55528 réponses à ce sujet

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

It was also their chance to put a clamp on IT and add definative closure and  they failed that too.

Instead they added more IT evidence.

Don't pretend that anything that BW put out would stop IT in its tracks. People want to believe what they want to, you of all people should know that

Yes you can believe the literal ending fantasy ifyou want.  Were not stopping you. So please stop trying to do the same.

[SubAstris]

Turbo_J wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

They are not ready to do that. This was the second Indoctrination attempt; to quell the player and Shepard with some roses and sunshine and try again.

First attempt from in game. TIM/Anderson
Second Attempt in game: Starbinger the death brat.

First attempt out of game: Original ending
Second attempt out of game: EC.

I'd like to think BW is smarter and more creative than I am.

You would be wrong

Just from the statements put out by BW their decision not to conclusively show IT to be true if that was their true intention doesn't make sound financial or story sense

[masster blaster]

Oh I forgot that shoukdn't Shepard be like the Catalyst instead of a Reaper? I find it funny that the Citadle is the Catalyst home shouldn't we see Shepard like a goast onstead of a Reaper.

[Andromidius]

alittlewren wrote...
If anyone's interested and I have time later, I can upload the two versions to youtube. 

Please! 

[llbountyhunter]

Nice little video I came across, not supporting IT directly, just shows how destroy is the only logical ending.

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

It was also their chance to put a clamp on IT and add definative closure and  they failed that too.

Instead they added more IT evidence.

Don't pretend that anything that BW put out would stop IT in its tracks. People want to believe what they want to, you of all people should know that

Yes you can believe the literal ending fantasy ifyou want.  Were not stopping you. So please stop trying to do the same.

LOL

[Xavendithas]

SubAstris wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

I'll say it again.

BioWare did exactly what they said they were going to do with the EC. They said that if you believed in IT, the EC would not change your opinion and if you believed in the literal interpretation of the ending, it would not change your opinion.

It begs the question why they would do that if IT was their intention. Did they not enough people believe it? If that's the reason, it not only shows bad storytelling but also being unprincipled

I disagree. BioWare is going about it in the only way I think it could feasibly be done. You leave enough evidence in place to keep the people that pick up on the discrepancies looking and questioning, while leaving enough closure to trick the people that haven't yet picked up on the fact that something is horribly amiss in the final 10 minutes of the game.

[AM94]

okay the ending is not a hallucination, no indoctrination is present. If the EC didnt explain that youre all morons, just cut the crap.

[Andromidius]

AM94 wrote...

okay the ending is not a hallucination, no indoctrination is present. If the EC didnt explain that youre all morons, just cut the crap.

Wow, such an eliquent argument!  I'm completely swayed!

[Xavendithas]

AM94 wrote...

okay the ending is not a hallucination, no indoctrination is present. If the EC didnt explain that youre all morons, just cut the crap.

Constructive, well thought out post. Keep it up!

[llbountyhunter]

AM94 wrote...

okay the ending is not a hallucination, no indoctrination is present. If the EC didnt explain that youre all morons, just cut the crap.

I would insult you, but that would mean I feel some sort of emotional response to your comment.


I don't.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 29 juin 2012 - 07:04 .

[XanderLav]

I played the EC with IT in my mind and here is something interesting I've noticed.
When I first time heard about IT I thought why would Shepard use his memories of collector's base and Shadow broker ship to create the place he teleported to.
Quick offtopic. Have you ever experienced a dream that changes immensely because there is something going on around you outside of your dream? For example you're dreaming and somebody is knocking on your door so your brain incorporate those noises into your dream, happened to me, definitely interesting experience.
Back to my case. We know from IT that Anderson represents part of Shepard that is still fighting indoctrination. First he calls your name and wake's you up. Then when you approach door leading to second room Anderson mentions moving walls and next thing we see part of Shadow broker ship, closest thing from Shepard's memories that has some kind of moving structures. Otherwise parts of SB ship have nothing to do in this part of Citadel. After that he mentions control panel and nothing else so wee empty room with control panel.
It doesn't make sense outside of IT but with IT in the back of your head it does make some sense. What I'm trying to deliver her is that Anderson builds Shepard's surroundings for him.
Totally crazy or not?
Sorry for bad grammar English is my second language.

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

I'll say it again.

BioWare did exactly what they said they were going to do with the EC. They said that if you believed in IT, the EC would not change your opinion and if you believed in the literal interpretation of the ending, it would not change your opinion.

It begs the question why they would do that if IT was their intention. Did they not enough people believe it? If that's the reason, it not only shows bad storytelling but also being unprincipled

Its a case of interpretation and non-standard storytelling.  Which I have no problem with, even if it feels like a massive ****tease sometimes.

The problem really is if IT (or any plot revolving around indoctrination) wasn't their intention, why have so much foreshadowing about it, why have the dreams, why have the weird inconsistancies, why have the breath scene...

...and then why not 'fix' these problems if Bioware didn't want people to speculate about them?

If an author fails to accurately and clearly impart his true intention for the story then it has failed. That's is pretty basic stuff and what has clearly happened, if IT is true, here

I would argue that the foreshadowing isn't actually that, but just poor storytelling coupled with people stretching the truth and misinterpreting the meaning of what BW intended.

[Andromidius]

XanderLav wrote...

I played the EC with IT in my mind and here is something interesting I've noticed.
When I first time heard about IT I thought why would Shepard use his memories of collector's base and Shadow broker ship to create the place he teleported to.
Quick offtopic. Have you ever experienced a dream that changes immensely because there is something going on around you outside of your dream? For example you're dreaming and somebody is knocking on your door so your brain incorporate those noises into your dream, happened to me, definitely interesting experience.
Back to my case. We know from IT that Anderson represents part of Shepard that is still fighting indoctrination. First he calls your name and wake's you up. Then when you approach door leading to second room Anderson mentions moving walls and next thing we see part of Shadow broker ship, closest thing from Shepard's memories that has some kind of moving structures. Otherwise parts of SB ship have nothing to do in this part of Citadel. After that he mentions control panel and nothing else so wee empty room with control panel.
It doesn't make sense outside of IT but with IT in the back of your head it does make some sense. What I'm trying to deliver her is that Anderson builds Shepard's surroundings for him.
Totally crazy or not?
Sorry for bad grammar English is my second language.

That's pretty much along the lines most of us think, I believe.

And don't worry, your english is perfectly fine:)

[llbountyhunter]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Nice little video I came across, not supporting IT directly, just shows how destroy is the only logical ending.

watch the video, its really well put together.

[Andromidius]

SubAstris wrote...
If an author fails to accurately and clearly impart his true intention for the story then it has failed. That's is pretty basic stuff and what has clearly happened, if IT is true, here

I would argue that the foreshadowing isn't actually that, but just poor storytelling coupled with people stretching the truth and misinterpreting the meaning of what BW intended.

So we're back to the same two basic interpretations?

1/ Bioware is bad at writing, and too stubborn to fix it.

2/ Bioware is amazing at writing, and its going over most people's heads.



Yeah.

[llbountyhunter]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
If an author fails to accurately and clearly impart his true intention for the story then it has failed. That's is pretty basic stuff and what has clearly happened, if IT is true, here

I would argue that the foreshadowing isn't actually that, but just poor storytelling coupled with people stretching the truth and misinterpreting the meaning of what BW intended.

So we're back to the same two basic interpretations?

1/ Bioware is bad at writing, and too stubborn to fix it.

2/ Bioware is amazing at writing, and its going over most people's heads.



Yeah.

And in both cases they're bad at knowing how to reveal a story.

[SubAstris]

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

I'll say it again.

BioWare did exactly what they said they were going to do with the EC. They said that if you believed in IT, the EC would not change your opinion and if you believed in the literal interpretation of the ending, it would not change your opinion.

It begs the question why they would do that if IT was their intention. Did they not enough people believe it? If that's the reason, it not only shows bad storytelling but also being unprincipled

I disagree. BioWare is going about it in the only way I think it could feasibly be done. You leave enough evidence in place to keep the people that pick up on the discrepancies looking and questioning, while leaving enough closure to trick the people that haven't yet picked up on the fact that something is horribly amiss in the final 10 minutes of the game.

You are kinda of implying I have questioned enough. Trust me, I have.

And yet if you don't show that something is horribly amiss, make it clear so that not just a very small percentage of your audience who trail through dozens of sound files hidden in the depths of the game and the like "get it", you have really failed.

[MaximizedAction]

XanderLav wrote...

I played the EC with IT in my mind and here is something interesting I've noticed.
When I first time heard about IT I thought why would Shepard use his memories of collector's base and Shadow broker ship to create the place he teleported to.
Quick offtopic. Have you ever experienced a dream that changes immensely because there is something going on around you outside of your dream? For example you're dreaming and somebody is knocking on your door so your brain incorporate those noises into your dream, happened to me, definitely interesting experience.
Back to my case. We know from IT that Anderson represents part of Shepard that is still fighting indoctrination. First he calls your name and wake's you up. Then when you approach door leading to second room Anderson mentions moving walls and next thing we see part of Shadow broker ship, closest thing from Shepard's memories that has some kind of moving structures. Otherwise parts of SB ship have nothing to do in this part of Citadel. After that he mentions control panel and nothing else so wee empty room with control panel.
It doesn't make sense outside of IT but with IT in the back of your head it does make some sense. What I'm trying to deliver her is that Anderson builds Shepard's surroundings for him.
Totally crazy or not?
Sorry for bad grammar English is my second language.

Yes, it makes total sense. Another example for something like that is something that DJBare noticed: those discharges in the console room resemble gunshot sounds and husks screams; that would too make sense if there's some battle going on while Shepard's unconcious in London.

But you found the timing: 'Anderson' mentiones these things moments before Shepard sees them properly -- accept for the console maybe, which we can see a bit from before the chasm, BUT for some reason BW increased this light beam coming from the console so that it's harder to make out the console from far away.

So, to go on with your theory, why would Anderson (or someone else) tell Shepard all these things?

[Andromidius]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
If an author fails to accurately and clearly impart his true intention for the story then it has failed. That's is pretty basic stuff and what has clearly happened, if IT is true, here

I would argue that the foreshadowing isn't actually that, but just poor storytelling coupled with people stretching the truth and misinterpreting the meaning of what BW intended.

So we're back to the same two basic interpretations?

1/ Bioware is bad at writing, and too stubborn to fix it.

2/ Bioware is amazing at writing, and its going over most people's heads.



Yeah.

And in both cases they're bad at knowing how to reveal a story.

Potentially.  It might just be a new way of trying to tell a story, and thus isn't perfectly ironed out or refined due to its experimental nature.

Personally I consider the 'Bioware is lazy/bad at writing' stance to be in itself very lazy.

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
If an author fails to accurately and clearly impart his true intention for the story then it has failed. That's is pretty basic stuff and what has clearly happened, if IT is true, here

I would argue that the foreshadowing isn't actually that, but just poor storytelling coupled with people stretching the truth and misinterpreting the meaning of what BW intended.

So we're back to the same two basic interpretations?

1/ Bioware is bad at writing, and too stubborn to fix it.

2/ Bioware is amazing at writing, and its going over most people's heads.



Yeah.

That's a vast over-simplification.

[Turbo_J]

SubAstris wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

They are not ready to do that. This was the second Indoctrination attempt; to quell the player and Shepard with some roses and sunshine and try again.

First attempt from in game. TIM/Anderson
Second Attempt in game: Starbinger the death brat.

First attempt out of game: Original ending
Second attempt out of game: EC.

I'd like to think BW is smarter and more creative than I am.

You would be wrong

Just from the statements put out by BW their decision not to conclusively show IT to be true if that was their true intention doesn't make sound financial or story sense

"That would be telling." Edi, Normandy; 2186

A reveal now would be spoilers

I think the EC had two purposes;

First, they got the change to bring the ending up to the standard they were after when the requested the 6 month extension and only got 3 months.

Second, it helped reduce the number of people who were too pissed off to bother with DLC.

Once the DLCs start to sell and more hints towards what is going on is revealed, those who had not purchased them; you know, the indoctrinated masses, will wake up themsleves and open their wallets. Not all will, but most.

[SubAstris]

Turbo_J wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

They are not ready to do that. This was the second Indoctrination attempt; to quell the player and Shepard with some roses and sunshine and try again.

First attempt from in game. TIM/Anderson
Second Attempt in game: Starbinger the death brat.

First attempt out of game: Original ending
Second attempt out of game: EC.

I'd like to think BW is smarter and more creative than I am.

You would be wrong

Just from the statements put out by BW their decision not to conclusively show IT to be true if that was their true intention doesn't make sound financial or story sense

"That would be telling." Edi, Normandy; 2186

A reveal now would be spoilers

I think the EC had two purposes;

First, they got the change to bring the ending up to the standard they were after when the requested the 6 month extension and only got 3 months.

Second, it helped reduce the number of people who were too pissed off to bother with DLC.

Once the DLCs start to sell and more hints towards what is going on is revealed, those who had not purchased them; you know, the indoctrinated masses, will wake up themsleves and open their wallets. Not all will, but most.

Saying nothing would suffice. Instead they have said time and time again that they won't. Sorry but the evidence is against you on this matter.

[XanderLav]

Andromidius wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
If an author fails to accurately and clearly impart his true intention for the story then it has failed. That's is pretty basic stuff and what has clearly happened, if IT is true, here

I would argue that the foreshadowing isn't actually that, but just poor storytelling coupled with people stretching the truth and misinterpreting the meaning of what BW intended.

So we're back to the same two basic interpretations?

1/ Bioware is bad at writing, and too stubborn to fix it.

2/ Bioware is amazing at writing, and its going over most people's heads.



Yeah.

And in both cases they're bad at knowing how to reveal a story.

Potentially.  It might just be a new way of trying to tell a story, and thus isn't perfectly ironed out or refined due to its experimental nature.

Personally I consider the 'Bioware is lazy/bad at writing' stance to be in itself very lazy.

When I played the game for the first time I saw how this moving walls resemble part of SB ship's engines and  I thought: hmmmm, strange we are in the Citadel tower why would engineres who biuld the Citadel put those engines in smallest part of Citadel why not put them in Citadel arms? As I remembered from ME2 the engine is huge no way they would fit this engine in a small tower connected to the Citadel with one tiny bridge. I thought it was wierd but didnt see IT coming)) Just another thing for literalls to explain. 

[Andromidius]

SubAstris wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
If an author fails to accurately and clearly impart his true intention for the story then it has failed. That's is pretty basic stuff and what has clearly happened, if IT is true, here

I would argue that the foreshadowing isn't actually that, but just poor storytelling coupled with people stretching the truth and misinterpreting the meaning of what BW intended.

So we're back to the same two basic interpretations?

1/ Bioware is bad at writing, and too stubborn to fix it.

2/ Bioware is amazing at writing, and its going over most people's heads.



Yeah.

That's a vast over-simplification.

Clarify then.  But from what I can see the argument is that Bioware isn't smart enough to have a hidden plot, and all the inconsistancies and dead-end foreshadowing is just bad writing.