen to the music when making your decision on the Red, Blue or Green. The Blue & Green choices has more sinister sounding music, while destroy is more upbeat.

Where do people come up with these things? It's the same damn music!

[Kath]

Katherine wrote...

 The reason I don't like the IT is because gameplay wise, it shows extremely poor design. I mentioned this in another thread, but challenges in games are either strategy based, or skill based. To "beat" the indoctrination at the end of the game, the player would need to be aware of how to use their strategy or skill to do so. There is no obvious indication that you are being indoctrinated in the game, so if IT is true, the player is unable to use strategy or skill to beat it, which leads to bad linear gaming. 

Now, people have mention that with Morinth it is capable to "lose" the game too, but Morinth is actually a good example of the player being aware of Shepard being controlled. When you are doing Samara's loyalty mission, Samara tells you that Morinth can influence you, and this happens you don't have enough paragon or renegade points. You as a player know what's going on, but your Shepard can't "break" Morinth's control until Samara shows up. This is good gameplay you can use strategy (by getting enough paragon or renegade points) to break Morinth's control. And if you don't break free from her control, you still see what happens afterwards with Samara showing up. 

Having there only be one "right" choice at the end of the game without proper set up for player strategy would simply be terrible level design. It's like those underground sections in the old Mario games where any of the three pipes could send you to another world... except unbeknownst to you two of the pipes automatically kill you, and only one of them works. :/

*bump*

No one wants to debate the merits of IT gameplay? 

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

I appreciate that video because it disproves like 1 and 1/2 tidbits of the MOUNTAIN of evidence and speculation that I.T. has going for it.

Pretty weak IMO

Of course the video is only to consider some of the claims of IT; the fact is that they happen to be strong evidences against it. However, in typical conspiracy theorist fashion, you can always bring up endless piles of "evidence" and "arguments" and claim victory as long as they are all not defeated.

But, common sense tells me that Shep isn't on the Catalyst.

It's also comon sense that Shepard should have been vaporized re-entering the atmosphere in a space suit in ME2 and from getting hit by the reaper beam at the end. Yet he lives in both.

[Tirian Thorn]

OdanUrr wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

5) Listen to the music when making your decision on the Red, Blue or Green. The Blue & Green choices has more sinister sounding music, while destroy is more upbeat.

Where do people come up with these things? It's the same damn music!

Are you certain of that? 

Complete the ending again and listen. 

When you're walking on the plaform towards Control/Synthesis there is different music than when you're on the platform walking towards Destroy. 

[ajm317]

Katherine wrote...

Katherine wrote...

 The reason I don't like the IT is because gameplay wise, it shows extremely poor design. I mentioned this in another thread, but challenges in games are either strategy based, or skill based. To "beat" the indoctrination at the end of the game, the player would need to be aware of how to use their strategy or skill to do so. There is no obvious indication that you are being indoctrinated in the game, so if IT is true, the player is unable to use strategy or skill to beat it, which leads to bad linear gaming. 

Now, people have mention that with Morinth it is capable to "lose" the game too, but Morinth is actually a good example of the player being aware of Shepard being controlled. When you are doing Samara's loyalty mission, Samara tells you that Morinth can influence you, and this happens you don't have enough paragon or renegade points. You as a player know what's going on, but your Shepard can't "break" Morinth's control until Samara shows up. This is good gameplay you can use strategy (by getting enough paragon or renegade points) to break Morinth's control. And if you don't break free from her control, you still see what happens afterwards with Samara showing up. 

Having there only be one "right" choice at the end of the game without proper set up for player strategy would simply be terrible level design. It's like those underground sections in the old Mario games where any of the three pipes could send you to another world... except unbeknownst to you two of the pipes automatically kill you, and only one of them works. :/

*bump*

No one wants to debate the merits of IT gameplay? 

I agree with your premise.  If in fact they wanted to use IT in the game, I think they would have implemented it differently (better).