332 réponses à ce sujet

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Lizardviking wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

If it were as simple as "it was all a dream" sure, however what happens in the end sequence serves a very deliberate purpose, we're supposed to feel emotional and/or triumphant w/e, it's the whole point.

Execpt by saying that it never happend and was stuff inside his head. All the power of those scenes are gone since what was important in them is nullified. TIM commiting suicide after being shown the errors of his ways and gaining redemption is turned meaningless because it never happend. Anderson's last words about how proud he is of Shepard is in the end completing meaningless because it never happended.

But don't you see?

That's the beauty of IT, it allows room for a more profound AND COMPLETE ending.

Riddle me this: Where is the EPILOGUE?

You'll know it when it happens, and it did NOT happen in ME3!!

[Kaelef]

Nauks wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

It's a religious argument not because it has anything to do with deities or religions, but because it forms around a body of "knowledge" which is neither provable nor disprovable.  Calling something a "religious argument" when it takes on this characteristic is a fairly common thing to do.

And the more you use the term "idiot", the more you start sounding like one.

You mean the anti-IT people are acting like Creationists, while the pro-IT people are pesky Evolution supporters with their silly "proof"? did I get the analogy right?

The only thing you've proven is that you don't know what the word "proof" means.

[Darth_Trethon]

7he Island Head wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Gorkan86 wrote...

The worst thing in IT, for me, is the fact that your friends are indoctrinated. At least those of them who had, along with Shepard the most time near the reaper tech.
When you understand this, it is not so much sorry for Shepard, compared with them. They did everything for Shepard. Now Shepard (if he survive) will have to repeat the action of Javik and his indoctrinated friends.

While there's plenty to suggest Shepard is being affected by indoctrination attempts there is nothing to suggest the the squad would be undergoing indoctrination....except may for Vega who hears strange hums on the Normandy but nobody likes him anyway so whatever. The others should be clean.

maybe Javik, he was in a coma for like 50,000 years. Maybe the reapers messed with his brain...

lol, that would explain why he's such a troll.....he's the reapers' thrall troll.

[jijeebo]

Lizardviking wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

If it were as simple as "it was all a dream" sure, however what happens in the end sequence serves a very deliberate purpose, we're supposed to feel emotional and/or triumphant w/e, it's the whole point.

Execpt by saying that it never happend and was stuff inside his head. All the power of those scenes are gone since what was important in them is nullified. TIM commiting suicide after being shown the errors of his ways and gaining redemption is turned meaningless because it never happend. Anderson's last words about how proud he is of Shepard is in the end completing meaningless because it never happended.

I never thought about that...

Even though I wasnt pro-IT before... I could never get behind an ending that invalidates the beauty that was the final moments between Shepard and Anderson by turning it into a dream.


That was one of my favourite moments in ME3. 

[Nauks]

Lizardviking wrote...

But then we will find out it was just a dream, making us go "Well that was pretty pointless".

Silly Reapers using actually convincing ways of fooling us.

Modifié par Nauks, 12 mai 2012 - 10:57 .

[elecmanexe001]

Valentia X wrote...

ohupthis wrote...


Then by all means DEFEND yourself, instead of just blatantly denying IT, could be POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/facepalm


I have said numerous times, in numerous threads, in conversations with you and other ITers, that while I find IT to be an interesting theory, it hasn't been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of it tenants, aside from the fact that Indoctrination exists in game. The proof of burden lies on those who propose the hypothesis, not those who have to be convinced.

And my main issue isn't that you believe in IT, but that you consistently, throughout several threads and many posts, call anyone who doesn't believe in IT derogatory names and are constantly using snide, rude, and borderline abusive language towards them. I don't care whether you believe in IT or not, that's not something that bothers me. Your attitude towards anyone who doesn't- which includes me- does.

Thats not everyone, thats a vocal minority shouting louder then the rest unfortunately.

Also, I would point out that more then just the fact that indoctrination exists point to IT theory being plausable. Simply what happens with the right GR and the red option goes to show what the catalyst told you, that you would die doing it, is not true and that the rest of what should be destroyed with said option may also not be destroyed, and so on. There is more that can be shown to have more ground then speculation, but no one is saying everything is 100% true.

[KingZayd]

You don't only wake up with destroy. You wake up with all 3. The difference is your mental state after waking up.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

ohupthis wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

If it were as simple as "it was all a dream" sure, however what happens in the end sequence serves a very deliberate purpose, we're supposed to feel emotional and/or triumphant w/e, it's the whole point.

Execpt by saying that it never happend and was stuff inside his head. All the power of those scenes are gone since what was important in them is nullified. TIM commiting suicide after being shown the errors of his ways and gaining redemption is turned meaningless because it never happend. Anderson's last words about how proud he is of Shepard is in the end completing meaningless because it never happended.

But don't you see?

That's the beauty of IT, it allows room for a more profound AND COMPLETE ending.

Riddle me this: Where is the EPILOGUE?

You'll know it when it happens, and it did NOT happen in ME3!!

How about we fix the ending by fixing the ending. Not just disregard it as a dream.

And I am quite aware that is no epilogue in the current ending, which is one of its major flaws. But I am pretty certain an epilogue can be created within the parameters of the current ending.

[7he Island Head]

KingZayd wrote...

You don't only wake up with destroy. You wake up with all 3. The difference is your mental state after waking up.

Is that ingame or in the IT?

[Agugaboo]

7he Island Head wrote...

Thanks for clarifying, all that I have read seems to indicate that in the IT the color swaps is reaper trick. This implies that paragon shep is the correct shep. Something that Bioware would never say.

If something is presented and seems wrong you have the right to question it. Nothing is canon until Bioware does something. IT has grown and branched as people have discussed and speculated, and at this point I think it's more important that the catalyst is trying to convince you that control and synthesis are the best options.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

KingZayd wrote...

7he Island Head wrote...

I thought you can only wake up in the destroy ending, not the control ending?

No. You wake up from all 3. It's what happens next that is different.

NOPE, sorry but there's only one scenario with breathing, if'n you chose Destroy.

the other abominations SHOULD DIAF. along with the Reapers.

[Gorkan86]

elecmanexe001 wrote...

No where in IT does it suggest friends are indoctrinated.... and they spent far less time near Reapers then you did.

I mention IT specifically to make it clear that if Shepard can be indoctrinated, then his companions too. They have not been with him constantly, but in most encounters with the reaper tech they were present.

[Kaelef]

ohupthis wrote...


Then by all means DEFEND yourself, instead of just blatantly denying IT, could be POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't have to agree with us, just accept the fact this is a possibility, plain AND simple.

The point is that you can't disprove IT.  Any reasonable argument against it can be worked around by its adherents.  This is yet another religion-like characteristic it has.

ANYTHING is possible in a work of ficition.  The Catalyst could be a re-incarnation of the Stay Puft™ Marshmallow man.  The fact that it's possible doesn't make it any more compelling or desireable.

[Nauks]

Kaelef wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

It's a religious argument not because it has anything to do with deities or religions, but because it forms around a body of "knowledge" which is neither provable nor disprovable.  Calling something a "religious argument" when it takes on this characteristic is a fairly common thing to do.

And the more you use the term "idiot", the more you start sounding like one.

You mean the anti-IT people are acting like Creationists, while the pro-IT people are pesky Evolution supporters with their silly "proof"? did I get the analogy right?

The only thing you've proven is that you don't know what the word "proof" means.

Ah sorry, "evidence" then.
Proof is indeed a missuse, thank you.

[Gorkan86]

7he Island Head wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

You don't only wake up with destroy. You wake up with all 3. The difference is your mental state after waking up.

Is that ingame or in the IT?

[elecmanexe001]

Kaelef wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...
If IT is correct it is more then "lol that was just a dream" yea, its much more important, and again it seems like not all of IT is understood here.

Saying "it was only a dream" is an exaggeration meant to simplify a point, but I haven't seen or read anything that makes IT fundamentally anything more than that.  The "it was only a dream" trope is exactly the way a lot of people will interpret an IT ending if it does end up being what BW delivers in the EC.  Maybe I'm an "idiot" and "just don't get it" (are you guys intentionally trying to sound like reapers when you say that?) - but I'd love it if you pointed me at something that shows how IT ends up being anything more creative than that.

I am not trying to call anyone stupid here it just seems that some points of IT are missed by people. Indoctrination is supposed to cause a lot of the symptoms experienced within the end. Things like TIM could be akin to something of the devil on your shoulder sort of cartoon explanation to consious. You are fighting with yourself, all the things you have seen and heard as the Reapers attempt to manipulate you. It would be more then a dream, it would serve more importance then that and if done right would not devalue what happened. I hope that explains where some people are coming from with the idea better, but it will never convince everyone and it isn't meant to. I'm not 100% convinced myself but I prefer the ideas of IT to just accepting what happened.

[TheHugoGamer]

There is no renegade or paragon ending option. There is only the choice to follow what the reapers want, or stay true to your goals. The final choice is A TEST (atleast if IT is true, and there is no guarantee).

[OH-UP-THIS!]

jijeebo wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

The biggest problem with those who hate IT; They don't understand IT.

Or want too.

I'm gonna bet, it has more to do with lacking the ability to see beyond the confines, of the itsy-bitsy world they live in.

Ah, the ol' if-they-don't-agree-with-me-it's-because-they-just-don't-understand-like-i-do fallacy.  Tends to go hand-in-hand with religious arguments like these.

Strange how ITers are using the same argument to defend their theory as Bioware is using in defense of their ending.

It's all a giant conspiracy so Bioware can maintain their artistic integrity.

ITers are indoctrinated Bioware agents who are trying to convince us that Bioware is brilliant', rather than the biggest threat to the known galaxy.

While the same could be said for the PRO-enders.

Oh God I know, thankfully i'm neither.

I'm a "Unless EC proves otherwise, I firmly believe that the endings are the result of bad writing." kinda guy.

To be perfectly honest, I too am of the belief Bioware messed up ROYALLY, but I have a spark of hope, with my UNreligion.

[elecmanexe001]

7he Island Head wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

You don't only wake up with destroy. You wake up with all 3. The difference is your mental state after waking up.

Is that ingame or in the IT?

It is not in game, you are only alive at the end of red option with enough GR.

[7he Island Head]

ohupthis wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

The biggest problem with those who hate IT; They don't understand IT.

Or want too.

I'm gonna bet, it has more to do with lacking the ability to see beyond the confines, of the itsy-bitsy world they live in.

Ah, the ol' if-they-don't-agree-with-me-it's-because-they-just-don't-understand-like-i-do fallacy.  Tends to go hand-in-hand with religious arguments like these.

Strange how ITers are using the same argument to defend their theory as Bioware is using in defense of their ending.

It's all a giant conspiracy so Bioware can maintain their artistic integrity.

ITers are indoctrinated Bioware agents who are trying to convince us that Bioware is brilliant', rather than the biggest threat to the known galaxy.

While the same could be said for the PRO-enders.

Oh God I know, thankfully i'm neither.

I'm a "Unless EC proves otherwise, I firmly believe that the endings are the result of bad writing." kinda guy.

To be perfectly honest, I too am of the belief Bioware messed up ROYALLY, but I have a spark of hope, with my UNreligion.

I find it easier to believe that they messed up rather in the IT.... 

[Raiil]

elecmanexe001 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

/facepalm


I have said numerous times, in numerous threads, in conversations with you and other ITers, that while I find IT to be an interesting theory, it hasn't been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of it tenants, aside from the fact that Indoctrination exists in game. The proof of burden lies on those who propose the hypothesis, not those who have to be convinced.

And my main issue isn't that you believe in IT, but that you consistently, throughout several threads and many posts, call anyone who doesn't believe in IT derogatory names and are constantly using snide, rude, and borderline abusive language towards them. I don't care whether you believe in IT or not, that's not something that bothers me. Your attitude towards anyone who doesn't- which includes me- does.

Thats not everyone, thats a vocal minority shouting louder then the rest unfortunately.

Also, I would point out that more then just the fact that indoctrination exists point to IT theory being plausable. Simply what happens with the right GR and the red option goes to show what the catalyst told you, that you would die doing it, is not true and that the rest of what should be destroyed with said option may also not be destroyed, and so on. There is more that can be shown to have more ground then speculation, but no one is saying everything is 100% true.

I was speaking to her, personally. I try to honestly debate with ITers, not pick fights with them. That's not conducive to what I want, which is a friendly debate and new information.

I have no qualms with the idea of IT being a plausible theory. My issue is that IT isn't even really a theory, it's a set of hypotheses wherein most have not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and until those hypotheses are reasonably proven, it can't be a theory. (This is working off of the scientific method, not literary critique, so if that's what you were referring to, my apologies). There is circumstantial evidence in game that points to indoctrination having been considered in game (as noted by the Final Hours app), which in turn lends credence to IT as a whole. But the compulsion of your 'vocal minority' to be abusive to non-ITers such as myself, who want debate and not insults, is becoming a big problem on the forums, and the 'nice' ITers are doing nothing to reign it in.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

balance5050 wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

It's a religious argument not because it has anything to do with deities or religions, but because it forms around a body of "knowledge" which is neither provable nor disprovable.  Calling something a "religious argument" when it takes on this characteristic is a fairly common thing to do.

And the more you use the term "idiot", the more you start sounding like one.

You mean the anti-IT people are acting like Creationists, while the pro-IT people are pesky Evolution supporters with their silly "proof"? did I get the analogy right?

The E.C. will be the "missing link" in the fossil record 

I like that, very much i do.

Giggle worthy as well.

[balance5050]

7he Island Head wrote...

I find it easier to believe that they messed up rather in the IT.... 

The problem with that is Bioware has played with unrealities much more frequently than they "messed up" probability points to IT.

Modifié par balance5050, 12 mai 2012 - 11:05 .

[7he Island Head]

My theory is better than IT anyways
http://social.biowar...ndex/10589333/1

[KingZayd]

7he Island Head wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

You don't only wake up with destroy. You wake up with all 3. The difference is your mental state after waking up.

Is that ingame or in the IT?

IT. (hopefully ingame by Summer )

Modifié par KingZayd, 12 mai 2012 - 11:05 .