55528 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

HellishFiend wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

I'm just thinking about it like a judge in a court. Everyone's sitting around arguing that their particular version of events is right because Bioware, for whatever reason, has left a bazillion plot holes unexplained.

So, I look at the alternate theories, of which IT is the largest, and go "OK, there's evidence here, but it's not hard evidence. The game does not explicitly prove it. And it doesn't explicitly prove any other theory either. The only ending analysis with hard evidence (that evidece being the ending itself) behind it is the one that requires the least thought: what we see is what happened." When challenging what we assume to be fact (the ending being literal, in this case), the burden of proof is on those presenting the alternative. Unless Bioware explains things further, everythign else relies too much on speculation. 

Thus, I choose take the ending literally because otherwise I must make assumptions that may or may not be true.

You are free to interperet the evidence as you want. This is mine.

I'm fine with you having your own interpretation, even if it's literal. But you have to remember that BW specifically stated that the ending is up for interpretation, and even said there are some elements of the ending that are intended to have non-literal interpretations. So you cant say that the events as we see them are "hard evidence", because they arent. That doesnt mean you cant go with a literal interpretation, just that you cant cite "what you see" as hard evidence that your interpretation is correct. 

And I personally feel that the thematic elements presented across the trilogy would qualify as hard evidence long before anything we actually "see" in the ending sequence. Given what we know about indoctrination, and that BW said "we are going to make the players feel what Shepard feels", we have every reason to be questioning and analyzing everything. 

This.  This. THIS.

[byne]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

You know. this is a first for video games is it not? For this type of an ending that sparked this much debate over the choices and implications?

Hmm, some others have had it but I don't think to this degree. Most other debate has been political bullcrap: video games causing violence and that sort of trash.

Then again, there's no real way for us to figure our numbers.

Speaking of that sort of crap, I'm still disappointed that I never got to play the version of ME1 that Fox apparently got to play.

Yknow, the one where you could choose who you wanted to have sex with, and how you wanted to have sex, and that showed full digital nudity?

That one sounded pretty awesome.

Modifié par byne, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:17 .

[Priss Blackburne]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

You know. this is a first for video games is it not? For this type of an ending that sparked this much debate over the choices and implications?

Hmm, some others have had it but I don't think to this degree. Most other debate has been political bullcrap: video games causing violence and that sort of trash.

Then again, there's no real way for us to figure our numbers.

yeah not counting the violent video games are ruining societies children ...er... stuff.

[Legion of 1337]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

By your logic, the hallucinations that schizophrenics see are real too, then. 

Even when the developer says that it's up for interpretation, people still think that everything they see in the game has to be taken at face value. Personally I feel that the fact that they say it's up for interpretation at all should be a massive clue to people, but that's just me. 

I'm just thinking about it like a judge in a court. Everyone's sitting around arguing that their particular version of events is right because Bioware, for whatever reason, has left a bazillion plot holes unexplained.

So, I look at the alternate theories, of which IT is the largest, and go "OK, there's evidence here, but it's not hard evidence. The game does not explicitly prove it. And it doesn't explicitly prove any other theory either. The only ending analysis with hard evidence (that evidece being the ending itself) behind it is the one that requires the least thought: what we see is what happened." When challenging what we assume to be fact (the ending being literal, in this case), the burden of proof is on those presenting the alternative. Unless Bioware explains things further, everythign else relies too much on speculation. 

Thus, I choose take the ending literally because otherwise I must make assumptions that may or may not be true.

You are free to interperet the evidence as you want. This is mine.

In court, circumstantial evidence is enough to convict if there is enough of it.

If the prosecution (IT in this case) were to attempt to prove guilt through circumstantial evidence, and the defence (literal ending) has physical evidence, the defence will win regardless of how compelling the circumstantial evidence may be. As much as I like speculation (don't get me started on JFK and RFK^_^) , if I have to make a final descision I cannot go off of assumptions, I can only go off what we have, and what we have is the ending itself with no explicit indication of Indoctrination.

That is how I think.

[Priss Blackburne]

byne wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

You know. this is a first for video games is it not? For this type of an ending that sparked this much debate over the choices and implications?

Hmm, some others have had it but I don't think to this degree. Most other debate has been political bullcrap: video games causing violence and that sort of trash.

Then again, there's no real way for us to figure our numbers.

Speaking of that sort of crap, I'm still disappointed that I never got to play the version of ME1 that Fox apparently got to play.

Yknow, the one where you could choose who you wanted to have sex with, and how you wanted to have sex, and that showed full digital nudity?

That one sounded pretty awesome.

you have to admit it was frigging hilarious to watch tho

[HellishFiend]

BatmanTurian wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

I'm just thinking about it like a judge in a court. Everyone's sitting around arguing that their particular version of events is right because Bioware, for whatever reason, has left a bazillion plot holes unexplained.

So, I look at the alternate theories, of which IT is the largest, and go "OK, there's evidence here, but it's not hard evidence. The game does not explicitly prove it. And it doesn't explicitly prove any other theory either. The only ending analysis with hard evidence (that evidece being the ending itself) behind it is the one that requires the least thought: what we see is what happened." When challenging what we assume to be fact (the ending being literal, in this case), the burden of proof is on those presenting the alternative. Unless Bioware explains things further, everythign else relies too much on speculation. 

Thus, I choose take the ending literally because otherwise I must make assumptions that may or may not be true.

You are free to interperet the evidence as you want. This is mine.

I'm fine with you having your own interpretation, even if it's literal. But you have to remember that BW specifically stated that the ending is up for interpretation, and even said there are some elements of the ending that are intended to have non-literal interpretations. So you cant say that the events as we see them are "hard evidence", because they arent. That doesnt mean you cant go with a literal interpretation, just that you cant cite "what you see" as hard evidence that your interpretation is correct. 

And I personally feel that the thematic elements presented across the trilogy would qualify as hard evidence long before anything we actually "see" in the ending sequence. Given what we know about indoctrination, and that BW said "we are going to make the players feel what Shepard feels", we have every reason to be questioning and analyzing everything. 

This.  This. THIS.

Thanks for the reinforcement.  Plus now I also have additional credibility because I have a clipboard.

A clipboard!!

[BatmanTurian]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

By your logic, the hallucinations that schizophrenics see are real too, then. 

Even when the developer says that it's up for interpretation, people still think that everything they see in the game has to be taken at face value. Personally I feel that the fact that they say it's up for interpretation at all should be a massive clue to people, but that's just me. 

I'm just thinking about it like a judge in a court. Everyone's sitting around arguing that their particular version of events is right because Bioware, for whatever reason, has left a bazillion plot holes unexplained.

So, I look at the alternate theories, of which IT is the largest, and go "OK, there's evidence here, but it's not hard evidence. The game does not explicitly prove it. And it doesn't explicitly prove any other theory either. The only ending analysis with hard evidence (that evidece being the ending itself) behind it is the one that requires the least thought: what we see is what happened." When challenging what we assume to be fact (the ending being literal, in this case), the burden of proof is on those presenting the alternative. Unless Bioware explains things further, everythign else relies too much on speculation. 

Thus, I choose take the ending literally because otherwise I must make assumptions that may or may not be true.

You are free to interperet the evidence as you want. This is mine.

In court, circumstantial evidence is enough to convict if there is enough of it.

If the prosecution (IT in this case) were to attempt to prove guilt through circumstantial evidence, and the defence (literal ending) has physical evidence, the defence will win regardless of how compelling the circumstantial evidence may be. As much as I like speculation (don't get me started on JFK and RFK^_^) , if I have to make a final descision I cannot go off of assumptions, I can only go off what we have, and what we have is the ending itself with no explicit indication of Indoctrination.

That is how I think.

We have more than the ending itself. We have three games with the same themes, the same storylines, the same plot points, the same villians. Looking only at the ending is like looking only at the antenna on the top of the Empire State Building and not the building itself.

[Priss Blackburne]

You know..poor Bioware...they make the best games but seem to get the worst kinda non-gaming press reactions for a game developer. Well maybe rockstar beats them, but I don't really like many of their games.

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:22 .

[Auralius Carolus]

byne wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

You know. this is a first for video games is it not? For this type of an ending that sparked this much debate over the choices and implications?

Hmm, some others have had it but I don't think to this degree. Most other debate has been political bullcrap: video games causing violence and that sort of trash.

Then again, there's no real way for us to figure our numbers.

Speaking of that sort of crap, I'm still disappointed that I never got to play the version of ME1 that Fox apparently got to play.

Yknow, the one where you could choose who you wanted to have sex with, and how you wanted to have sex, and that showed full digital nudity?

That one sounded pretty awesome.

That was some ol' bull crap, but having watched a little bit of 'em all- that's just "news" for you. You're gonna get some idiot guests on and some interviewers that ****** you off. It's more opinion journalism, one way or the other- and gamers have gotten flack from them all.

FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC... you name it. I'm not saying that they are "all the same" because they're not, but it is very much a "first buzzard to the corpse" kind of business.

[Legion of 1337]

HellishFiend wrote...

Thanks for the reinforcement.  Plus now I also have additional credibility because I have a clipboard.

A clipboard!!

Whoaho, look out everybody, this man has authority. 

[BatmanTurian]

HellishFiend wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

I'm just thinking about it like a judge in a court. Everyone's sitting around arguing that their particular version of events is right because Bioware, for whatever reason, has left a bazillion plot holes unexplained.

So, I look at the alternate theories, of which IT is the largest, and go "OK, there's evidence here, but it's not hard evidence. The game does not explicitly prove it. And it doesn't explicitly prove any other theory either. The only ending analysis with hard evidence (that evidece being the ending itself) behind it is the one that requires the least thought: what we see is what happened." When challenging what we assume to be fact (the ending being literal, in this case), the burden of proof is on those presenting the alternative. Unless Bioware explains things further, everythign else relies too much on speculation. 

Thus, I choose take the ending literally because otherwise I must make assumptions that may or may not be true.

You are free to interperet the evidence as you want. This is mine.

I'm fine with you having your own interpretation, even if it's literal. But you have to remember that BW specifically stated that the ending is up for interpretation, and even said there are some elements of the ending that are intended to have non-literal interpretations. So you cant say that the events as we see them are "hard evidence", because they arent. That doesnt mean you cant go with a literal interpretation, just that you cant cite "what you see" as hard evidence that your interpretation is correct. 

And I personally feel that the thematic elements presented across the trilogy would qualify as hard evidence long before anything we actually "see" in the ending sequence. Given what we know about indoctrination, and that BW said "we are going to make the players feel what Shepard feels", we have every reason to be questioning and analyzing everything. 

This.  This. THIS.

Thanks for the reinforcement.  Plus now I also have additional credibility because I have a clipboard.

A clipboard!!

You are one of our more verbally-gifted brethren. You say what I'm thinking, but you say it better.

[byne]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

That was some ol' bull crap, but having watched a little bit of 'em all- that's just "news" for you. You're gonna get some idiot guests on and some interviewers that ****** you off. It's more opinion journalism, one way or the other- and gamers have gotten flack from them all.

FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC... you name it. I'm not saying that they are "all the same" because they're not, but it is very much a "first buzzard to the corpse" kind of business.

Tis why the only news I trust at all is The Young Turks.

Also because I'm one of those no good dirty liberals I always hear about.

And even with them I dont just blindly believe what they tell me.

[Priss Blackburne]

omg...took me way to long to figure out you where talking about your avatar's clipboard *smacks forhead*

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:27 .

[BansheeOwnage]

HellishFiend wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

 New profile photo, yay!  


  --------------->  

Hopefully it wont take you guys long to get used to it, cuz I'm already attached to it. 

Glad you said something, I don't know that I would've recognized you
New one is from Legion and friends, right?

Yep, from this scene, specifically. :happy:

After I changed mine, everyone else seemed to. I figured it was just a matter of time before you did.

[HellishFiend]

BatmanTurian wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Thanks for the reinforcement.  Plus now I also have additional credibility because I have a clipboard.

A clipboard!!

You are one of our more verbally-gifted brethren. You say what I'm thinking, but you say it better.

Thanks.  Actually I see myself as more of a middle-man. I absorb a lot from those who think and perceive better than I, and then convey the information in a consumable fashion. A lot of what's going on in the ME universe is so deep that you can use words and concepts that fly right over people's heads (infrasound, anyone?). I just do the best I can to help translate that information to those who care to have it.  :happy:

[Legion of 1337]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

By your logic, the hallucinations that schizophrenics see are real too, then. 

Even when the developer says that it's up for interpretation, people still think that everything they see in the game has to be taken at face value. Personally I feel that the fact that they say it's up for interpretation at all should be a massive clue to people, but that's just me. 

I'm just thinking about it like a judge in a court. Everyone's sitting around arguing that their particular version of events is right because Bioware, for whatever reason, has left a bazillion plot holes unexplained.

So, I look at the alternate theories, of which IT is the largest, and go "OK, there's evidence here, but it's not hard evidence. The game does not explicitly prove it. And it doesn't explicitly prove any other theory either. The only ending analysis with hard evidence (that evidece being the ending itself) behind it is the one that requires the least thought: what we see is what happened." When challenging what we assume to be fact (the ending being literal, in this case), the burden of proof is on those presenting the alternative. Unless Bioware explains things further, everythign else relies too much on speculation. 

Thus, I choose take the ending literally because otherwise I must make assumptions that may or may not be true.

You are free to interperet the evidence as you want. This is mine.

In court, circumstantial evidence is enough to convict if there is enough of it.

If the prosecution (IT in this case) were to attempt to prove guilt through circumstantial evidence, and the defence (literal ending) has physical evidence, the defence will win regardless of how compelling the circumstantial evidence may be. As much as I like speculation (don't get me started on JFK and RFK^_^) , if I have to make a final descision I cannot go off of assumptions, I can only go off what we have, and what we have is the ending itself with no explicit indication of Indoctrination.

That is how I think.

We have more than the ending itself. We have three games with the same themes, the same storylines, the same plot points, the same villians. Looking only at the ending is like looking only at the antenna on the top of the Empire State Building and not the building itself.

This comes down to interpretation of how compelling each piece of evidence is to you. For me (and, you must remember, most of us) most of the evidence for IT is too much of an assumption to make it more believable than taking it literally. In the end, since IT is never proven explicity, we must either make assumptions (IT) or take it at face value (literalism).

[Nightingale]

BatmanTurian wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

 New profile photo, yay!  


  --------------->  

Hopefully it wont take you guys long to get used to it, cuz I'm already attached to it. 

Glad you said something, I don't know that I would've recognized you
New one is from Legion and friends, right?

Yep, from this scene, specifically. :happy:

... and then Garrus turned into a squash.
The End.

I'm really late for this, but that just reminded me of YouTube's attempt at CC that ended up being...
25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6m15wL3iQ1rzr632o1_500.png

[HellishFiend]

Legion of 1337 wrote...
This comes down to interpretation of how compelling each piece of evidence is to you. For me (and, you must remember, most of us) most of the evidence for IT is too much of an assumption to make it more believable than taking it literally. In the end, since IT is never proven explicity, we must either make assumptions (IT) or take it at face value (literalism).

That's ok, I'm sure BW would be disappointed if everyone figured it out. 

Where you see assumptions, we see logical, justified conclusions and reasonable speculations backed up by lore and precedent. 

[Priss Blackburne]

I was like you "no way this theory is real, no new ending just proves it" but given the clues and information in the game coupled by the documentary comments by Bioware I can't help believing in more. To what extent of indoctrination is Shepard going through I don't know. Is it hallucinations or full on unconscious dreaming. But I'm very confident that is is happening to some degree.

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:38 .

[BatmanTurian]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

This comes down to interpretation of how compelling each piece of evidence is to you. For me (and, you must remember, most of us) most of the evidence for IT is too much of an assumption to make it more believable than taking it literally. In the end, since IT is never proven explicity, we must either make assumptions (IT) or take it at face value (literalism).

Well, as you somewhat said, I'm just telling you where my thought process is coming from. I look at it from a complex literary perspective whereas you seem to look at it from an uncomplicated face-value perspective. Bioware basically said we're both right. Annoying, isn't it?

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:38 .

[ThisOneIsPunny]

HellishFiend wrote...

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

byne wrote...

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

Well, now I feel like the only batarian.

Holy crap, for some reason I've only now noticed your picture has two batarians in it.

...

Well now I feel like the only batarians?

lol, sorry. I've wanted to set a custom portrait for awhile, just never got around to it until today. If it helps, you can still consider me a brotarian, because theyre still some of my favorite classes to play in MP. 

This is going to take a while to get used to, I mean it's just me and other me now!

I'll take that consolation though, I like playing Batarians myself.:happy:

[Legion of 1337]

HellishFiend wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...
This comes down to interpretation of how compelling each piece of evidence is to you. For me (and, you must remember, most of us) most of the evidence for IT is too much of an assumption to make it more believable than taking it literally. In the end, since IT is never proven explicity, we must either make assumptions (IT) or take it at face value (literalism).

That's ok, I'm sure BW would be disappointed if everyone figured it out. 

Where you see assumptions, we see logical, justified conclusions and reasonable speculations backed up by lore and precedent. 

I like to compare it to JFK. As compelling and convincing the theories may be, this is all we can say for certain:

Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy. That's it. That's all we can state as fact.

I take a similar stance with this ending.

[byne]

DrTsoni wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

 New profile photo, yay!  


  --------------->  

Hopefully it wont take you guys long to get used to it, cuz I'm already attached to it. 

Glad you said something, I don't know that I would've recognized you
New one is from Legion and friends, right?

Yep, from this scene, specifically. :happy:

... and then Garrus turned into a squash.
The End.

I'm really late for this, but that just reminded me of YouTube's attempt at CC that ended up being...
25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6m15wL3iQ1rzr632o1_500.png

Now I feel like rereading the entire Party Temple thread.

[niravital]

Hey legion, what videos have you seen?
maybe we can point you to some more great stuff if you'd like

[Auralius Carolus]

byne wrote...

Tis why the only news I trust at all is The Young Turks.

Also because I'm one of those no good dirty liberals I always hear about.

And even with them I dont just blindly believe what they tell me.

And I'm one of those "Racist, old-minded, *fill in the blank here*" Consitutional Conservatives that I always hear about.

Not the place Byne. Not the place.