314 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwick]

The Angry One wrote...

Instructions from their PR department. Keep people guessing.

Agreed. It keeps people who believe in IT believing, therefore stopping a lot of potential rage/annoyance/questions.

[Unschuld]

"Mommy mommy mommy mommy mommy!! What is Santa bringing me for Christmas??! Mommy mommy mommy tell me please!!!"

"I can't say, it would ruin the surprise." *wink*

"Mommy mommy mommy that's not fair why won't you tell me!?!? Mommy mommy mommy!!!?!"

"Well, ok, it's socks. Definitely socks."

"Oh, ok..."

[Makrys]

It's just frustrating. I understand the PR move. They're still in damage control. But they are simply saying NOTHING. And if the ending DLC doesn't contain some kind of twist, why would they have to keep it silent? If its just clarifying things, why don't they just say "Hey this is what we're doing with this and this, any other ideas how we can make things more clear?".

I don't know. I know it doesn't really work like that, but I'm just tired of all this. I'm growing weary. I haven't shaved in weeks. I have a beard dammit! 

Modifié par Makrys, 27 avril 2012 - 05:07 .

[nomex]

Makrys wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Instructions from their PR department. Keep people guessing.

Possibly. But by using this strategy, knowing the majority of the fans like the IT, if they come out and disprove it, they will have more rage on their hands. Makes sense to dish it now if it ain't true. 

There is more then one path to a good ending.  If they make something that isn't IT and say it now, everyone will be closeminded that the ending will be bad either way.  If they make their ending and don't tell people anything about it, there is a better chance the ending change will be able to stand on its own merit.  Someone could think they thought IT would have been better, but the ending was still good.  If they go in expecting crap because it isn't IT then they will get a self fulfiling prophecy.

[Unschuld]

Makrys wrote...

It's just frustrating. I understand the PR move. They're still in damage control. But they are simply saying NOTHING. And if the ending DLC doesn't contain some kind of twist, why would they have to keep it silent? If its just clarifying things, why don't they just say "Hey this is what we're doing with this and this, any other ideas how we can make things more clear?".

I don't know. I know it doesn't really work like that, but I'm just tired of all this.

I think we're all a little tired of it. But in all seriousness, if they really do have something mindblowing planned, it would ruin the surprise to disseminate too much information right now.

Also this:

nomex wrote...

There is more then one path to a good ending.  If they make something that isn't IT and say it now, everyone will be closeminded that the ending will be bad either way.  If they make their ending and don't tell people anything about it, there is a better chance the ending change will be able to stand on its own merit.  Someone could think they thought IT would have been better, but the ending was still good.  If they go in expecting crap because it isn't IT then they will get a self fulfiling prophecy.

 

Modifié par Unschuld, 27 avril 2012 - 05:10 .

[Makrys]

nomex wrote...

Makrys wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Instructions from their PR department. Keep people guessing.

Possibly. But by using this strategy, knowing the majority of the fans like the IT, if they come out and disprove it, they will have more rage on their hands. Makes sense to dish it now if it ain't true. 

There is more then one path to a good ending.  If they make something that isn't IT and say it now, everyone will be closeminded that the ending will be bad either way.  If they make their ending and don't tell people anything about it, there is a better chance the ending change will be able to stand on its own merit.  Someone could think they thought IT would have been better, but the ending was still good.  If they go in expecting crap because it isn't IT then they will get a self fulfiling prophecy.

I understand that. Their overall goal, I understand. But... the secrets are soooo annoying. Whatever. I'll just have to hold on as long as I can.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

Makrys wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Instructions from their PR department. Keep people guessing.

Possibly. But by using this strategy, knowing the majority of the fans like the IT, if they come out and disprove it, they will have more rage on their hands. Makes sense to dish it now if it ain't true. 

It's a PR move, but it's hardly an underhanded one. Spoiling the EC content, whether it plays to our expectations or not, is a senseless move given BW's situation, imo.

I wouldn't read deeply into Weeke's statement.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 27 avril 2012 - 05:11 .

[Parabolee77]

Agreed...

I can't believe people don't believe IT was an intentional interpretation to be honest. We know for a fact it was an intentional part of the story as late as November of 2011 because they were still experimenting with a gameplay section that had Shepard under "FULL Reaper control". They removed the GAMEPLAY section of Shepard under FULL Reaper control because it wasn't working. They didn't remove the entire intentional subplot of Indoctrination.

The problem is Bioware thought they were being more clever than they were and thought they were creating an ending open to multiple interpretations.

But what they actually created was a confused unintelligent mess with a absolutely brilliant twist that is too subtle.

For this to have worked they needed an ending that was good enough and logical enough to accept as a having really happened and have a lot of people satisfied with it. And then have the twist have stronger evidence to support it so once revealed or realized by people they were mind=blown, but enough room for denial so other others could refuse to believe "lot's of speculation for everyone".

See well done examples of this like Blade Runner, Inception and Memento.

Or release a EC DLC later that revealed the twist like they MIGHT be doing. But even if they do, they dropped the ball on the false endings, they just make no sense and are thematically contradictory to the whole series.

Modifié par Parabolee77, 27 avril 2012 - 05:13 .

[Makrys]

Parabolee77 wrote...

Agreed...

I can't believe people don't believe IT was an intentional interpretation to be honest. We know for a fact it was an intentional part of the story as late as November of 2011 because they were still experimenting with a gameplay section that had Shepard under "FULL Reaper control". They removed the GAMEPLAY section of Shepard under FULL Reaper control because it wasn't working. They didn't remove the entire intentional subplot of Indoctrination.

The problem is Bioware thought they were being more clever than they were and thought they were created an ending open to multiple interpretations.

But what they actually created was a confused unintelligent mess with a absolutely brilliant twist that is too subtle.

For this to have worked they needed an ending that was good enough and logical enough to accept as a having really happened and have a lot of people satisfied with it. And then have the twist have stronger evidence to support it so once revealed or realized by people they were mind=blown.

Or release a EC DLC later that revealed the twist like they MIGHT be doing. But even if they do, they dropped the ball on the false endings, they just make no sense and are thematically contradictory to the whole series.

I agree with your point about this might be their goal. And I get that. If the IT is true, then all of their actions make perfect sense. If the IT isn't though... its almost just trolling us in my mind. Even though I understand the PR aspect, I mean come on. If it ain't true, deal with the hate now. 

But your point about the development cycle is yet another argument for the IT. If they had planned a gameplay section of an indoctrinated Shepard by NOV of 11, then that explains that the hints found in game WERE meant to be there. They just never followed through with the gameplay part, but instead left all the hints for us to find and speculate about. I personally believe they will sum all this up in the EC. Which is why I can deal with the tweets. But... ah nevermind.

Modifié par Makrys, 27 avril 2012 - 05:15 .

[Reorte]

Grimwick wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Instructions from their PR department. Keep people guessing.

Agreed. It keeps people who believe in IT believing, therefore stopping a lot of potential rage/annoyance/questions.

For the time being.

I'm not really sure what reason there is though for not giving us all the details as soon as possible. It's not as if they'll harm sales because the EC is going to be free anyway. Unless they've still not made up their mind at all (unlikely) or really don't want to spoil things. I'm not sure that's wise at the moment, but hey.

[OdanUrr]

Parabolee77 wrote...

We know for a fact it was an intentional part of the story as late as November of 2011 because they were still experimenting with a gameplay section that had Shepard under "FULL Reaper control". They removed the GAMEPLAY section of Shepard under FULL Reaper control because it wasn't working. They didn't remove the entire intentional subplot of Indoctrination.

No, we know that on November 2011 they were toying with the idea of implementing a gameplay mechanic that would have Shepard under Reaper control. Eventually they ruled it out because of an incompatibility with dialogue. So, to sum up, at present, there's evidence that they considered it at one point, but not that it was an intentional part of the story.

[LKx]

speculations for everyone!

[Unschuld]

Makrys wrote...

I agree with your point about this might be their goal. And I get that. If the IT is true, then all of their actions make perfect sense. If the IT isn't though... its almost just trolling us in my mind. Even though I understand the PR aspect, I mean come on. If it ain't true, deal with the hate now. 

But your point about the development cycle is yet another argument for the IT. If they had planned a gameplay section of an indoctrinated Shepard by NOV of 11, then that explains that the hints found in game WERE meant to be there. They just never followed through with the gameplay part, but instead left all the hints for us to find and speculate about. I personally believe they will sum all this up in the EC. Which is why I can deal with the tweets. But... ah nevermind.

Well, yeah, but if they confirm/deny something outright now, it shines the spotlight on something else which could have a negative effect.

In regards to the removal of the indoctrination mechanic, remember all of that datamining and script leak back in November? They were still completing the game, so it's possible that they panicked and cut the big twist at the end (assuming IT is true) in order to protect it from exposure before fans saw the product in its finished form. Maybe that would explain why all the clues are there, yet the explanations are mysteriously absent and possibly included in this new EC DLC. To me, that would explain a possibility, at least.

Edit: or is that what you were trying to say and I just had a reading comp fail? 

Modifié par Unschuld, 27 avril 2012 - 05:22 .

[Trebor1969]

Parabolee77 wrote...

Agreed...

I can't believe people don't believe IT was an intentional interpretation to be honest. We know for a fact it was an intentional part of the story as late as November of 2011 because they were still experimenting with a gameplay section that had Shepard under "FULL Reaper control". They removed the GAMEPLAY section of Shepard under FULL Reaper control because it wasn't working. They didn't remove the entire intentional subplot of Indoctrination.

The problem is Bioware thought they were being more clever than they were and thought they were creating an ending open to multiple interpretations.

But what they actually created was a confused unintelligent mess with a absolutely brilliant twist that is too subtle.

For this to have worked they needed an ending that was good enough and logical enough to accept as a having really happened and have a lot of people satisfied with it. And then have the twist have stronger evidence to support it so once revealed or realized by people they were mind=blown, but enough room for denial so other others could refuse to believe "lot's of speculation for everyone".

See well done examples of this like Blade Runner, Inception and Memento. ... .

Or perhaps like Jacob's ladder movie?

[Deemz]

My guess is that it is not seen as brilliant

[Makrys]

Unschuld wrote...

Makrys wrote...

I agree with your point about this might be their goal. And I get that. If the IT is true, then all of their actions make perfect sense. If the IT isn't though... its almost just trolling us in my mind. Even though I understand the PR aspect, I mean come on. If it ain't true, deal with the hate now. 

But your point about the development cycle is yet another argument for the IT. If they had planned a gameplay section of an indoctrinated Shepard by NOV of 11, then that explains that the hints found in game WERE meant to be there. They just never followed through with the gameplay part, but instead left all the hints for us to find and speculate about. I personally believe they will sum all this up in the EC. Which is why I can deal with the tweets. But... ah nevermind.

Well, yeah, but if they confirm/deny something outright now, it shines the spotlight on something else which could have a negative effect.

In regards to the removal of the indoctrination mechanic, remember all of that datamining and script leak back in November? They were still completing the game, so it's possible that they panicked and cut the big twist at the end (assuming IT is true) in order to protect it from exposure before fans saw the product in its finished form. Maybe that would explain why all the clues are there, yet the explanations are mysteriously absent and possibly included in this new EC DLC. To me, that would explain a possibility, at least.

Edit: or is that what you were trying to say and I just had a reading comp fail? 

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying. I was agreeing with you. I think the 'but' at the beginning of my second paragraph was what might have confused you. Bad word choice on my part. But your idea makes the most sense, and its something I've thought of for awhile. I think it was always planned. There is too much proof throughout the entirety of the game for it to simply be 'wishful thinking'. After all the extensive research I've done, I'm pretty much convinced the IT is true. And dammit, I've done my research. I don't believe in the IT just because it makes me feel better, I believe in it because it makes logical sound sense, and there are visible hints throughout the game and even series that lend themselves to its explanation. If anyone ever wants to have a healthy debate about it, I love engaging in them. But just don't start a flame war by tossing around insults just because you don't agree with someone.

Modifié par Makrys, 27 avril 2012 - 05:31 .

[shepskisaac]

Parabolee77 wrote...

We know for a fact it was an intentional part of the story as late as November of 2011 because they were still experimenting with a gameplay section that had Shepard under "FULL Reaper control". They removed the GAMEPLAY section of Shepard under FULL Reaper control because it wasn't working. They didn't remove the entire intentional subplot of Indoctrination.

Indoctrination =/= indoctrination theory. IT assumes that nothing that happens after Harby's beam is real. You do realize that indoctrination is still part of the ending? No, not "in Shepard's head" form. TIM scene is indoctrination.

[Oldbones2]

The Angry One wrote...

Instructions from their PR department. Keep people guessing.

Sadly this.^^^


Seriously OP, where have you been.

Every BW employee has been this way since the release.  Tease, tease, tease, never reveal anything.


People who believed IT, thought Bioware was flat out telling them it was real and would be released soon like a week after the launch.

People believed that Bioware had a secret ending DLC (The Truth) just because Bioware refused to deny it.

[Makrys]

IsaacShep wrote...

Parabolee77 wrote...

We know for a fact it was an intentional part of the story as late as November of 2011 because they were still experimenting with a gameplay section that had Shepard under "FULL Reaper control". They removed the GAMEPLAY section of Shepard under FULL Reaper control because it wasn't working. They didn't remove the entire intentional subplot of Indoctrination.

Indoctrination =/= indoctrination theory. IT assumes that nothing that happens after Harby's beam is real. You do realize that indoctrination is still part of the ending? No, not "in Shepard's head" form. TIM scene is indoctrination.

We'll see. We don't know. But to be honest, you make a good point, there are multiple ways the IT can be interpreted and many ways Bioware could decide to implement it. It may in fact be slightly different than what the majority of the fan base came up with, but in the end Shepard was still fightin indoctrination. And Bioware will just have to explain what happens after.

[matthewmi]

They won't reveal anything about the EC. If they did you know some fraction of the fanbase would be upset and demand it be changed. They're better off as a company keeping everything secret until release.

[ShepnTali]

Stop bashing ITers. There is some evidence, and Final Hours shows the idea was dabbled with. It's not without some merit. I sometimes wonder if there's jealousy of other users creative thinking.

[Verit]

SetecAstronomy wrote...

It's not their place to "correct" people on their interpretation of the game.

Then they wouldn't be making the EC. If they don't finally debunk the IT in the EC, then I don't see how it's going to turn out to be any good.

[Cadeym]

Nooooooo! the rEApers have indoctrinated Patrick Weekes

[shepskisaac]

Makrys wrote...

We'll see. We don't know. But to be honest, you make a good point, there are multiple ways the IT can be interpreted and many ways Bioware could decide to implement it. It may in fact be slightly different than what the majority of the fan base came up with, but in the end Shepard was still fightin indoctrination. And Bioware will just have to explain what happens after.

It is clear how Bioware decided to implement it. TIM scene is indoctrination, they've slapped dark veins covering the screen and made it visibly clear you're under control. Nothing like that happens outside TIM scene. Indoctrination is possible thanks to TIM's new implamnts. And no, this is not 'slighty' different to IT. It's completly different because it's actually happening, not just dreams inside Shep's head. Real TIM got killed which ended indoctrination, real Anderson died, Crucible fired. There won't be "you wake up and have to actually go to Citadel and activate Crucible" new ending. Everyhing already happened.

[Dendio1]

Its uncanny how often we get these cryptic answers.

Modifié par Dendio1, 27 avril 2012 - 05:44 .