739 réponses à ce sujet

[ArthurVon]

I think that talking about the IT is just a way to distract players about the fact that THERE IS NOT AN END AND IF THERE IS ONE, THERE IS NO A WAY TO CHANGE IT WITH YOUR IN GAME ACTIONS, with or without the IT. And that really sucks.

Modifié par ArthurVon, 13 mai 2012 - 09:14 .

[araisikewai]

ArthurVon wrote...

I think that talking about the IT is just a way to distract players about the fact that THERE IS NOT AN END AND IF THERE IS ONE, THERE IS NO A WAY TO CHANGE IT WITH YOUR IN GAME ACTIONS, with or without the IT. And that really sucks.

This ^ ^
Exactly my point, try the link underneath to open your mind a bit.
It's a bit TL;DR but to sum it up from some one else in the thread:

sH0tgUn jUliA:
They always said that ME3 is the end of Shepard's story. They always said that ME3 was a great place to enter the franchise. They never said this was the end of the franchise. They aren't going to show their hand. The "breath" scene at the end of the Destroy ending is the equivalent of the ending to Halo 3. It implies there will be a sequel. Halo 3's ending is sort of a cliffhanger, with the Master Chief stranded. Now we see Halo 4.

Who knows what kind of shape Shepard is in. From the looks of things, I'd say Shepard is not in fighting shape, nor will be in fighting shape again, ever. So at most, Shepard will be a NPC in any future game IF Shepard survives; if the end really isn't the end of the reaper war someone will emerge to take Shepard's place.

But if the ending really is the end of the reaper war, and I think it is, then there's rebuilding to be done. Shepard is still probably mostly done for, maybe alive, but probably crippled, and definitely not playable. There are plenty of challenges ahead, and plenty of nightmares left behind by the reapers. Someone else is going to step forward. There is always someone else.

I don't think they'll let something this popular die. I don't think they'll go MMO with it.

Modifié par araisikewai, 13 mai 2012 - 09:32 .

[PlumPaul93]

I don't even understand why IT believers argue for the IT. Do they believe that this was Bioware's plan and think they figured out the "secret" by the "hints" in game? Or do they believe that this is the best/only way to have the current endings work. I'm curious because originally most who believed it thought it was planned, was wondering if that was still the popular opinion.

[araisikewai]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

I don't even understand why IT believers argue for the IT. Do they believe that this was Bioware's plan and think they figured out the "secret" by the "hints" in game? Or do they believe that this is the best/only way to have the current endings work. I'm curious because originally most who believed it thought it was planned, was wondering if that was still the popular opinion.

Both, but at this point most are already grasping at straws...
Don't you think the strangest thing is BW reaction to the fans that's saying about IT? 
They keep their poker face saying that's it's neither true nor false.
Almost politician like of saying 'no comment.'

And another thing...
WHO exactly is the first one to circle out the rumor of IT? Can anyone be sure that s/he was not one of the BW dev themselves doing rumor mongering...? 

At this point I'd rather try to read their poker face than delving to deep into IT.
You might try to take my read on this underneath though.
It quite TL;DR stuff but most response was saying that it's also quite logical.

[DJBare]

Hadeedak wrote...

Why is destroy the only ending where Shepard can literally incinerate the Earth?

Low EMS equals weak will, it's all hallucination, Shepard is dying under the rubble, notice how no one steps out of the Normandy yet the door opens, his/her last thoughts are failure to save earth before snuffing it, even with destroy, if low EMS, end of Shepards story.

Remember, if IT, then those choices have absolutely no effect on the real world, everything you see is taking place inside Shepards mind.

That's what was trying to get across in the OP, that absolutely nothing after London is real.

I have to admit, even I have a hard time holding onto the idea because we've been so conditioned in gaming to go from point A to point B and win that any side tracking such as indoctrination does not fit our conditioning very well, as an example when I reach the part with the discussion with Anderson and TIM, despite believing IT I cannot shake the idea they are real, it's conditioning, and the conditioning is reinforced by it being near game end.

In short, if IT turns out to be true, then it's from left field, though I personally don't have a problem with that since I enjoy the kind of entertainment that headfakes the viewer.

Modifié par DJBare, 13 mai 2012 - 02:29 .

[TSA_383]

DJBare wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Why is destroy the only ending where Shepard can literally incinerate the Earth?

Low EMS equals weak will, it's all hallucination, Shepard is dying under the rubble, notice how no one steps out of the Normandy yet the door opens, his/her last thoughts are failure to save earth before snuffing it, even with destroy, if low EMS, end of Shepards story.

Remember, if IT, then those choices have absolutely no effect on the real world, everything you see is taking place inside Shepards mind.

That's what was trying to get across in the OP, that absolutely nothing after London is real.

I have to admit, even I have a hard time holding onto the idea because we've been so conditioned in gaming to go from point A to point B and win that any side tracking such as indoctrination does not fit our conditioning very well, as an example when I reach the part with the discussion with Anderson and TIM, despite believing IT I cannot shake the idea they are real, it's conditioning, and the conditioning is reinforced by it being near game end.

In short, if IT turns out to be true, then it's from left field, though I personally don't have a problem with that since I enjoy the kind of entertainment that headfakes the viewer.

Exactly, this is what I was trying to say earlier... most gaming plots are pretty simple, because they have to appeal to a "mainstream" audience. For talented writers like Bioware has this likely gets very old, very quickly, and it appears they've decided to take a bit of a risk.
See my post quoted below re: the inspirations for ME3's ending...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
This, I think, is the crux of the problem.

I
will repeat the offer that nobody has yet taken up of a cash bet of
some kind, to be decided based on story progression from this point.

Out
of curiosity, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, but have you
ever read any classic books that require a little reading-into to pick
up on the meaning? One such book which I was a fan of is "Brave New
World", and I know that I mention it a fair bit on these forums, but
when Mac Walters was writing the ending of ME3, he used it for
inspiration (along with "The end of the first Matrix", I'll let you work
that one out...) so I think it's worth a note. It's available free
online these days and out of copyright, so I strongly recommend that you
go take a look. Even if not for ME3, it's a fascinating look into a
dystopian "future" (I put this in quotes as the book is rather dated now
and despite being set in the future the technology is somewhat
behind...) in which people are lead through subconscious suggestion to
be perfectly willing servants of their politcal masters. It's actually
quite interesting as it parallels a lot of what we see in mainland China
these days.

Appeal To Complexity

You realize that you're not actually debating right? You're not even entertaining the idea of being engaged in discussion?

One does not debate by falling into the trappings of a fallacious argument.

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means... do you understand what I just said? It wasn't even an argument

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...What am I supposed to be seeing here?

That's evidence to Balance when he feels like he is losing. He image bombs the thread hoping to drive everyone away.

You still have yet to comment on them though, that's why I post them.

You just responded to a comment on them....  how can you do that and then claim I've not commented on them....

You seem to think they prove something, they don't.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...
I'm glad to hear you're open to reasonable debate and alternate interpretations. So. Why is Shepard special? Do you think, with Reapers in close proximity, if he wakes up, he'll be able to do ANYTHING about it beyond snap right back into being indoctrinated?

Shep is the primary leader of the resistance, if they kill him he become a martyr, a symbol, but if he were to say that the reapers "actually are" our salvation, the bulk of the galaxy would follow.

Then why is he encouraged (or as you say lied to) to sacrifice himself, leaving no body behind?

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...
I'm glad to hear you're open to reasonable debate and alternate interpretations. So. Why is Shepard special? Do you think, with Reapers in close proximity, if he wakes up, he'll be able to do ANYTHING about it beyond snap right back into being indoctrinated?

Shep is the primary leader of the resistance, if they kill him he become a martyr, a symbol, but if he were to say that the reapers "actually are" our salvation, the bulk of the galaxy would follow.

Then why is he encouraged (or as you say lied to) to sacrifice himself, leaving no body behind?

Oh cool! were bumping this again...

Who ecouraged Shepard to commit suicide? I don't remeber that.

[CavScout]

DJBare wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Why is destroy the only ending where Shepard can literally incinerate the Earth?

Low EMS equals weak will...

No, low EMS equals fewer military/research assests....

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...
I'm glad to hear you're open to reasonable debate and alternate interpretations. So. Why is Shepard special? Do you think, with Reapers in close proximity, if he wakes up, he'll be able to do ANYTHING about it beyond snap right back into being indoctrinated?

Shep is the primary leader of the resistance, if they kill him he become a martyr, a symbol, but if he were to say that the reapers "actually are" our salvation, the bulk of the galaxy would follow.

Then why is he encouraged (or as you say lied to) to sacrifice himself, leaving no body behind?

Oh cool! were bumping this again...

Who ecouraged Shepard to commit suicide? I don't remeber that.

Cool, you  unconditionally surrender. I knew you'd give up eventually.

Modifié par CavScout, 13 mai 2012 - 06:37 .

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...
I'm glad to hear you're open to reasonable debate and alternate interpretations. So. Why is Shepard special? Do you think, with Reapers in close proximity, if he wakes up, he'll be able to do ANYTHING about it beyond snap right back into being indoctrinated?

Shep is the primary leader of the resistance, if they kill him he become a martyr, a symbol, but if he were to say that the reapers "actually are" our salvation, the bulk of the galaxy would follow.

Then why is he encouraged (or as you say lied to) to sacrifice himself, leaving no body behind?

Oh cool! were bumping this again...

Who ecouraged Shepard to commit suicide? I don't remeber that.

Cool, you  unconditionally surrender. I knew you'd give up eventually.

troll tactics?

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...
I'm glad to hear you're open to reasonable debate and alternate interpretations. So. Why is Shepard special? Do you think, with Reapers in close proximity, if he wakes up, he'll be able to do ANYTHING about it beyond snap right back into being indoctrinated?

Shep is the primary leader of the resistance, if they kill him he become a martyr, a symbol, but if he were to say that the reapers "actually are" our salvation, the bulk of the galaxy would follow.

Then why is he encouraged (or as you say lied to) to sacrifice himself, leaving no body behind?

Oh cool! were bumping this again...

Who ecouraged Shepard to commit suicide? I don't remeber that.

Cool, you  unconditionally surrender. I knew you'd give up eventually.

troll tactics?

Yes, you are employing them.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Why is destroy the only ending where Shepard can literally incinerate the Earth?

Low EMS equals weak will...

No, low EMS equals fewer military/research assests....

Your will would be pretty tiny if your army sucks, if you are a bad leader

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...
I'm glad to hear you're open to reasonable debate and alternate interpretations. So. Why is Shepard special? Do you think, with Reapers in close proximity, if he wakes up, he'll be able to do ANYTHING about it beyond snap right back into being indoctrinated?

Shep is the primary leader of the resistance, if they kill him he become a martyr, a symbol, but if he were to say that the reapers "actually are" our salvation, the bulk of the galaxy would follow.

Then why is he encouraged (or as you say lied to) to sacrifice himself, leaving no body behind?

Oh cool! were bumping this again...

Who ecouraged Shepard to commit suicide? I don't remeber that.

Cool, you  unconditionally surrender. I knew you'd give up eventually.

troll tactics?

Yes, you are employing them.

 funny!

By asking you who encouraged Shep to sarifice himself? I'm just asking you to back up that assertion.

[Sisterofshane]

CavScout, the only argument you seem to have is that the ending cannot be taken at anything other than face value, which flies in the face of any critical reasoning approach you can take when regarding the interpretation of a story.

I understand that it is your personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from yourself, but you're never going to win anybody over to your side by using an argument akin to the statement " A rock cannot be a boulder".

[Humakt83]

CavScout wrote...

You just responded to a comment on them....  how can you do that and then claim I've not commented on them....

You seem to think they prove something, they don't.

"You seem to have a remarkable thick skull CavScout." - Liara

"Go headbutt the Reapers and win the war for us soldier!" - Andersson

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Yes, you are employing them.

 funny!
By asking you who encouraged Shep to sarifice himself? I'm just asking you to back up that assertion.

By "forgetting" what you've argued for repeatedly, you're trolling. You're trying to get people to get frustrated so they simply bow out of the conversation. You're just not as clever as you think you are.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Hadeedak wrote...

Why is destroy the only ending where Shepard can literally incinerate the Earth?

Low EMS equals weak will...

No, low EMS equals fewer military/research assests....

Your will would be pretty tiny if your army sucks, if you are a bad leader

Military Force = / = Will Power

[CavScout]

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout, the only argument you seem to have is that the ending cannot be taken at anything other than face value, which flies in the face of any critical reasoning approach you can take when regarding the interpretation of a story.

You're wrong, but that won't stop you or other IT zelots.

I understand that it is your personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from yourself, but you're never going to win anybody over to your side by using an argument akin to the statement " A rock cannot be a boulder".

Care to actually back up your claim? Please show where I "personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from" me. Like IT, you can't support this at all.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Yes, you are employing them.

 funny!
By asking you who encouraged Shep to sarifice himself? I'm just asking you to back up that assertion.

By "forgetting" what you've argued for repeatedly, you're trolling. You're trying to get people to get frustrated so they simply bow out of the conversation. You're just not as clever as you think you are.

I'm just asking you to explain what you meant when you said

"Then why is he encouraged (or as you say lied to) to sacrifice himself, leaving no body behind?" 

That's it.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Yes, you are employing them.

 funny!
By asking you who encouraged Shep to sarifice himself? I'm just asking you to back up that assertion.

By "forgetting" what you've argued for repeatedly, you're trolling. You're trying to get people to get frustrated so they simply bow out of the conversation. You're just not as clever as you think you are.

I'm just asking you to explain what you meant when you said

"Then why is he encouraged (or as you say lied to) to sacrifice himself, leaving no body behind?" 

That's it.

Playing dumb suits you. You have plenty of practice.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout, the only argument you seem to have is that the ending cannot be taken at anything other than face value, which flies in the face of any critical reasoning approach you can take when regarding the interpretation of a story.

You're wrong, but that won't stop you or other IT zelots.

I understand that it is your personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from yourself, but you're never going to win anybody over to your side by using an argument akin to the statement " A rock cannot be a boulder".

Care to actually back up your claim? Please show where I "personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from" me. Like IT, you can't support this at all.

A. You only hang out in The IT threads.

B. You bash the I.T. and its fans instead of actually trying to refute any aspects of it.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Yes, you are employing them.

 funny!
By asking you who encouraged Shep to sarifice himself? I'm just asking you to back up that assertion.

By "forgetting" what you've argued for repeatedly, you're trolling. You're trying to get people to get frustrated so they simply bow out of the conversation. You're just not as clever as you think you are.

I'm just asking you to explain what you meant when you said

"Then why is he encouraged (or as you say lied to) to sacrifice himself, leaving no body behind?" 

That's it.

Playing dumb suits you. You have plenty of practice.

Are you projecting on to me or something now? It's really hard to follow you when you don't actually address what you've said. 

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

CavScout, the only argument you seem to have is that the ending cannot be taken at anything other than face value, which flies in the face of any critical reasoning approach you can take when regarding the interpretation of a story.

You're wrong, but that won't stop you or other IT zelots.

I understand that it is your personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from yourself, but you're never going to win anybody over to your side by using an argument akin to the statement " A rock cannot be a boulder".

Care to actually back up your claim? Please show where I "personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from" me. Like IT, you can't support this at all.

A. You only hang out in The IT threads.

B. You bash the I.T. and its fans instead of actually trying to refute any aspects of it.

Like IT, you post "evidence" that doesn't support the claim. At best you can show I participate in IT threads, which is not the same as the claim that I am on a "personal crusade to discredit anybody who believes differently from" me.

Expecting you to support the latest allegation when you can't even do so with the previous ones was silly.