1057 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirian Thorn]

Katherine wrote...

*bump*

No one wants to debate the merits of IT gameplay? 

Read what I wrote about IT not being the end. 

In ME2 your gameplay affects the outcome.  If you don't do A,B,C,D, etc you CANNOT get the "perfect ending" in fact the Collectors/Reapers can win. 

Why can't picking Control/Synthesis be bad and if you didn't do other things in the game, then the Reapers can win. 

As I said, IT doesn't just explain the endings.  IT is also a way to continue the story and complete the ending. 

And I know a lot of people have a problem if that's the case, because then Bioware shipped them an incomplete game. 

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

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.

The dreams were explained by Shepard each time he woke up, leaving us with little to no work to do trying to decipher them. The consensus happened in reality and where a visaul representation of being inside of a physical server. No need for interpretation.

So I ask again, when have we needed to rethink events in ME3 metaphorically and symbolically?

[OdanUrr]

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? 

What exactly do you mean by that?

[estebanus]

ajm317 wrote...

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.

So what you're saying is that the reapers actually Want to be defeated?

[NM_Che56]

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? 

Unless the game design was to not include dramatic irony. Us knowing that the attempts to indoctrinate Shepard were in full swing breaks the immersion illusion.  We ARE Shepard.  We can't BE Shepard if our awareness of events transcends his or her own.

[SubAstris]

[quote]Tirian Thorn wrote...

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.

Yes, blue and red have their different paragon/renegade association in ME, however you can't just ignore what those colours mean to the player in terms of their culture. Red symbolises "destruction", not "renegade"; I'm sure BW actually thought people would think this and so made Anderson, the good guy, shoot it, showing that it is in reality a paragon option. Blue is often linked with pacifism, along with white (although that would not be feasible)

[Tirian Thorn]

ajm317 wrote...


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).

In the end we're all speculating about what Bioware did, didn't do and what they're going to do. 

We will not have closure for a while.  I really hope there's closure in the Summer. 

It took 22 years for Matt Groening to reveal the "real" Springfield.

It took 20 years for it to be revealed that Harrison Ford's character in Blade Runner WAS a replicant. 

I really hope we don't have to wait longer than Summer. 

[OdanUrr]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

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. 

I have the three endings recorded for posterity.<_<

[estebanus]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

The dreams were explained by Shepard each time he woke up, leaving us with little to no work to do trying to decipher them. The consensus happened in reality and where a visaul representation of being inside of a physical server. No need for interpretation.

So I ask again, when have we needed to rethink events in ME3 metaphorically and symbolically?

How about Adam and Ev- Uhm... I mean joker and EDI after the Normandy crashes?

[ajm317]

estebanus wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

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.

So what you're saying is that the reapers actually Want to be defeated?

I'm saying that on some level the creator of the Reapers has decided to work with you instead of against you at the games conclusion.

[SubAstris]

Master Che wrote...

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? 

Unless the game design was to not include dramatic irony. Us knowing that the attempts to indoctrinate Shepard were in full swing breaks the immersion illusion.  We ARE Shepard.  We can't BE Shepard if our awareness of events transcends his or her own.

That just shows that indoctrination doesn't work as a game mechanic. The reader needs to know what is going on at the end, where the plot is meant to be resolved. Not making it obvious makes it bad storytelling, simple as that

[EpyonX3]

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

There's only a "mountain" because it changes or gets added to everytime a plot hole is discovered.

The point is that if these points are erroneous and are part of the theory, then the theory itself becomes shaky and unreliable.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

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.

Are you serious?

"
An excavation team in the Minos Wasteland on the planet Aequitas found a Reaper artifact that creates advanced husks. This device does not resemble dragon's teeth at all, instead featuring an orb of energy that turned the excavation team into husks with what appears to be a form of indoctrination, according to logs kept by the team, before it started creating more husks. "

Plus it's... all through out all three games dude? Even the little things like when you take a peice of reaper tech from Cerberus, Garrus says "That's reaper tech alright, my brain hurts just looking at it!"

You on the right forum? 

[Tirian Thorn]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

The dreams were explained by Shepard each time he woke up, leaving us with little to no work to do trying to decipher them. The consensus happened in reality and where a visaul representation of being inside of a physical server. No need for interpretation.

So I ask again, when have we needed to rethink events in ME3 metaphorically and symbolically?

I'm being a sarcastic **** here so forgive me. 

But I didn't realize Shepard's military training include dream interpretation, etc so he/she could so easily explain them so definetively that leaves absolutely NO possibility they could have ANYTHING to do with Indoctrination. 

Every piece of the IT could be picked at and disected and dismissed just as easily as the next. 

It's everything taken together that makes it seem more than just Bioware being lazy, sloppy or rushed by EA. 

To me there are just too many things that don't fit.  But each piece -like a puzzle - doesn't give you the full picture until you put them together. 

[palker]

Well as was pointed out in the tasteful nerd rage video indoc theory has holes but there are a lot less of them in it. Still devs thought that this ending was satisfying and varied and that is the most problematic thing and a reason we will not get a new ending and why indoc theory is most likely wrong.

[CerealWar]

KevShep wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

KevShep wrote...

No its not, BioWare has said that there will be an Eiplogue (final chapter) after the cut scenes explaining what the current ending was about.

Yeah... And?
Shepard is already dead in most of the endings...

Then if you picked wrong then your shepard dies thats why the game starts you back before you take the cerberus base.

The entire Citadel level also counts as a seperate mission. So restarting the mission will put you where the Keeper is in the red room. So changing your choice to destroy is a 10 minute process as opposed to a 2 or 3 hours process.

This is good because I would hate to have to fight through marauder shields again. He's the only boss in ME to kill me a dozen times. I don't think Saren or the Human Reaper ever came close.

[Tirian Thorn]

OdanUrr wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

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. 

I have the three endings recorded for posterity.<_<

And wil posterity applaud or condemn you for such an action?   

[jijeebo]

estebanus wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

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.

So what you're saying is that the reapers actually Want to be defeated?

He's saying that once Shep meets the catalyst, it has no reason to indoctrinate people anymore because indoctrination is a component of a solution that no longer works.

The reapers bow to the will of the catalyst, and during the ending it deemed them no longer necessary.

[NM_Che56]

EpyonX3 wrote...

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.

well...he doesn't quite "live" in the ME2 thing.

go to 10:38

[Iconoclaste]

Master Che wrote...

Hi,

I haven't seen one of these, FYI.

A lot of people don't seem to care for IT.  A good number seem to like it.  Aside from it not appealing to your personal tastes and style of narrative, I'm assuming that some people don't like it because they see holes in the theory. 

So, why don't we do this:

You post why IT doesn't work and then someone who supports IT can try to address that concern.

Sound like a plan?

Ok.  GO!

*EDITED TO KEEP PEOPLE ON TOPIC*

Why not exposing this ''whole theory'' as precisely as you can, and THEN see what people have to say about it? Do you think anyone is going to read a 1500+ pages thread for something seemingly so speculative, where half of the posts are pyramids of troll bashing and funny picture quoting? Here you go the other way around : you ask for ''holes'' so you can fill them, and yet this thread turns out just like many others. I'm not impressed at that. Was that the objective, to show that this theory can ''easily fill all plot holes you can throw against it''?

I think it's obvious it can't, even while resorting to such a ''trap'' as this thread. You ARE funny, that I give you. But you might just get better chances of gaining SINCERE interest by EXPOSING this theory in a READABLE manner, instead of throwing tidbits all around and having a crew of parrots repeating the most effective memes in circular reasonings. Just how could anyone pretend that ''HE ONLY'' detains the ''truth'' about any USAGE of indoctrination Bioware might have put in the games, and then use this as a standing point to defend 'THE THEORY'?

You are not proposing for discussion, I just read this thread. And don't post links if YOU pretend to know this theory. The ''bad endings'' outcry was what gave the original impulse to this theory, now it's all the series, up to light bulbs not being ''normal'', or Reapers ''ignoring'' the Catalyst because they are not jumping on it with all their tentacles. Cosmetics are turned in devilish designs, plain sound effects and camera angles are now  sophisticated ''pro tricks'', whatever.  

Clean IT up.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 13 avril 2012 - 07:31 .

[Kath]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Read what I wrote about IT not being the end.  

In ME2 your gameplay affects the outcome.  If you don't do A,B,C,D, etc you CANNOT get the "perfect ending" in fact the Collectors/Reapers can win.  

Why can't picking Control/Synthesis be bad and if you didn't do other things in the game, then the Reapers can win.  

As I said, IT doesn't just explain the endings.  IT is also a way to continue the story and complete the ending.  

And I know a lot of people have a problem if that's the case, because then Bioware shipped them an incomplete game. 

 

If it is true that you can still "win" and continue the game no matter which ending you chose, then we are right back where we started before IT with no real ending to the game. Most IT people I've seen believe in that Destroy is the ONLY way to win.

And I am not saying you shouldn't be able to get a bad ending, but you should be able understand the consequences and strategize appropriately. If IT is true, and Control/Synthesis can lead to something terrible, there should be an indication of it and you should be able to fight it. (Or possibly NOT fight it depending on your EMS.)

With IT, it just seems like the idea of strategy and skill go out the window in favor of convoluted storytelling. 

OdanUrr wrote...


What exactly do you mean by that?

I don't know what you are confused about, I thought my post was pretty clear.

Modifié par Katherine, 13 avril 2012 - 07:29 .

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

The dreams were explained by Shepard each time he woke up, leaving us with little to no work to do trying to decipher them. The consensus happened in reality and where a visaul representation of being inside of a physical server. No need for interpretation.

So I ask again, when have we needed to rethink events in ME3 metaphorically and symbolically?

So you're saying that Shepard seeing himself embracing the kid, them both giving you an evil look, and them being consumed in flames, isn't a metephor or a symbol for ANYTHING? 9/10 man...

[Falloutwarfare]

@EpyonX3

"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."


i think in ME2 that the only part of resurected shepard's body that is original is the brain (protected in his helmet) and mabee his heart (not to sure) and the rest was cloned and such because  when he hit the planet where the normandy crashed he was scattered over a large area. and as for harbringers beem attack at the end it appears to partly hit him but is kind of hard to tell so for me that bit is up in the air.

also he dont live when he re-enters at the beginning of ME2 cause his air supply gets cut so he sort of sufocates 


 

Modifié par Falloutwarfare, 13 avril 2012 - 07:35 .

[Tirian Thorn]

palker wrote...

Well as was pointed out in the tasteful nerd rage video indoc theory has holes but there are a lot less of them in it. Still devs thought that this ending was satisfying and varied and that is the most problematic thing and a reason we will not get a new ending and why indoc theory is most likely wrong.

I'd still like you to keep in mind this is the same company that created KOTOR and there was quite the epic twist in that game. 

I'm not ready to discount that they were trying to One-UP themselves in that regard just yet. 

[Kath]

SubAstris wrote...

Master Che wrote...

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? 

Unless the game design was to not include dramatic irony. Us knowing that the attempts to indoctrinate Shepard were in full swing breaks the immersion illusion.  We ARE Shepard.  We can't BE Shepard if our awareness of events transcends his or her own.

That just shows that indoctrination doesn't work as a game mechanic. The reader needs to know what is going on at the end, where the plot is meant to be resolved. Not making it obvious makes it bad storytelling, simple as that

Exactly. Mass Effect isn't a movie. In games, there is a certain amount of seperation from the character you are playing so that you can strategize and work to win. Without that seperation, you get a lack of control as a player and linear storytelling - which is the opposite of what Bioware boasts about.