1357 réponses à ce sujet

[EsterCloat]

DJBare wrote...

davishepard wrote...

DJBare wrote...

davishepard wrote...

Why should a care for an irony about fanfiction?

Maybe because there's a basis for the fan fiction?


Seriously, I recommend the Final Hours app, got some great info.

You know, people ignores that this endgame sequence was dropped (and insist to say that only the gameplay part was dropped, ignoring the meaning of "sequence" totally), so it's better don't even bring this up.

Because it's apparently too hard to read and understand that they dropped the said sequence, and put in the game a sequence with TIM where Shepard lose control of Shepard's movements and fell under TIM control. And that this control is limited only to it's body movements in both the dropped engame sequence and the sequence shown in the game.

That was not my point, people keep saying it's purely a fan fiction idea, when in fact Bioware had beaten them to it, whether they ran with it or not!

"Suddenly losing control of Shepard's movements and falling under full Reaper control" is not the same as "everything after Shepard gets hit by Harbinger's beam is a dream if you really think about it" though. But I get what you're saying.

Anyway, what's "ironic", if we're using said word willy-nilly, is that nobody seems able to drop it.

[dreman9999]

davishepard wrote...

DJBare wrote...
That was not my point, people keep saying it's purely a fan fiction idea, when in fact Bioware had beaten them to it, whether they ran with it or not!

If you fail to see the difference between a dropped engame sequence with would have Shepard movements being controlled by the Reapers and a fanfiction that says that everything that happened in the end of the game never happened, there's is a problem somewhere.

Key note...
1. BW had the idea first.
2. Only the drop of game elements is stated...Nothing about Story elements beingdropped. It can easily be changed to be showned to  happen in some other way. 

[DJBare]

davishepard wrote...
Because it's apparently too hard to read and understand that they dropped the said sequence, and put in the game a sequence with TIM where Shepard lose control of Shepard's movements and fell under TIM control. And that this control is limited only to it's body movements in both the dropped engame sequence and the sequence shown in the game.

Just wanted to come in on this point about TIM controlling Shepard, moments later the catalyst tells you TIM could not take control because they already controlled him, so it looks more like the Reapers controlled Shepard using TIM as a conduit.

[dreman9999]

EsterCloat wrote...

DJBare wrote...

davishepard wrote...

DJBare wrote...

davishepard wrote...

Why should a care for an irony about fanfiction?

Maybe because there's a basis for the fan fiction?


Seriously, I recommend the Final Hours app, got some great info.

You know, people ignores that this endgame sequence was dropped (and insist to say that only the gameplay part was dropped, ignoring the meaning of "sequence" totally), so it's better don't even bring this up.

Because it's apparently too hard to read and understand that they dropped the said sequence, and put in the game a sequence with TIM where Shepard lose control of Shepard's movements and fell under TIM control. And that this control is limited only to it's body movements in both the dropped engame sequence and the sequence shown in the game.

That was not my point, people keep saying it's purely a fan fiction idea, when in fact Bioware had beaten them to it, whether they ran with it or not!

"Suddenly losing control of Shepard's movements and falling under full Reaper control" is not the same as "everything after Shepard gets hit by Harbinger's beam is a dream if you really think about it" though. But I get what you're saying.

Anyway, what's "ironic", if we're using said word willy-nilly, is that nobody seems able to drop it.

Do not they said they changed the ending...Meaning how it played out changed. Also, nothing states that indoctrination was totaly cut out anyway.

Modifié par dreman9999, 05 mai 2012 - 03:20 .

[BiancoAngelo7]

Laurencio wrote...

I don't think you know what irony means...

As for 2. The whole Sovreign attacking the Citadel thing was pretty conclusive to be honest. Delusion is not the same as sceptisism.

lol I dont think you know what irony means haha...

[humes spork]

The irony is how people react to IT itself.

It has its flaws, but on the other hand it's an alternate interpretation that's, given other interpretations pushed forth and with the veracity of several other claims that have been made 'round these parts in the last two months, outstandingly solid by comparison. A given individual either believes it or not, and by believing in it or not they're harming no one else and regardless, others have the right and ability to just ignore it for the lack of harm it does.

So naturally the response is KILL IT WITH FIRE! In the end, it just goes to show how hellbent certain people are on hating the ending and BW, and damn the consequences and collateral.

Modifié par humes spork, 05 mai 2012 - 03:15 .

[davishepard]

DJBare wrote...
Just wanted to come in on this point about TIM controlling Shepard, moments later the catalyst tells you TIM could not take control because they already controlled him, so it looks more like the Reapers controlled Shepard using TIM as a conduit.

Yeah, I know that TIM controlling Shepard = Reapers actually controlling Shepard via TIM, but since it's clearly stated only "Reapers" in the app, I wanted to tell what's shown in the game. You're right, though.

[davishepard]

dreman9999 wrote...
Do not they said they changed the ending...Mean how it played out changed. Also, not states that indoctrination was totaly cut out anyway.

I see that you will never understand that the said endgame sequence was dropped. Not changed. So be it.

You also ignores that said nothing about indocrination in the text quoted, just "Shepard movements being controlled by the Reapers". Movements.

But go on.

[dreman9999]

davishepard wrote...

DJBare wrote...
Just wanted to come in on this point about TIM controlling Shepard, moments later the catalyst tells you TIM could not take control because they already controlled him, so it looks more like the Reapers controlled Shepard using TIM as a conduit.

Yeah, I know that TIM controlling Shepard = Reapers actually controlling Shepard via TIM, but since it's clearly stated only "Reapers" in the app, I wanted to tell what's shown in the game. You're right, though.

....Wait....So it was changed for harbinger controling Shepard to TIM..... Interesting catch.

[Laurencio]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

Laurencio wrote...

I don't think you know what irony means...

As for 2. The whole Sovreign attacking the Citadel thing was pretty conclusive to be honest. Delusion is not the same as sceptisism.

lol I dont think you know what irony means haha...

By all means enlighten me. I don't see how demanding solid proof for a theory is in any way ironic, which is what the OP is arguing.  If the OP was arguing that it's ironic that anti-IT demand solid proof, then counter with arguing that it's false based on non-solid proof, then that's another story. The fact that proof can't be provided until the theory is a reality is not ironic.

Modifié par Laurencio, 05 mai 2012 - 03:25 .

[EsterCloat]

humes spork wrote...

The irony is how people react to IT itself.

It has its flaws, but on the other hand it's an alternate interpretation that's, given other interpretations pushed forth and with the veracity of several other claims that have been made 'round these parts in the last two months, outstandingly solid by comparison. A given individual either believes it or not, and by believing in it or not they're harming no one else and regardless, others have the right and ability to just ignore it for the lack of harm it does.

So naturally the response is KILL IT WITH FIRE! In the end, it just goes to show how hellbent certain people are on hating the ending and BW, and damn the consequences and collateral.

The only reason some care is because some of those who believe in it won't shut up about it. They keep bringing it up and up and trying to convert people because obviously that's the only correct interpretation of the ending. They're like the Jehova's Witnesses of the ending theory world.

People have debated the veracity of the theory based on semantic arguments of how within scientific parlance a theory may for all terms and purposes be considered what a layman would call a law, such as the theory of relativity.

I mean really? Because it's called the "theory of relativity" "indoctrination theory" carries the same weight or at least should be given the same benefit of the doubt? What.

If it was just an idea some people believed in without bringing it up all over the place I doubt many would care but it's taken on a life of its own that just doesn't seem able to function unless constantly prodded at.

Modifié par EsterCloat, 05 mai 2012 - 03:25 .

[dreman9999]

davishepard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Do not they said they changed the ending...Mean how it played out changed. Also, not states that indoctrination was totaly cut out anyway.

I see that you will never understand that the said endgame sequence was dropped. Not changed. So be it.

You also ignores that said nothing about indocrination in the text quoted, just "Shepard movements being controlled by the Reapers". Movements.

But go on.

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying...Yes the scene was dropped, but was the idea of indoctriantation dropped as well. That was oneidea which they want to show it. You not saying they could of changed it to be showning in a different way? My point is the scene was dropped, but not the over all idea.

[Raiil]

dreman9999 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Er... it's not quite the same thing. Shepard has first-hand experience in-game and concrete proof that these things have happened. IT is a theory for a reason- not because it's bad, not because it's stupid, but because the evidence isn't air-tight the way Shepard's is in game.

But Shepard has first hand experiance with indoctrination...All of ME1 and some of ME2. He knows it there , he knows the signs and he knows the reapers are after him and trying to control him.(Harbinger ME2). There even a line for this in Arrival in ME2 from Harbinger.."Struggle if you wish, you mind will be mine."
.....It's the same case.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Shepard has first hand experience by seeing and interacting with the Reapers. We, the players who control Shepard, do not have the first hand experience of Indoctrination. IT is based on bits of the game being cobbled together to form a semi-coherent narrative; semi-coherent because much of the evidence that's touted is shaky (such as the one case where someone was trying to 'prove' IT by using reflections that aren't visible to the vast majority of players). IT isn't a bad theory, as theories go, but it's not as self-evident and air-tight as some would like to believe. 

I'm sorry, but it's not the same thing. Apples and oranges. 

[dreman9999]

davishepard wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Do not they said they changed the ending...Mean how it played out changed. Also, not states that indoctrination was totaly cut out anyway.

I see that you will never understand that the said endgame sequence was dropped. Not changed. So be it.

You also ignores that said nothing about indocrination in the text quoted, just "Shepard movements being controlled by the Reapers". Movements.

But go on.

Hey, Dave....I like you to meet Benevia.....A person who is under reaper control to the point they control her movements.....:innocent:

[dreman9999]

Valentia X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Er... it's not quite the same thing. Shepard has first-hand experience in-game and concrete proof that these things have happened. IT is a theory for a reason- not because it's bad, not because it's stupid, but because the evidence isn't air-tight the way Shepard's is in game.

But Shepard has first hand experiance with indoctrination...All of ME1 and some of ME2. He knows it there , he knows the signs and he knows the reapers are after him and trying to control him.(Harbinger ME2). There even a line for this in Arrival in ME2 from Harbinger.."Struggle if you wish, you mind will be mine."
.....It's the same case.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Shepard has first hand experience by seeing and interacting with the Reapers. We, the players who control Shepard, do not have the first hand experience of Indoctrination. IT is based on bits of the game being cobbled together to form a semi-coherent narrative; semi-coherent because much of the evidence that's touted is shaky (such as the one case where someone was trying to 'prove' IT by using reflections that aren't visible to the vast majority of players). IT isn't a bad theory, as theories go, but it's not as self-evident and air-tight as some would like to believe. 

I'm sorry, but it's not the same thing. Apples and oranges. 

Again, yes we do. We don't have it done to us but we see every thing that happen to it. It like how some who is train to deal with posions sees the cases of it. We had it dicribed and shown to us through 5 stable people, we seen its progress and how far it can go...That is first hand knowlege...http://wiki.answers....thand_knowledge 

Modifié par dreman9999, 05 mai 2012 - 03:30 .

[DJBare]

Hmmm, I keep returning to even my points being moot, Shepard never made it to the beam in my opinion, he/she is buried unconscious in some rubble, but that's just me, everything after harby's laser makes little to no sense.

[MidnightRaith]

I'm not Anti-IT because of IT's merits or lack thereof. I'm against it because its supporters don't seem to understand the implications for Bioware and Mass Effect as an IP, or the video game genre in general, if it were done. Quite frankly, it is not a good idea simply because it would be Bioware freely admitting that they did not sell you a game that had an ending. Yes, we all thought that the ending to ME3 would be good, but that's not necessarily what Bioware told us. (They lied about plenty of things, but not about whether or not the ending would be to our satisfaction.) However, what was always never in doubt was that ME3 was the end. This game was it, the last chapter to the Shepard story. Nothing more was supposed to come. IT is completely different than a retcon or "clarification" because it is building on the premise that the Reaper war did not end and that Shepard is meant to wake up and continue to fight. That is not an ending.

Could you even imagine the backlash that would occur if IT was what BW initially came out with? The only reason it has the support that it does is because its followers are so disappointed with what we actually got. It's a coping mechanism and I believe this wholeheartedly. However, just because what we got was crap, does not mean that "anything is better than the ending to ME3."  No. No, not everything is better than Starchild. Let me outline my reasoning.

The way I see it, if Bioware released an ending supporting IT, there would be one of two reactions. The first, would be fans loving it. (I would not be of that number....) Okay, yeah, so you like it. You like the fact that Bioware did not release a full game with an ending and that we had to get DLC to finish it. So, how many of you hate Day 1 DLC? Do you support IT as well? Because, if you do, then you are perhaps unknowingly acting the hypocrite. Just how would that translate to other developers? Just how long would it take to forget the fact that the EC was free, but remember that the fans responded positively to it? Would there be an influx of games not ending and the creation of End Game DLC? So, it's $60 to buy a game, but wait! You have to spend an additional twenty to get the Day 1 DLC and the End Game DLC.

The other reaction would be if the majority of the fans hate the EC with IT. I'd be the one that would hate it. Think about it, Bioware has just released the ending of the game that was supposed to be... the end of the game you have already bought and played. Here is where they swindled you. And this is even more blatant than than the quotes we keep throwing around with Hudson claiming that we'd get more than three endings. If the fans don't act favorably to IT, then it could spell the end for Bioware. Bioware just lied about the fact that ME3 was the ending of the trilogy. What else will the lie about in the future? Can we even trust their plot summaries for future IPs? What could we trust them on if they are willing to lie about something like this?

Even if Bioware implements IT as an afterthought, that they didn't even plan for this, it would still give off the impression that they did not end their game and that they are willing to release DLC to end it. It sets a horrible precedent that will either end Bioware by completely shattering their fanbase's trust in them for even the most basic of things. Or, it will create a new "hip" way to tell a story in videogames and both are awful. As for Mass Effect? People would abandon it completely if IT is done. I don't think for even a second that IT supporters are in the majority. People would hate it. Even now, with the ending as they are, I am still willing to buy things with the Mass Effect IP on them. Not necessarily DLC, but comics, books and the like. What about future Mass Effect games? (If those are even possible....) Many people are willing to look at the prospect to new ME games with the endings as is. Can that be said if IT is done?

So no. I'm not Anti-IT because of lack of proof, or that it sounds silly, or that it's filled with plotholes. Or the opposite. I"m anti-IT because the idea is stupid. All around stupid. Not on its merits, but simply as an idea to implement and stand behind as the end all lore for ME. Harsh, maybe, but in my mind, IT carries massive consequences. Consequences that supportes don't seem to even consider. Just that it looks better than what we got.

[SubAstris]

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

1) The problem with saying it is "subtle" is that it is often used as an excuse for lack of evidence.
2) The problem here is that from a storytelling perspective you can't lose your audience, which is what IT effectively does and did for millions of people who played the game if it is true

[dreman9999]

MidnightRaith wrote...

I'm not Anti-IT because of IT's merits or lack thereof. I'm against it because its supporters don't seem to understand the implications for Bioware and Mass Effect as an IP, or the video game genre in general, if it were done. Quite frankly, it is not a good idea simply because it would be Bioware freely admitting that they did not sell you a game that had an ending. Yes, we all thought that the ending to ME3 would be good, but that's not necessarily what Bioware told us. (They lied about plenty of things, but not about whether or not the ending would be to our satisfaction.) However, what was always never in doubt was that ME3 was the end. This game was it, the last chapter to the Shepard story. Nothing more was supposed to come. IT is completely different than a retcon or "clarification" because it is building on the premise that the Reaper war did not end and that Shepard is meant to wake up and continue to fight. That is not an ending.

Could you even imagine the backlash that would occur if IT was what BW initially came out with? The only reason it has the support that it does is because its followers are so disappointed with what we actually got. It's a coping mechanism and I believe this wholeheartedly. However, just because what we got was crap, does not mean that "anything is better than the ending to ME3."  No. No, not everything is better than Starchild. Let me outline my reasoning.

The way I see it, if Bioware released an ending supporting IT, there would be one of two reactions. The first, would be fans loving it. (I would not be of that number....) Okay, yeah, so you like it. You like the fact that Bioware did not release a full game with an ending and that we had to get DLC to finish it. So, how many of you hate Day 1 DLC? Do you support IT as well? Because, if you do, then you are perhaps unknowingly acting the hypocrite. Just how would that translate to other developers? Just how long would it take to forget the fact that the EC was free, but remember that the fans responded positively to it? Would there be an influx of games not ending and the creation of End Game DLC? So, it's $60 to buy a game, but wait! You have to spend an additional twenty to get the Day 1 DLC and the End Game DLC.

The other reaction would be if the majority of the fans hate the EC with IT. I'd be the one that would hate it. Think about it, Bioware has just released the ending of the game that was supposed to be... the end of the game you have already bought and played. Here is where they swindled you. And this is even more blatant than than the quotes we keep throwing around with Hudson claiming that we'd get more than three endings. If the fans don't act favorably to IT, then it could spell the end for Bioware. Bioware just lied about the fact that ME3 was the ending of the trilogy. What else will the lie about in the future? Can we even trust their plot summaries for future IPs? What could we trust them on if they are willing to lie about something like this?

Even if Bioware implements IT as an afterthought, that they didn't even plan for this, it would still give off the impression that they did not end their game and that they are willing to release DLC to end it. It sets a horrible precedent that will either end Bioware by completely shattering their fanbase's trust in them for even the most basic of things. Or, it will create a new "hip" way to tell a story in videogames and both are awful. As for Mass Effect? People would abandon it completely if IT is done. I don't think for even a second that IT supporters are in the majority. People would hate it. Even now, with the ending as they are, I am still willing to buy things with the Mass Effect IP on them. Not necessarily DLC, but comics, books and the like. What about future Mass Effect games? (If those are even possible....) Many people are willing to look at the prospect to new ME games with the endings as is. Can that be said if IT is done?

So no. I'm not Anti-IT because of lack of proof, or that it sounds silly, or that it's filled with plotholes. Or the opposite. I"m anti-IT because the idea is stupid. All around stupid. Not on its merits, but simply as an idea to implement and stand behind as the end all lore for ME. Harsh, maybe, but in my mind, IT carries massive consequences. Consequences that supportes don't seem to even consider. Just that it looks better than what we got.

1. The ending we have right now made a bigger backlash that holding and ending....
2. The fact they are making EC.

........
Your not really agients IT...Your ageinst BW doing addon dlc endings...A thing other companies have done before with little back lash. I understand you point but it's clearthe back lash already happened. How can it get worse then a horde of your fans theating to not buy your product over the ending?

[Laurencio]

dreman9999 wrote...

MidnightRaith wrote...

I'm not Anti-IT because of IT's merits or lack thereof. I'm against it because its supporters don't seem to understand the implications for Bioware and Mass Effect as an IP, or the video game genre in general, if it were done. Quite frankly, it is not a good idea simply because it would be Bioware freely admitting that they did not sell you a game that had an ending. Yes, we all thought that the ending to ME3 would be good, but that's not necessarily what Bioware told us. (They lied about plenty of things, but not about whether or not the ending would be to our satisfaction.) However, what was always never in doubt was that ME3 was the end. This game was it, the last chapter to the Shepard story. Nothing more was supposed to come. IT is completely different than a retcon or "clarification" because it is building on the premise that the Reaper war did not end and that Shepard is meant to wake up and continue to fight. That is not an ending.

Could you even imagine the backlash that would occur if IT was what BW initially came out with? The only reason it has the support that it does is because its followers are so disappointed with what we actually got. It's a coping mechanism and I believe this wholeheartedly. However, just because what we got was crap, does not mean that "anything is better than the ending to ME3."  No. No, not everything is better than Starchild. Let me outline my reasoning.

The way I see it, if Bioware released an ending supporting IT, there would be one of two reactions. The first, would be fans loving it. (I would not be of that number....) Okay, yeah, so you like it. You like the fact that Bioware did not release a full game with an ending and that we had to get DLC to finish it. So, how many of you hate Day 1 DLC? Do you support IT as well? Because, if you do, then you are perhaps unknowingly acting the hypocrite. Just how would that translate to other developers? Just how long would it take to forget the fact that the EC was free, but remember that the fans responded positively to it? Would there be an influx of games not ending and the creation of End Game DLC? So, it's $60 to buy a game, but wait! You have to spend an additional twenty to get the Day 1 DLC and the End Game DLC.

The other reaction would be if the majority of the fans hate the EC with IT. I'd be the one that would hate it. Think about it, Bioware has just released the ending of the game that was supposed to be... the end of the game you have already bought and played. Here is where they swindled you. And this is even more blatant than than the quotes we keep throwing around with Hudson claiming that we'd get more than three endings. If the fans don't act favorably to IT, then it could spell the end for Bioware. Bioware just lied about the fact that ME3 was the ending of the trilogy. What else will the lie about in the future? Can we even trust their plot summaries for future IPs? What could we trust them on if they are willing to lie about something like this?

Even if Bioware implements IT as an afterthought, that they didn't even plan for this, it would still give off the impression that they did not end their game and that they are willing to release DLC to end it. It sets a horrible precedent that will either end Bioware by completely shattering their fanbase's trust in them for even the most basic of things. Or, it will create a new "hip" way to tell a story in videogames and both are awful. As for Mass Effect? People would abandon it completely if IT is done. I don't think for even a second that IT supporters are in the majority. People would hate it. Even now, with the ending as they are, I am still willing to buy things with the Mass Effect IP on them. Not necessarily DLC, but comics, books and the like. What about future Mass Effect games? (If those are even possible....) Many people are willing to look at the prospect to new ME games with the endings as is. Can that be said if IT is done?

So no. I'm not Anti-IT because of lack of proof, or that it sounds silly, or that it's filled with plotholes. Or the opposite. I"m anti-IT because the idea is stupid. All around stupid. Not on its merits, but simply as an idea to implement and stand behind as the end all lore for ME. Harsh, maybe, but in my mind, IT carries massive consequences. Consequences that supportes don't seem to even consider. Just that it looks better than what we got.

1. The ending we have right now made a bigger backlash that holding and ending....
2. The fact they are making EC.

........
Your not really agients IT...Your ageinst BW doing addon dlc endings...A thing other companies have done before with little back lash. I understand you point but it's clearthe back lash already happened. How can it get worse then a horde of your fans theating to not buy your product over the ending?

How could we possibly know that? It didn't happen, so we can't actually be sure of that can we? It could easily have been like the day one DLC outrage only significantly bigger. Shipping a game, that promises an ending to the series, without the ending doesn't sound like it would have been well received. Personally I believe they would have recieved just as much, if not more, negative feedback doing that.

After all the only reason people think this is preferable is because they've seen the current ending. In your scenario the current ending wouldn't exist and the game wouldn't have "ended".

Modifié par Laurencio, 05 mai 2012 - 03:44 .

[dreman9999]

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

1) The problem with saying it is "subtle" is that it is often used as an excuse for lack of evidence.
2) The problem here is that from a storytelling perspective you can't lose your audience, which is what IT effectively does and did for millions of people who played the game if it is true

1. But that is what stated in the lore..It's nature...How do you show proof of something before it happens when it naturally shows the solid proof afteR?

2.........Are you serious? Do you even read this board? You think IT will lose fans but keeping the ending as is would not? Did you not see all the angry fans threating to never buy another BW game over this ending? And IT is going to make that worse whne most ofthe people like the theory any away? I think you need to check you're glasses.

Modifié par dreman9999, 05 mai 2012 - 03:44 .

[Laurencio]

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

1) The problem with saying it is "subtle" is that it is often used as an excuse for lack of evidence.
2) The problem here is that from a storytelling perspective you can't lose your audience, which is what IT effectively does and did for millions of people who played the game if it is true

1. But that is what stated in the lore..It's nature...How do you show proof of something before it happens when it naturally shows the solid proof afteR?

2.........Are you serious? Do you even read this board? You think IT will lose fans but keeping the ending as is would not? Did you not see all the angry fans threating to never buy another BW game over this ending? And IT is going to make that worse whne most ofthe people like the theory any away? I think you need to check you're glasses.

You can't, which is why IT can't be proven, or disproven, and remains a theory that refuse to die until such a time it's made irrelevant by the developers. Even after EC people could argue that IT was the original idea, it's impossible to disprove without direct communication from the developers, and even then the "they lied before, so they could be lying again" argument could be used.

Modifié par Laurencio, 05 mai 2012 - 03:46 .

[Raiil]

dreman9999 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Er... it's not quite the same thing. Shepard has first-hand experience in-game and concrete proof that these things have happened. IT is a theory for a reason- not because it's bad, not because it's stupid, but because the evidence isn't air-tight the way Shepard's is in game.

But Shepard has first hand experiance with indoctrination...All of ME1 and some of ME2. He knows it there , he knows the signs and he knows the reapers are after him and trying to control him.(Harbinger ME2). There even a line for this in Arrival in ME2 from Harbinger.."Struggle if you wish, you mind will be mine."
.....It's the same case.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Shepard has first hand experience by seeing and interacting with the Reapers. We, the players who control Shepard, do not have the first hand experience of Indoctrination. IT is based on bits of the game being cobbled together to form a semi-coherent narrative; semi-coherent because much of the evidence that's touted is shaky (such as the one case where someone was trying to 'prove' IT by using reflections that aren't visible to the vast majority of players). IT isn't a bad theory, as theories go, but it's not as self-evident and air-tight as some would like to believe. 

I'm sorry, but it's not the same thing. Apples and oranges. 

Again, yes we do. We don't have it done to us but we see every thing that happen to it. It like how some who is train to deal with posions sees the cases of it. We had it dicribed and shown to us through 5 stable people, we seen its progress and how far it can go...That is first hand knowlege...http://wiki.answers....thand_knowledge 

If we don't have it done to us, then we're lacking in appreciable first hand knowledge. We can recognise outward signs but as Indoctrination, in game, is a largely mental process, we cannot completely understand the mental reaction to it. I can read about a ringmaster and see one in the circus, but I can't actually understand, on a primal level, what it means to be standing in front of a thousand screaming people as a ringmaster.

We have observational knowledge. Not practical knowledge. It's the difference between recognisning signs of cancer and actually having it. It's not the same thing. Again, I'm not bashing IT but part of the reason why I don't personally follow it is because we don't have enough direct knowledge to maintain a self-diagnosis. The fact that Shepard doesn't follow the trend of 'recognising they're indoctrinated' ala Saren and TIM doesn't help.

[dreman9999]

Laurencio wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

MidnightRaith wrote...

I'm not Anti-IT because of IT's merits or lack thereof. I'm against it because its supporters don't seem to understand the implications for Bioware and Mass Effect as an IP, or the video game genre in general, if it were done. Quite frankly, it is not a good idea simply because it would be Bioware freely admitting that they did not sell you a game that had an ending. Yes, we all thought that the ending to ME3 would be good, but that's not necessarily what Bioware told us. (They lied about plenty of things, but not about whether or not the ending would be to our satisfaction.) However, what was always never in doubt was that ME3 was the end. This game was it, the last chapter to the Shepard story. Nothing more was supposed to come. IT is completely different than a retcon or "clarification" because it is building on the premise that the Reaper war did not end and that Shepard is meant to wake up and continue to fight. That is not an ending.

Could you even imagine the backlash that would occur if IT was what BW initially came out with? The only reason it has the support that it does is because its followers are so disappointed with what we actually got. It's a coping mechanism and I believe this wholeheartedly. However, just because what we got was crap, does not mean that "anything is better than the ending to ME3."  No. No, not everything is better than Starchild. Let me outline my reasoning.

The way I see it, if Bioware released an ending supporting IT, there would be one of two reactions. The first, would be fans loving it. (I would not be of that number....) Okay, yeah, so you like it. You like the fact that Bioware did not release a full game with an ending and that we had to get DLC to finish it. So, how many of you hate Day 1 DLC? Do you support IT as well? Because, if you do, then you are perhaps unknowingly acting the hypocrite. Just how would that translate to other developers? Just how long would it take to forget the fact that the EC was free, but remember that the fans responded positively to it? Would there be an influx of games not ending and the creation of End Game DLC? So, it's $60 to buy a game, but wait! You have to spend an additional twenty to get the Day 1 DLC and the End Game DLC.

The other reaction would be if the majority of the fans hate the EC with IT. I'd be the one that would hate it. Think about it, Bioware has just released the ending of the game that was supposed to be... the end of the game you have already bought and played. Here is where they swindled you. And this is even more blatant than than the quotes we keep throwing around with Hudson claiming that we'd get more than three endings. If the fans don't act favorably to IT, then it could spell the end for Bioware. Bioware just lied about the fact that ME3 was the ending of the trilogy. What else will the lie about in the future? Can we even trust their plot summaries for future IPs? What could we trust them on if they are willing to lie about something like this?

Even if Bioware implements IT as an afterthought, that they didn't even plan for this, it would still give off the impression that they did not end their game and that they are willing to release DLC to end it. It sets a horrible precedent that will either end Bioware by completely shattering their fanbase's trust in them for even the most basic of things. Or, it will create a new "hip" way to tell a story in videogames and both are awful. As for Mass Effect? People would abandon it completely if IT is done. I don't think for even a second that IT supporters are in the majority. People would hate it. Even now, with the ending as they are, I am still willing to buy things with the Mass Effect IP on them. Not necessarily DLC, but comics, books and the like. What about future Mass Effect games? (If those are even possible....) Many people are willing to look at the prospect to new ME games with the endings as is. Can that be said if IT is done?

So no. I'm not Anti-IT because of lack of proof, or that it sounds silly, or that it's filled with plotholes. Or the opposite. I"m anti-IT because the idea is stupid. All around stupid. Not on its merits, but simply as an idea to implement and stand behind as the end all lore for ME. Harsh, maybe, but in my mind, IT carries massive consequences. Consequences that supportes don't seem to even consider. Just that it looks better than what we got.

1. The ending we have right now made a bigger backlash that holding and ending....
2. The fact they are making EC.

........
Your not really agients IT...Your ageinst BW doing addon dlc endings...A thing other companies have done before with little back lash. I understand you point but it's clearthe back lash already happened. How can it get worse then a horde of your fans theating to not buy your product over the ending?

How could we possibly know that? It didn't happen, so we can't actually be sure of that can we? It could easily have been like the day one DLC outrage only significantly bigger. Shipping a game, that promises an ending to the series, without the ending doesn't sound like it would have been well received. Personally I believe they would have recieved just as much, if not more, negative feedback doing that.

How do I know that? Look around, it's clear when people say if they don't fix the ending they are leaving mean that BW is in a hole. Do you really think that after and ending that was in ME3, people would be ageinst something that would get it to make sense in an interesting way that is based on the lore? Really, what is worse then, "I'LL NEVER BY YOUR PRODUCT AGEIN"?

[SubAstris]

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

1) The problem with saying it is "subtle" is that it is often used as an excuse for lack of evidence.
2) The problem here is that from a storytelling perspective you can't lose your audience, which is what IT effectively does and did for millions of people who played the game if it is true

1. But that is what stated in the lore..It's nature...How do you show proof of something before it happens when it naturally shows the solid proof afteR?

2.........Are you serious? Do you even read this board? You think IT will lose fans but keeping the ending as is would not? Did you not see all the angry fans threating to never buy another BW game over this ending? And IT is going to make that worse whne most ofthe people like the theory any away? I think you need to check you're glasses.

1) I realise, but absence of evidence is most usually evidence of absence. And there is no "proof" after anyway
2) Yes I do, and I realise that there is a small, but vocal contingent who support IT. Others don't. Basic 101 of Storytelling states that you need to inform your readers properly, if you don't, then you have created a crappy story, which is what has happened here. Hence why people had to turn internet forums and videos to find the "truth"; a good story should not do that. You say it yourself, people were angry, and that is why BW failed