314 réponses à ce sujet

[Makrys]

IsaacShep wrote...

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.

Hmm, I disagree. But you don't need to take it personally. And they already said there will not be a 'new' ending. Only expanding whats already there. Which keeps in place with the existing IT. All they have to do is expand on it. I think the star brat was all indoctrination as well. I have a thread you should check out containing my views on all of this. http://social.biowar.../index/11663568
I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on it. Good discussion to have.

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

[matthewmi]

IsaacShep wrote...

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.

QFT

[Zolt51]

OdanUrr wrote...

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.

To push this even further, I'd say it's still in the game. It just evolved into that scene where TIM is in control and Shepard can't do anything. They never said he was indoctrinated *by the reapers*

But anyway, I won't spend any more time argueing about IT. A wiser hobbit than I once said "Believe or do not believe IT, but there is no argueing"

[Makrys]

ShepnTali wrote...

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.

I agree. With the first part of your post. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest the latter. But it does seem that anti-ITers are very antagonistic towards ITers and it makes you wonder why... most people who hate the IT.. really HATE it. And I'm puzzled because A. It is NOT a fan made idea like they suggest. B. There IS evidence that supports it. I encourage people to check out my thread posted above.

[Parabolee77]

OdanUrr 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.

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.

Come on, think about that logically. You think they were experimenting with a Gameplay section where Shepard was under Reaper control but WAS NOT an intentional part of the story? And as late as November 2011. Mere months from release? That makes very little sense. Anything as important as Shepard being under Reaper control HAD to have intentional story tied to it. That's not a throw away gameplay section.

And it wasn't because it "was incompatible with dialogue", which makes it sound as if the recorded dialogue didn't match the idea. But because (and this is a direct quote) "the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices". That's VERY different to how you stated it. It was dropped becasue they could not reconsile Shepard being under FULL control and having CHOICES. I read that to mean (and I admit this is mere speculation) that Shepard is STILL under PARTIAL Reaper control in that section of the game so still has Dialogue choices. That section in my mind would be the TIM/Anderson scene.

To be clear I am not claiming you stated that way to be intentionaly missleading. I just wanted to clarify that it could be.

The story had to be have been firmly in place at that point, only realtivly minor adjustments would be possible. Removing or inserting an entire Indoctrination subplot would have been very difficult. Considering adding that plot and a gameplay section this late seems very unlikely.

And since they did not say they removed that section because of story issues but because of gameplay issues I think we can say that it was there because Shepard being Indoctrinated to the point of being under FULL Reaper control was a FULLY intended STORY element as late into development as November 2011.

They were experimenting with a gameplay section BECAUSE it was tied to the story, not out of some random "wouldn't it be cool if Shepard was just suddenly Indoctrinated for a 10 minute gameplay section" at that point in development.

Mere speculation for sure. But far more likely in my opinion that what you are speculating that statement means.

Modifié par Parabolee77, 27 avril 2012 - 05:50 .

[The Angry One]

IsaacShep wrote...

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.

Call the TIM scene what you like, but it's not indoctrination.
Please don't add yet more lore failures to a sequence already filled to the brim with them.

Edit: Oh and before you say it. No. TIM is not better at indoctrination than the Reapers. That is beyond absurd.

Modifié par The Angry One, 27 avril 2012 - 05:49 .

[Makrys]

matthewmi wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

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.

QFT

No. That fails to explain A LOT. Star brat, why Shepard doesn't question ANY of star brats retarded logic... and a whole lot more. The entire last scene with the Catalyst is indoctrination as well. Shepard just isn't under 'control'. Yet.

[shepskisaac]

[quote]The Angry One wrote...

Call the TIM scene what you like, but it's not indoctrination.[/quote]The files/assets (like the dark veins effect) have "indoctrination" in their names.[/quote]

[Mcfly616]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Gods, can no minute go by without this abomination coming up. Why can't the thrice-damned IT just die...

Thrice damned? Haha care to share when? All these people saying the IT is dead are kinda just full of it and they're kind of just as much wishful thinkers as the IT believers are.....

Bioware has NOT DENIED the indoctrination theory.....therefore its not dead......period...end of story.....until it is denied, its still a possibility....that's just simple logical facts

[Makrys]

Parabolee77 wrote...

OdanUrr 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.

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.

Come on, think about that logically. You think they were experimenting with a Gameplay section where Shepard was under Reaper control but WAS NOT an intentional part of the story? And as late as November 2011. Mere months from release? That makes very little sense. Anything as important as Shepard being under Reaper control HAD to have intentional story tied to it. That's not a throw away gameplay section.

And it wasn't because it "was incompatible with dialogue", which makes it sound as if the recorded dialogue didn't match the idea. But because (and this is a direct quote) "the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices". That's VERY different to how you stated it. It was dropped becasue they could not reconsile Shepard being under FULL control and having CHOICES. I read that to mean (and I admit this is mere speculation) that Shepard is STILL under PARTIAL Reaper control in that section of the game so still has Dialogue choices. That section in my mind would be the TIM/Anderson scene.

To be clear I am not claiming you stated that way to be intentionaly missleading. I just wanted to clarify that it could be.

The story had to be have been firmly in place at that point, only realtivly minor adjustments would be possible. Removing or inserting an entire Indoctrination subplot would have been very difficult. Considering adding that plot and a gameplay section this late seems very unlikely.

And since they did not say they removed that section because of story issues but because of gameplay issues I think we can say that it was there because Shepard being Indoctrinated to the point of being under FULL Reaper control was a FULLY intended STORY element as late into development as November 2011.

They were experimenting with a gameplay section BECAUSE it was tied to the story, not out of some random "wouldn't it be cool if Shepard was just suddenly Indoctrinated for a 10 minute gameplay section" at that point in development.

Mere speculation for sure. But far more likely in my opinion that what you are speculating that statement means.

+1

[DTKT]

I love how you twist and turn his words. He said he can't talk about it. You infer THAT IT MEANS THAT THE IT IS TRUE.

He said he couldn't talk about it because they haven't revealed what the EE are.

This is reaching dangerous silly levels.

[Raiil]

PR, people. Stop grasping at straws. We're not going to know s--t until the EC comes out, stop taking vague tweets out of context to prove or disprove.

[Makrys]

DTKT wrote...

I love how you twist and turn his words. He said he can't talk about it. You infer THAT IT MEANS THAT THE IT IS TRUE.

He said he couldn't talk about it because they haven't revealed what the EE are.

This is reaching dangerous silly levels.

Its called speculation, bud. Its all the rage these days. I just don't see his logic making sense without the IT being true. Not silly. Logic. 

[OdanUrr]

Parabolee77 wrote...

Come on, think about that logically. You think they were experimenting with a Gameplay section where Shepard was under Reaper control but WAS NOT an intentional part of the story? And as late as November 2011. Mere months from release? That makes very little sense. Anything as important as Shepard being under Reaper control HAD to have intentional story tied to it. That's not a throw away gameplay section.

And it wasn't because it "was incompatible with dialogue", which makes it sound as if the recorded dialogue didn't match the idea. But because (and this is a direct quote) "the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices". That's VERY different to how you stated it. It was dropped becasue they could not reconsile Shepard being under FULL control and having CHOICES. I read that to mean (and I admit this is mere speculation) that Shepard is STILL under PARTIAL Reaper control in that section of the game so still has Dialogue choices. That section in my mind would be the TIM/Anderson scene.

You're talking about the same people who killed Shepard in ME2 just to have a tutorial, right? One would think that something as important as dying and being resurrected would have some sort of impact in the game. Did it? Not a single bloody iota.

Sorry, I was quoting from memory, but that's what I meant when talking about dialogue.

[Makrys]

disregard this post

Modifié par Makrys, 27 avril 2012 - 05:57 .

[SauliusL]

I think the OP has a great point. Since March I was feeling the same - dodging the answers about Indoc theory makes completely no sense unless it is true, because dodging just for keeping speculations will generate more fury and many lost fans, like myself in the long run.

[DTKT]

Makrys wrote...

DTKT wrote...

I love how you twist and turn his words. He said he can't talk about it. You infer THAT IT MEANS THAT THE IT IS TRUE.

He said he couldn't talk about it because they haven't revealed what the EE are.

This is reaching dangerous silly levels.

Its called speculation, bud. Its all the rage these days. I just don't see his logic making sense without the IT being true. Not silly. Logic. 

Do you understand anything about the idea behind Public Relations? I mean, you can draw all the conclusions you want from a random tweet but at least, understand the background behind what he is saying.

[Raiil]

Makrys wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

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.

I agree. With the first part of your post. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest the latter. But it does seem that anti-ITers are very antagonistic towards ITers and it makes you wonder why... most people who hate the IT.. really HATE it. And I'm puzzled because A. It is NOT a fan made idea like they suggest. B. There IS evidence that supports it. I encourage people to check out my thread posted above.

People who hate it hate it mostly because a good number of IT believers like to come and try to assert some sort of intellectual superiority with shaky 'facts' and evidence, not because they hate IT itself. Notice how the Hackett Manipulation Theory (with only Hackett indoctrinated believers, at any rate) doesn't have nearly, if any, rabid haters? Because they talk about it, debate it, but don't actually try to wield it as a hammer against the unbelievers.

If you have a bunch of jerkwads crowing about their supposed theory as if it's as solid as gravity and acting like ****s towards those who don't, people are going to get irritated. Christ, I know it's why I roll my eyes whenever someone tries to present it as fact, and I think IT is plausible enough, even if it's not what I personally think what happened.

[Makrys]

SauliusL wrote...

I think the OP has a great point. Since March I was feeling the same - dodging the answers about Indoc theory makes completely no sense unless it is true, because dodging just for keeping speculations will generate more fury and many lost fans, like myself in the long run.

Thank you for seeing my point. You can agree or disagree with me, that's fine. But thank you for just seeing the logic I was applying to it.

[SetecAstronomy]

-Draikin- wrote...

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.

You're correct. I meant to say that the devs wouldn't/shouldn't do it through Twitter.

[Siansonea]

The Angry One wrote...

Instructions from their PR department. Keep people guessing.

Part of their "keep them divided" strategy, no doubt. If IT was suddenly off the table, then the IT people would have no choice but to join the ranks of the "just hated the ending" people. The PR folks know what they're doing. Too bad they're not on our side. But then the only people on our side at BioWare are the people who are powerless to prevent or address the issue we've had problems with.

[Skvindt]

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.

There will be a ton of rage when the EC comes out and disproves the Indoctrination Theory anyway, though.

Then again they may make it vague once more to keep people guessing.  Which, at that point, would be beyond silly.  lol...  Or they may even go with the whole IT.  Who knows.  *shrugs*

[Makrys]

DTKT wrote...

Makrys wrote...

DTKT wrote...

I love how you twist and turn his words. He said he can't talk about it. You infer THAT IT MEANS THAT THE IT IS TRUE.

He said he couldn't talk about it because they haven't revealed what the EE are.

This is reaching dangerous silly levels.

Its called speculation, bud. Its all the rage these days. I just don't see his logic making sense without the IT being true. Not silly. Logic. 

Do you understand anything about the idea behind Public Relations? I mean, you can draw all the conclusions you want from a random tweet but at least, understand the background behind what he is saying.

PR is PR. Duh. I'm saying that sometimes there is more underneath a statement than simply PR. Sometimes it DOES help to read into something deeper. That's all. He may have been referencing something, he may not have been. I just stated my opinion.

[Red Dust]

The Angry One wrote...

Instructions from their PR department. Keep people guessing.

That would never...

That....bodes well I think. Paint me intrigued.

Great Success..

[OchreJelly]

I don't know, that statement strikes me as being a polite way of saying "I won't respond to that, because it will be taken out of context." Which, it has been anyways. \\o/

I'm all for wanting much more community <-> writer/dev interaction, but reading too much into comments doesn't help make that an appealing idea to the dev side of the equation.

On the flipside, I guess one could claim that the lack of interaction is what causes some to hang on random statements and assign them more weight than they should.

So, TL;DR: Everyone is a terrible person, everywhere.