55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Dwailing]

SubAstris wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I realise, I just explaining why BW would be wary to pick such an option

You seem very confused. You originally said it was a bad plot device because not enough would get it. Actually, it's a good plot device if it's difficult to get it. Now we're onto whether Bioware would have been wary or not to use it. Same thing in another series of posts. You seem quite conflicted, and the reasoning shifts like quicksand.

I hope I'm clear. I'm saying it is a bad plot device for the exact reasons you have said. I think BW wouldn't use such a plot device for the same reasons because as a profit-based company they want to appeal to as many people as possible.

Who says they're a profit-based company?  Casey Hudson said they just like making games that other people would like to play. 

And just happen to make millions of dollars, of course

*Anderson Voice* Exactly. 

[Dwailing]

XanderLav wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I realise, I just explaining why BW would be wary to pick such an option

You seem very confused. You originally said it was a bad plot device because not enough would get it. Actually, it's a good plot device if it's difficult to get it. Now we're onto whether Bioware would have been wary or not to use it. Same thing in another series of posts. You seem quite conflicted, and the reasoning shifts like quicksand.

I hope I'm clear. I'm saying it is a bad plot device for the exact reasons you have said. I think BW wouldn't use such a plot device for the same reasons because as a profit-based company they want to appeal to as many people as possible.

By that logic they'd add all the endings everyone wants.  The fact they aren't adding in endings many people want (aka, Blue Babies) means they either:

1/ Don't care what people want.
2/ Don't know what people want (very unlikely at this stage).
3/ Are planning something special.
4/ Think they are being smart and artful, and people just don't apprieciate their genius.

3 and 4 can go together

With IT, 3 and 4 DO go together.

[Dwailing]

Well, I'm off for the day. I'll see you all later.

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I realise, I just explaining why BW would be wary to pick such an option

You seem very confused. You originally said it was a bad plot device because not enough would get it. Actually, it's a good plot device if it's difficult to get it. Now we're onto whether Bioware would have been wary or not to use it. Same thing in another series of posts. You seem quite conflicted, and the reasoning shifts like quicksand.

I hope I'm clear. I'm saying it is a bad plot device for the exact reasons you have said. I think BW wouldn't use such a plot device for the same reasons because as a profit-based company they want to appeal to as many people as possible.

By that logic they'd add all the endings everyone wants.  The fact they aren't adding in endings many people want (aka, Blue Babies) means they either:

1/ Don't care what people want.
2/ Don't know what people want (very unlikely at this stage).
3/ Are planning something special.
4/ Think they are being smart and artful, and people just don't apprieciate their genius.

It was obvious that they weren't going to do everything in the EC because 1) it would cost loads more money, 2) It would completely destroy the little credibility they had when it came to the endings. But I don't think you can deny a "mainstreamisation" of the ME franchise from ME2?

[XanderLav]

Dwailing wrote...

XanderLav wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I realise, I just explaining why BW would be wary to pick such an option

You seem very confused. You originally said it was a bad plot device because not enough would get it. Actually, it's a good plot device if it's difficult to get it. Now we're onto whether Bioware would have been wary or not to use it. Same thing in another series of posts. You seem quite conflicted, and the reasoning shifts like quicksand.

I hope I'm clear. I'm saying it is a bad plot device for the exact reasons you have said. I think BW wouldn't use such a plot device for the same reasons because as a profit-based company they want to appeal to as many people as possible.

By that logic they'd add all the endings everyone wants.  The fact they aren't adding in endings many people want (aka, Blue Babies) means they either:

1/ Don't care what people want.
2/ Don't know what people want (very unlikely at this stage).
3/ Are planning something special.
4/ Think they are being smart and artful, and people just don't apprieciate their genius.

3 and 4 can go together

With IT, 3 and 4 DO go together.

Double nice

[Starbuck8]

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

can we make a new thread about indoctrination because i don't like reading 1398 pages of post

Check out the stuff we have posted on the OP and then feel free to jump in

Edit: oh and sorry the thread is so incoherent right now. it's not usually so trolly, but people just keep insisting on feeding them

Modifié par Starbuck8, 30 juin 2012 - 12:45 .

[Andromidius]

SubAstris wrote...

It was obvious that they weren't going to do everything in the EC because 1) it would cost loads more money, 2) It would completely destroy the little credibility they had when it came to the endings. But I don't think you can deny a "mainstreamisation" of the ME franchise from ME2?

Of course.  The EC could never solve everything, even if they did everything people asked for.

More DLC could, especially if they start charging for it (meaning more resources are thrown at them - free is nice, but free tends to be lower quality).

And honestly I'd argue that ME2 was pretty mainstream already.  I disagree with how ME3 turned out (thought it was too action oriented, and the RPG elements were stripped out), but story wise its still strong - ignoring the weird elements spattered throughout it.  Though those become interesting in of themselves when investigated...

Hense this thread.

[Turbo_J]

Starbuck8 wrote...

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

can we make a new thread about indoctrination because i don't like reading 1398 pages of post

Check out the stuff we have posted on the OP and then feel free to jump in

Edit: oh and sorry the thread is so incoherent right now. it's not usually so trolly, but people just keep insisting on feeding them

Agreed, but with conditions. SubAstris is not a troll. He's a contributor with an opposing opinion and keeps people grounded. Sometimes evidence is just not evidence. Not even 'theoretical' as it's based on personal interpretations born of desire. The is no doubt the game has an emotional effect on us, so having someone around to take us on that 'Reality Check' lunch on the Presidium is not a bad idea.

[MegumiAzusa]

legaldinho wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

XanderLav wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I realise. But I must add that the clues are much more dialogue based and therefore harder to miss in KOTOR.  Seriously, how many people are going to look back at the garden compared to a mandatory conversation option?

Given that these games have been designed with multiple playthroughs in mind, I'd wager they knew someone was going to notice that. Especially after the role the kid plays at the end of the game.

I think what subastris is saying is this, in KOTOR the average player would probably be able to piece things together and see that there was foreshadowing. But the average player of Mass Effect is not going to notice the garden disappeared. sure you guys see it but how long have you spent researching the game? it's gone on too long for the average fan to appreciate a twist like IT

See, the thing is Indoctrination is far far far more complicated than KOTOR twist. Indoctrination is not supposed to be seen through. If 90 % of fans so through BW masterplan it wouldn't be indoctrination at all.

And that's exactly why it fails as a plot device.

Actually, that's why it SUCCEEDS as a plot device.  The point is that the PLAYERS are supposed to be indoctrinated, not just Shepard.  The great majority of people aren't SUPPOSED to have a clue what's going on.  If everyone figured it out, it wouldn't be a plot TWIST.  Some people have to figure it out.  Most are supposed to NOT figure it out, so as to make the twist more powerful.

Yup, and indeed, the indoctrination interpretation would work much better had the face-value endings been convincing. That would have been something: to buy the endings hook line and sinker... only to eventually be told "did you hear about this theory..." and then seeing it.

First time I saw Total Recall, I swallowed it whole. Then I heard about the parallel interpretation. I now worship that script.

As said some days ago, just look at this
You get a choice with 3 options, namely "I was dreaming", "Not a dream. A vision.", and "More like a nightmare". Any choice you take results in the same lines of text and Reaper voices in the background.
Additionally the description she gives can be used for the ME3 dreams.
Death, sure dead trees, other plants, the kid burning at the end.
Destruction, the ground is covered in ash, and it's flowing through the air.

Then on Virmire after you used the beacon Nazara says "... you touch my mind ...", Eden Prime is full of infodump about indoctrination, and the "mad" scientist said they unearthed the heart of evil as a description of the beacon.
ME3 for me seem much more back to the roots than ME2.
Or maybe ME2 was to ease up on indoctrination, it's there, but so subtly it gets into the background... and then the trap snaps in Arrival/ME3 and the player notices "it really can affect anyone"

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 30 juin 2012 - 01:01 .

[Starbuck8]

Turbo_J wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

can we make a new thread about indoctrination because i don't like reading 1398 pages of post

Check out the stuff we have posted on the OP and then feel free to jump in

Edit: oh and sorry the thread is so incoherent right now. it's not usually so trolly, but people just keep insisting on feeding them

Agreed, but with conditions. SubAstris is not a troll. He's a contributor with an opposing opinion and keeps people grounded. Sometimes evidence is just not evidence. Not even 'theoretical' as it's based on personal interpretations born of desire. The is no doubt the game has an emotional effect on us, so having someone around to take us on that 'Reality Check' lunch on the Presidium is not a bad idea.

I agree to this: "having someone around to take us on that 'Reality Check' lunch on the Presidium is not a bad idea."
But there's a point where some people are just derailing our legitimate discussions and getting us sidetracked with repetitive posts/questions. We need to regroup and reform the IT around the new EC and consider new evidence, not try and convicne myriad literalists that we are right or worthy of consideration.

[Turbo_J]

SubAstris wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

By that logic they'd add all the endings everyone wants.  The fact they aren't adding in endings many people want (aka, Blue Babies) means they either:

1/ Don't care what people want.
2/ Don't know what people want (very unlikely at this stage).
3/ Are planning something special.
4/ Think they are being smart and artful, and people just don't apprieciate their genius.

It was obvious that they weren't going to do everything in the EC because 1) it would cost loads more money, 2) It would completely destroy the little credibility they had when it came to the endings. But I don't think you can deny a "mainstreamisation" of the ME franchise from ME2?

There is nothing wrong with expanding the audience. It's good business sense. However, it's up to the new comers to educate themselves on the themes and lore that construct the Mass Effect universe; by way of playing all three games or by studying the codex... or both.

As far as credibility goes, give it time. There is a s'ton of DLC in the works, per tweets as early as day 3 of release. Don't give up hope. You have to believe we're not done yet.

Modifié par Turbo_J, 30 juin 2012 - 01:03 .

[Turbo_J]

Starbuck8 wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

can we make a new thread about indoctrination because i don't like reading 1398 pages of post

Check out the stuff we have posted on the OP and then feel free to jump in

Edit: oh and sorry the thread is so incoherent right now. it's not usually so trolly, but people just keep insisting on feeding them

Agreed, but with conditions. SubAstris is not a troll. He's a contributor with an opposing opinion and keeps people grounded. Sometimes evidence is just not evidence. Not even 'theoretical' as it's based on personal interpretations born of desire. The is no doubt the game has an emotional effect on us, so having someone around to take us on that 'Reality Check' lunch on the Presidium is not a bad idea.

I agree to this: "having someone around to take us on that 'Reality Check' lunch on the Presidium is not a bad idea."
But there's a point where some people are just derailing our legitimate discussions and getting us sidetracked with repetitive posts/questions. We need to regroup and reform the IT around the new EC and consider new evidence, not try and convicne myriad literalists that we are right or worthy of consideration.

Agreed. I'm not sure what the point of some of the posts from trolls are, other than boredom maybe.

The Indoctrination Theory isn't about right or wrong, it's about investigating the events that don't add up. To postulate theories as to why things happen as they do, and to formulate possible conclusions as to what may actually be happening. There are no right or wrong answers, but we have to do what we can to stay grounded.

Even if we never find the answers, the process had brought an entire galaxy together.

This is an internet forum, however, and the level of freedom it provides is counter to focusing on any one topic for very long.

[Andromidius]

Off topic, kinda, but...

I had no idea Total Recall had a twist ending >_> I really need to rewatch that movie.

[Big_Boss9]

Andromidius wrote...

Off topic, kinda, but...

I had no idea Total Recall had a twist ending >_> I really need to rewatch that movie.

You really should. This is a gross oversimplification, but the alternate interpretation is based on the notion that Quaid was strapped into the Rekall chair the entire time. The director, Paul Verhoeven, was also careful when discussing it and insisted that he crafted the film to leave it open to interpretation. Sound familiar?

Modifié par Big_Boss9, 30 juin 2012 - 01:20 .

[Dancing-Krogan]

So, for me the EC actually strengthened my belief in IT. Shepards control monologue, and EDI's synthesis voiceover sound supspicously like reapers to me.

[BP20125810]

To be fair, it's more of a reaper noise than a flat out statement. I mean, that's like in the ghost hunters show where they here a creak and act like a ghost told them to "get out of the house." It's just not clear enough to hear.

[Rifneno]

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

can we make a new thread about indoctrination because i don't like reading 1398 pages of post

SO BE IT.

Turbo_J wrote...

Agreed, but with conditions. SubAstris is not a troll. He's a contributor with an opposing opinion and keeps people grounded. Sometimes evidence is just not evidence. Not even 'theoretical' as it's based on personal interpretations born of desire. The is no doubt the game has an emotional effect on us, so having someone around to take us on that 'Reality Check' lunch on the Presidium is not a bad idea.

Well he doesn't fit the real definition of a troll. Or at least the one I was brought up on. I used to use USENET. Which is a totally decentralized, and in this case unmoderated board. There's seriously no control whatsoever. One time I was dumb enough to post my picture, and somebody photoshopped me... umm... "emerging" from the... "black hole" of goatse. Now that was a true troll. On highly moderated boards like this, you're a troll if you act dense and say weird stuff. Meh.
That said, Sub does not "keep us grounded." Really we do a pretty good job of calling each other on it when we have a crackpot idea. Remember the other day and Paxxton's "so be it" idea? But even if we did need grounding, someone that's rather on the fence would be the one to do it. A hardcore literalist is not, because they're not being grounded themselves.

[dreamgazer]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Off topic, kinda, but...

I had no idea Total Recall had a twist ending >_> I really need to rewatch that movie.

You really should. This is a gross oversimplification, but the alternate interpretation is based on the notion that Quaid was strapped into the Rekall chair the entire time. The director, Paul Verhoeven, was also careful when discussing it and insisted that he crafted the film to leave it open to interpretation. Sound familiar?

Everything said here is accurate. Total Recall is fantastic.

For you guys, I also recommend Brazil, if you've never seen it.

[Starbuck8]

@Turbo
Have you seen the videos showing Shep's new expression in the third dream?

[Phydeaux314]

Leaving something open to interpretation isn't necessarily bad, so long as it's done properly and that it's clear we're supposed to draw our own conclusion.

[Andromidius]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Off topic, kinda, but...

I had no idea Total Recall had a twist ending >_> I really need to rewatch that movie.

You really should. This is a gross oversimplification, but the alternate interpretation is based on the notion that Quaid was strapped into the Rekall chair the entire time. The director, Paul Verhoeven, was also careful when discussing it and insisted that he crafted the film to leave it open to interpretation. Sound familiar?

0_o

'Unpresidented' indeed.  How people think a computer game can't do what a movie does seems...

Well, not stupid.  But maybe people need to start thinking of video games as being more developed and sophisticated, and no longer just a pick-up-and-play form of entertainment.  Seen as true art, maybe?

[comrade gando]

the control ending sounds like shepard stole illusive man's script and was reading it. he's definitely not the same shepard we've been playing the whole series...

synthesis sounds far far too good to be true. it's like ecstatically happy, like HAPPY HAPPY EVERYONE'S HAPPY NOW THAT THEY'RE ROBOTS!!!! YESSSSS! but the whole time it's actually scary, sickening even.

destroy is the one that makes the most sense I guess, even though it still makes little. why would the crucible just badly damage the relays but destroy the reapers? badly damaged.. sooo weak. also the only ending where shepard wakes up back on earth still, wtf? there's no way he survived. also the only ending where your LI doesn't put you name on the normandy wall.


then there's reject. first time harbinger was like SO BE IT, I was like "aha! busted! I knew it was you"... then he swiftly terminated my game. **** him.

we are still building a consensus...

[comrade gando]

Starbuck8 wrote...

@Turbo
Have you seen the videos showing Shep's new expression in the third dream?

what madness is this? link plox

[Andromidius]

BP20125810 wrote...

To be fair, it's more of a reaper noise than a flat out statement. I mean, that's like in the ghost hunters show where they here a creak and act like a ghost told them to "get out of the house." It's just not clear enough to hear.

But this was sound effects made for a purpose.  And the fact everything else quietens down and the focus is put onto Harbinger...

Its clearly ment to be 'heard', even if its unclear what's being said.

[MegumiAzusa]

comrade gando wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...

@Turbo
Have you seen the videos showing Shep's new expression in the third dream?

what madness is this? link plox