55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Priss Blackburne]

I would buy a "IT" Dlc .. and while downloading I would hug my Mass effect 3 collectors edition box, smiling a creepy smile the whole time, murmuring "Shepard, Wrex, Shepard.." ... yeah sad things is I probably would be that creepily happy.

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:41 .

[Eryri]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Eryri wrote...

I have a hypothetical question.

Imagine that Bioware comes out and categorically states that the I.T. interpretation was not their intention and we were meant to take those "endings" literally.

But, they think it's such a good idea, and there's such high demand for it, that they plan to use it anyway as a thank you to the fans and make a piece of paid-for DLC - would you buy it?

Provided it's reasonably priced and well-reviewed I would be happy to. I think I.T. is brilliantly imaginative and far superior to the literal endings even with the EC. And it would retcon away the synthesis abomination from the ME universe.

What about everyone else. Would you buy it, or would you be too disappointed that Bioware had no master plan? Or would you be flattered that Bioware did listen to its fans and knew a good idea when it saw one?

If they made an optional DLC that was IT-based even though they said it wasn’t canon I would still buy it. 
 
It would be a nod to the IT fans while making the literalists right in the end… I’d be ok with that.  

Thanks for replying. I think it's fair for it to be a compromise between literalists and IT fans, but I would still vastly prefer IT to be made canon.

I loath the fact that synthesis exists in the ME universe. Moral implications aside, it's just so physically implausible.
I'd much rather it was explained away as some sort of indoctrination fever dream.

[byne]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I live in Buffalo, NY.  We have good health care and it gets cold in the winter.  Almost 90 here but lots of humidity.  At least the office I work in is air conditioned.  I'm afraid to get into my car though... 

It got cold here once.

I even took a picture:



Never again though.

Our hockey is better in Buffalo too! 

Now I have this song stuck in my head.

Modifié par byne, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:45 .

[Eryri]

byne wrote...

Eryri wrote...

What about everyone else. Would you buy it, or would you be too disappointed that Bioware had no master plan? Or would you be flattered that Bioware did listen to its fans and knew a good idea when it saw one?

The second one.

BioWare claims to listen to fans. If the literal endings were what they intended, and even after basically everyone coming out and hating them, they stick to them, we'll know they were never actually listening.

Me too. In a way I would respect them more if they came out and adopted IT, as it would mean they weren't too proud to admit their mistakes.

Modifié par Eryri, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:49 .

[Eryri]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

I would buy a "IT" Dlc .. and while downloading I would hug my Mass effect 3 collectors edition box, smiling a creepy smile the whole time, murmuring "Shepard, Wrex, Shepard.." ... yeah sad things is I probably would be that creepily happy.

 I know what you mean. I'm so desperate to love ME3 again. This was the first time I ever bought the collector's edition of anything - "This game of all games has got to be worth the extra money!" I thought to myself. Ah well - life lessons:crying:.

[Turbo_J]

Eryri wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Eryri wrote...

I have a hypothetical question.

Imagine that Bioware comes out and categorically states that the I.T. interpretation was not their intention and we were meant to take those "endings" literally.

But, they think it's such a good idea, and there's such high demand for it, that they plan to use it anyway as a thank you to the fans and make a piece of paid-for DLC - would you buy it?

Provided it's reasonably priced and well-reviewed I would be happy to. I think I.T. is brilliantly imaginative and far superior to the literal endings even with the EC. And it would retcon away the synthesis abomination from the ME universe.

What about everyone else. Would you buy it, or would you be too disappointed that Bioware had no master plan? Or would you be flattered that Bioware did listen to its fans and knew a good idea when it saw one?

If they made an optional DLC that was IT-based even though they said it wasn’t canon I would still buy it. 
 
It would be a nod to the IT fans while making the literalists right in the end… I’d be ok with that.  

Thanks for replying. I think it's fair for it to be a compromise between literalists and IT fans, but I would still vastly prefer IT to be made canon.

I loath the fact that synthesis exists in the ME universe. Moral implications aside, it's just so physically implausible.
I'd much rather it was explained away as some sort of indoctrination fever dream.

I think it would be wise to consider 'unintended interpretation' from the perspective of Indoctrination. I don't recall BW ever saying what was misinterpreted.

What if literal, face value interpretation was what BioWare did not expect. What if they thought most would 'get it' and the discussions would increase that number over time.

What if the EC was to cater to those who liked the literal endings or wanted more closure in a literal sense.

What did the EC do? It largely provided closure to literal interpretations.

[BansheeOwnage]

Eryri wrote...

byne wrote...

Eryri wrote...

What about everyone else. Would you buy it, or would you be too disappointed that Bioware had no master plan? Or would you be flattered that Bioware did listen to its fans and knew a good idea when it saw one?

The second one.

BioWare claims to listen to fans. If the literal endings were what they intended, and even after basically everyone coming out and hating them, they stick to them, we'll know they were never actually listening.

Me too. In a way I would respect them more if they came out and adopted IT, as it would mean they weren't too proud to admit their mistakes.

They really should do this. I mean,they already recruited us in ME1. Now they need to do our loyalty mission.

Kelly: "Commander, IT would like to speak with you down in BSN."
 
It would be a great way to win back the loyalty of their biggest fans who are IMO the IT croud.

[Turbo_J]

"You can't lose hope. This isn't goodby. You have to believe we're not done yet." Shepard; London FOB. 2187.

[Tirian Thorn]

Turbo_J wrote...

Eryri wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Eryri wrote...

I have a hypothetical question.

Imagine that Bioware comes out and categorically states that the I.T. interpretation was not their intention and we were meant to take those "endings" literally.

But, they think it's such a good idea, and there's such high demand for it, that they plan to use it anyway as a thank you to the fans and make a piece of paid-for DLC - would you buy it?

Provided it's reasonably priced and well-reviewed I would be happy to. I think I.T. is brilliantly imaginative and far superior to the literal endings even with the EC. And it would retcon away the synthesis abomination from the ME universe.

What about everyone else. Would you buy it, or would you be too disappointed that Bioware had no master plan? Or would you be flattered that Bioware did listen to its fans and knew a good idea when it saw one?

If they made an optional DLC that was IT-based even though they said it wasn’t canon I would still buy it. 
 
It would be a nod to the IT fans while making the literalists right in the end… I’d be ok with that.  

Thanks for replying. I think it's fair for it to be a compromise between literalists and IT fans, but I would still vastly prefer IT to be made canon.

I loath the fact that synthesis exists in the ME universe. Moral implications aside, it's just so physically implausible.
I'd much rather it was explained away as some sort of indoctrination fever dream.

I think it would be wise to consider 'unintended interpretation' from the perspective of Indoctrination. I don't recall BW ever saying what was misinterpreted.

What if literal, face value interpretation was what BioWare did not expect. What if they thought most would 'get it' and the discussions would increase that number over time.

What if the EC was to cater to those who liked the literal endings or wanted more closure in a literal sense.

What did the EC do? It largely provided closure to literal interpretations.

Your thoughts intrigue me.  

[Andromidius]

Turbo_J wrote...

I think it would be wise to consider 'unintended interpretation' from the perspective of Indoctrination. I don't recall BW ever saying what was misinterpreted.

What if literal, face value interpretation was what BioWare did not expect. What if they thought most would 'get it' and the discussions would increase that number over time.

I pretty much think this.  Bioware never stated which interpretations were 'unintended', and there's so much foreshadowing to a weird ending that I'm sure they didn't want us to take it literally.

Not saying for sure IT was their intention - their intention was clearly 'speculation for everyone!'

[BansheeOwnage]

Turbo_J wrote...

"You can't lose hope. This isn't goodby. You have to believe we're not done yet." Shepard; London FOB. 2187.

We have dates for when this happens?

[Turbo_J]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Your thoughts intrigue me.  

Consider, also, that it provided player and 'Shepard' exactly what
they may want to see. If an Indoctrination illusion was taking place,
and it seemed to be failing, what would the Reapers do?

Modifié par Turbo_J, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:55 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Andromidius wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

I think it would be wise to consider 'unintended interpretation' from the perspective of Indoctrination. I don't recall BW ever saying what was misinterpreted.

What if literal, face value interpretation was what BioWare did not expect. What if they thought most would 'get it' and the discussions would increase that number over time.

I pretty much think this.  Bioware never stated which interpretations were 'unintended', and there's so much foreshadowing to a weird ending that I'm sure they didn't want us to take it literally.

Not saying for sure IT was their intention - their intention was clearly 'speculation for everyone!'

When I think of the quote "Some parts are not ment to be taken literally" or w/e it is, I can't think of what they would mean save the endings. Your thoughts? What else could they mean?

[Turbo_J]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

"You can't lose hope. This isn't goodby. You have to believe we're not done yet." Shepard; London FOB. 2187.

We have dates for when this happens?

It's just something I do.

Arbitrary depending on play time. If it took 8 months to get to London for the final battle it would be a month or two into 2187.

[Eryri]

Turbo_J wrote...

I think it would be wise to consider 'unintended interpretation' from the perspective of Indoctrination. I don't recall BW ever saying what was misinterpreted.

What if literal, face value interpretation was what BioWare did not expect. What if they thought most would 'get it' and the discussions would increase that number over time.

What if the EC was to cater to those who liked the literal endings or wanted more closure in a literal sense.

What did the EC do? It largely provided closure to literal interpretations.

If so I think they were just a little too subtle. It certainly went straight over my head, until I saw the IT discussions on the BSN anf thought "Of course! That's brilliant!"

I was thinking that maybe the EC is to insulate them from the sort of criticism that Capcom got for the True Ending to Asura's Wrath?
With the poor quality of the original endings, they would have been open to accusations that they had deliberately done a Friday afternoon rush-job so that people felt obliged to buy "true ending" dlc to take the taste away.

Now with the EC far better technically executed (but still incoherent IMHO) they can at least say that the standard game was of sufficient quality to stand as a complete product, and satisfy the literalists, rather than a deliberate ploy to make us buy dlc.

Modifié par Eryri, 05 juillet 2012 - 08:58 .

[I_eat_unicorns]

I have a question about the prothean VI. Wouldn't that alone debunk the whole IT even without the ec dlc? I feel that the only reason theorists could ignore this was because of all the other loopholes. Now that many of them have been addressed, dismissing the VI is absurd.

Also I feel that currently believing that the writers of ME3 after the release of the EC DLC is exactly equal to believing that the thing in the box at the end of 'Seven ' was a ham sandwich, or that Obi Wan Kenobi was meant to be Luke Skywalker come back from the future to guide himself. 

You can believe anything you want if that's how you derive entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if there can be a "truth" about the structure of a fictional work it is that that which the author intended is the actuality. ME's writers do not intend IT to be the valid end. And avoiding that is insulting to Bioware's credibility. 

Modifié par I_eat_unicorns, 05 juillet 2012 - 09:00 .

[Unata]

Personally I love this indoctrination theory but I ask myself just when does it actually come into play? There are several moments during the course of the game where Shepard is knocked senseless, heck even at the get-go during the meeting with the defense council, Anderson's voice sounds dream like with the first "Shepard?"

[BansheeOwnage]

Turbo_J wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

"You can't lose hope. This isn't goodby. You have to believe we're not done yet." Shepard; London FOB. 2187.

We have dates for when this happens?

It's just something I do.

Arbitrary depending on play time. If it took 8 months to get to London for the final battle it would be a month or two into 2187.

I know it's a game but it didn't seem like it took anywhere near 8 months. Seemed like 1 or 2 to me.

[Turbo_J]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

I think it would be wise to consider 'unintended interpretation' from the perspective of Indoctrination. I don't recall BW ever saying what was misinterpreted.

What if literal, face value interpretation was what BioWare did not expect. What if they thought most would 'get it' and the discussions would increase that number over time.

I pretty much think this.  Bioware never stated which interpretations were 'unintended', and there's so much foreshadowing to a weird ending that I'm sure they didn't want us to take it literally.

Not saying for sure IT was their intention - their intention was clearly 'speculation for everyone!'

When I think of the quote "Some parts are not ment to be taken literally" or w/e it is, I can't think of what they would mean save the endings. Your thoughts? What else could they mean?

The 'endings' don't need to be saved. Shepard needs to save themselves by breaking out of the Indocrination attempt. The only way to start that process is to destroy the beacon in London that has everyone drooling and wandering towards it. You know, the one that looks like a beam of light rising into the sky.

Once that happens, he/she can wake up in the rubble. What happens after that is either some post ending DLC or ME4. I don't care which.

This is my interpretation... nothing more.

Modifié par Turbo_J, 05 juillet 2012 - 09:01 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Unata wrote...

Personally I love this indoctrination theory but I ask myself just when does it actually come into play? There are several moments during the course of the game where Shepard is knocked senseless, heck even at the get-go during the meeting with the defense council, Anderson's voice sounds dream like with the first "Shepard?"

Full on unconsciousness most likely begins at the weirdly unexplained APC crash just before the beam run. And you're right, the Vancouver mission has a lot of similarites with the London mission which supports IT indirectly.

[paxxton]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

"You can't lose hope. This isn't goodby. You have to believe we're not done yet." Shepard; London FOB. 2187.

We have dates for when this happens?

It's just something I do.

Arbitrary depending on play time. If it took 8 months to get to London for the final battle it would be a month or two into 2187.

I know it's a game but it didn't seem like it took anywhere near 8 months. Seemed like 1 or 2 to me.

It took a few days.

Modifié par paxxton, 05 juillet 2012 - 09:03 .

[Turbo_J]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

"You can't lose hope. This isn't goodby. You have to believe we're not done yet." Shepard; London FOB. 2187.

We have dates for when this happens?

It's just something I do.

Arbitrary depending on play time. If it took 8 months to get to London for the final battle it would be a month or two into 2187.

I know it's a game but it didn't seem like it took anywhere near 8 months. Seemed like 1 or 2 to me.

"I spent months talking to the council, to politicians..." Shepard to Tali; FOB London date unknown (is that better?) lol

[MaximizedAction]

Turbo_J wrote...

The 'endings' don't need to be saved. Shepard needs to save themselves by breaking out of the Indocrination attempt. The only way to start that process is to destroy the beacon in London that has everyone drooling and wandering towards it. You know, the one that looks like a beam of light rising into the sky.

Once that happens, he/she can wake up in the rubble. What happens after that is either some post ending DLC or ME4. I don't care which.

This is my interpretation... nothing more.

And I think it makes great sense. Of course, then London must've been something like a waking dream.

[Eryri]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

I have a question about the prothean VI. Wouldn't that alone debunk the whole IT even without the ec dlc? I feel that the only reason theorists could ignore this was because of all the other loopholes. Now that many of them have been addressed, dismissing the VI is absurd.

Also I feel that currently believing that the writers of ME3 ]after the release of the EC DLC is exactly equal to believing that the thing in the box at the end of 'Seven ' was a ham sandwich, or that Obi Wan Kenobi was meant to be Luke Skywalker come back from the future to guide himself. [/color]

You can believe anything you want if that's how you derive entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if there can be a "truth" about the structure of a fictional work it is that that which the author intended is the actuality. ME's writers do not intend IT to be the valid end. And avoiding that is insulting to Bioware's credibility. 

The Prothean VI is a valid point, but it has been thoroughly dicussed earlier in the thread. Essentialy the conclusion was that the Prothean VIs couldn't possibly be infallible indoctrination detectors, or their empire would never have been brought down from within by indoctrinated agents. 

Plus Shepard is not fully indoctrinated during the Thessia mission. S/he's in the process of being indoctrinated. Presumably s/he is still under the threshold that would trigger the VI detection system. Indoctrination seems to be a continuum of being more and more sympathetic to the Reapers, rather than a binary condition of being / not being indoctrinated.

Modifié par Eryri, 05 juillet 2012 - 09:07 .

[paxxton]

Turbo_J wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

"You can't lose hope. This isn't goodby. You have to believe we're not done yet." Shepard; London FOB. 2187.

We have dates for when this happens?

It's just something I do.

Arbitrary depending on play time. If it took 8 months to get to London for the final battle it would be a month or two into 2187.

I know it's a game but it didn't seem like it took anywhere near 8 months. Seemed like 1 or 2 to me.

"I spent months talking to the council, to politicians..." Shepard to Tali; FOB London date unknown (is that better?) lol

Maybe he was refering to the time since ME1. Because in ME3 it took him 20 minutes.

Modifié par paxxton, 05 juillet 2012 - 09:06 .