55528 réponses à ce sujet

[HellishFiend]

Lord Goose wrote...

I seriously think, that if don't believe somebody, doing that they proposed to you isn't good idea. Especially in that case, because Catalyst is outright states: ''The paths are open, but you have to choose.'' I think that means he wants me to choose something from these three options, so its likely that all of them are beneficial to him. If he is lying of course.

IT aside, this doesnt even fit into the way Indoctrination works. As I say in my sig, Indoctrination works by steering your existing thought processes towards conclusions that are aligned with Reaper goals. Thus, your existing thought processes that cannot be corrupted are still available to you. I believe that Starbinger/Catalyst cannot hide that fact from Shepard, or his mind (and the player, as well) would realize something is terribly, terribly wrong.

How would you have reacted if you were not given the choice to destroy the reapers at all? You'd call BS immediately, wouldnt you?

All "The Catalyst" can do is paint your incorruptible morals (which, by the way, are thematically highlighted in many different ways throughout the trilogy) in as negative a light as possible, while simultaneously painting Reaper philosophies in a light that agrees with some of your corruptible morals (which, by the way, again, are thematically highlighted in many different ways throughout the trilogy).  

By sticking to your incorruptible morals, the Reapers fail to steer you towards one of their philosophies, and the indoctrination attempt ostensiby fails. 

That about sums it up. 

[Arian Dynas]

lex0r11 wrote...

Why do I know the Cyrillic signs for Moscow and cigarettes?

*question mark face*

Very roughly translated (VERY roughly, It's been more than 2 years and I was never good at Russian to begin with) I said "Well comrade, I would very much like to see you try to babble out Russian, oh and by the way, if you go to Moscow and a man asks you for your cigarettes or jeans, they're fairly worthless there, so you won't get a good price for them." Which by the way is a boldfaced lie since Russian cigarettes suck, and until recently they didn't make jeans or include cigarette filters.

[Sire Styx]

RavenEyry wrote...

Sire Styx wrote...

Sorry, someone has probably answered this before, but have we heard any more news about the ending? I heard that something about ME3 would be said at E3
Does anyone know the page number where it's been discussed in this topic (if it has been)? I'm reading through the pages but I may have missed it. Thank you

E3 just announced ME3 would be a launch title for the WiiU, in another shallow attempt to squeeze as much money out as possible.

W-what?

They honestly thought that the best way to address all the complaints about the ending and the game in general would be to release the game again on another console?

I can't even get my head around this. We've already bought the game, many of us are unhappy about it, so why would we buy the SAME game again? Unless they're making a new ending for the Wii version? I'm really confused now.....

[liggy002]

Here is a contribution to the IT Theory, check it out:



http://social.biowar.../index/12477395

Feel free to step in and argue if you must, haha.

Modifié par liggy002, 08 juin 2012 - 09:27 .

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

I seriously think, that if don't believe somebody, doing that they proposed to you isn't good idea. Especially in that case, because Catalyst is outright states: ''The paths are open, but you have to choose.'' I think that means he wants me to choose something from these three options, so its likely that all of them are beneficial to him. If he is lying of course.

IT aside, this doesnt even fit into the way Indoctrination works. As I say in my sig, Indoctrination works by steering your existing thought processes towards conclusions that are aligned with Reaper goals. Thus, your existing thought processes that cannot be corrupted are still available to you. I believe that Starbinger/Catalyst cannot hide that fact from Shepard, or his mind (and the player, as well) would realize something is terribly, terribly wrong.

How would you have reacted if you were not given the choice to destroy the reapers at all? You'd call BS immediately, wouldnt you?

All "The Catalyst" can do is paint your incorruptible morals (which, by the way, are thematically highlighted in many different ways throughout the trilogy) in as negative a light as possible, while simultaneously painting Reaper philosophies in a light that agrees with some of your corruptible morals (which, by the way, again, are thematically highlighted in many different ways throughout the trilogy).  

By sticking to your incorruptible morals, the Reapers fail to steer you towards one of their philosophies, and the indoctrination attempt ostensiby fails. 

That about sums it up. 

And as I have pointed out before, the Guardian never actually presents you with Destroy at all, Anderson does that by the sepia toned flash back thingy (which by the way, why have we never examined those? The fact alone that Shepard is seeing them should mean something is up.) and then the Guardian COMMENTS on it, saying how he knows you've thought about it.

[HellishFiend]

senshi420 wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

senshi420 wrote...

it seems to me that anti-IT has very much become a case of vocal minority. all screaming "its not IT its bad writing" or something similar, in a very interesting experience i got into a "discussion" with a young man at the local hobby shop, and he started going on with how me3 was bad writing and IT was fanfiction, and then went on to tell me for 15 minutes what should have happened. all i could think is "you say that IT is fanfic, yet your the one with a 20 minute headcannon that doesnt match the events in game at all"

After a little back and forth, the young man got very upset, said something along the lines that ME3 can never be forgiven and stormed out...ah 14 year olds, what fun to deal with.

I agree. Further indicated by the results of various polls that have been floating around. Most notably Priestly's from the HtL forum. 

thats my point hellish, and it gets chalked up to them litterally doing what they say WE do, taking things out of context, ignoring evidence to the contrary, not researching the points they are trying to knock down. One example being: on the milkman blog they are still using "low ems= destroy only" as a talking point. which has been debunked.
Im not saying IT is true, wont know that till EC, id like to hope it is though, i just want to believe in the brilliance of people who have given us almost nothing but brilliance out of their careers so far.
you know instead of just getting mad.

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. People will cite all sorts of strange (and ultimately wrong) reasons to categorically dismiss our beliefs out-of-hand, regardless of how strongly they are supported by established lore, theme, and precedent.

They then proceed to state their own beliefs which are backed up by nothing but opinion.  That speaks for itself. 

[MaximizedAction]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Ну товарищи, я бы очень приятно видеть вас пытаются лепетать из русского языка. Да, и если человек просит вас сигарет или джинсов, не забудьте получить по низкой цене, они бесполезны в Москве.

dafuq ya pratchital?

[lex0r11]

Arian Dynas wrote...

lex0r11 wrote...

Why do I know the Cyrillic signs for Moscow and cigarettes?

*question mark face*

Very roughly translated (VERY roughly, It's been more than 2 years and I was never good at Russian to begin with) I said "Well comrade, I would very much like to see you try to babble out Russian, oh and by the way, if you go to Moscow and a man asks you for your cigarettes or jeans, they're fairly worthless there, so you won't get a good price for them." Which by the way is a boldfaced lie since Russian cigarettes suck, and until recently they didn't make jeans or include cigarette filters.

素晴らしい!

Still creeps me out I could read those two words.

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

And as I have pointed out before, the Guardian never actually presents you with Destroy at all, Anderson does that by the sepia toned flash back thingy (which by the way, why have we never examined those? The fact alone that Shepard is seeing them should mean something is up.) and then the Guardian COMMENTS on it, saying how he knows you've thought about it.

Correct. I implied that in my explanation by saying that he simply cannot hide it from you. 

[Lord Goose]

he catalyst is
just another personification of the indoctrinated part of
their mind, same as TIM. I could be horribly wrong though.

I assumed it for the sake of logical construction.
What I do not understad, its why after Destroy Shepard can't wake up as paranoid, who will screw up everything, just as Reapers wanted?

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

And as I have pointed out before, the Guardian never actually presents you with Destroy at all, Anderson does that by the sepia toned flash back thingy (which by the way, why have we never examined those? The fact alone that Shepard is seeing them should mean something is up.) and then the Guardian COMMENTS on it, saying how he knows you've thought about it.

Correct. I implied that in my explanation by saying that he simply cannot hide it from you. 

Never said you didn't, but well, sometimes with people like Lord Goose you have to be obvious, hence why we're arguing with him rather than speculating. (You silly goose)

[spotlessvoid]

Remember that Bioware is on record as having debated using indoctrination but supposedly had trouble figuring out the game mechanics. So they went a little more interpretive to pull it off. The end is, in my opinion, playing out in Shepards unconscious mind, hence the surreal and illogical aspects. This is why a seemingly bad option is nevertheless presented by Starchild.

That logic that Starchild shouldn't present a losing option applies to both endings. In fact, having the destroy option present only fits with IT because it's the only scenario where it can't actually destroy the Reapers

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 08 juin 2012 - 09:32 .

[RavenEyry]

Lord Goose wrote...

he catalyst is
just another personification of the indoctrinated part of
their mind, same as TIM. I could be horribly wrong though.

I assumed it for the sake of logical construction.
What I do not understad, its why after Destroy Shepard can't wake up as paranoid, who will screw up everything, just as Reapers wanted?

Why would not trusting a very untrustworthy being make you suddenly not trust your friends?

[HellishFiend]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Good to see some REAL evidence for a change.
Imho, the last 24 h on this thread have been not very professional. Almost became boring with all that fog reading and using same images for speculations. And after catching up the last 5 h I got a little worried about the sanity of some of you guys .

Please do not get me started on this again. I explained in detail why I was interested in Turbo's findings. If that isnt good enough for you, tough. 

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Arian Dynas wrote...

*snip*
And as I have pointed out before, the Guardian never actually presents you with Destroy at all, Anderson does that by the sepia toned flash back thingy (which by the way, why have we never examined those? The fact alone that Shepard is seeing them should mean something is up.) and then the Guardian COMMENTS on it, saying how he knows you've thought about it.

I tried bringing those flash-forwards up earlier on in this thread but I think it got burried, or maybe I was reaching. Reposting, in response to dreamgazer:

dreamgazer wrote...

 
-- After watching the flashes of Anderson and The Illusive Man execute
their respective Crucible solutions, I'm still undecided on whether
Shepard manifests them on his/her own or whether the catalyst forces
them.  But the way FemShepard says "So, The Illusive Man was right", it
almost seems like she just finished watching a surprise flash before her
eyes that she couldn't control, or something. 

I'm glad you pointed this out, I didn't even think to question it.

As someone previously stated: Shepard's perspective is OUR perspective as the gamer, everything he/she sees is what we see.

When
those flashes happen, WE see Shepard see Anderson pick the red option,
Illusive Man pick the blue. Now, IF we are assuming Shepard's
perspective then it is hard to believe he/she would paint Anderson with a
red light and Illusive Man with paragon blue and not just some neutral
gray flashback color for both of them. Assuming that, we can almost say the Catalyst is showing us/Shepard this memory flash in which case we can almost say the Catalyst is inside our mind.

If
not, then these flashes/visions are ambigious things to put into
our/Shepards perspective/vision without further purpose other than to
show us what those choices will look like from an aesthetic viewpoint.

Are you guys seeing what I'm sayiing?

In
short: the flashforwards potentially show The Catalyst as being able to
PUT IDEAS into our/Shepard's head and not just pull images out of it
(i.e. the child for its physical appearance).

[Arian Dynas]

lex0r11 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

lex0r11 wrote...

Why do I know the Cyrillic signs for Moscow and cigarettes?

*question mark face*

Very roughly translated (VERY roughly, It's been more than 2 years and I was never good at Russian to begin with) I said "Well comrade, I would very much like to see you try to babble out Russian, oh and by the way, if you go to Moscow and a man asks you for your cigarettes or jeans, they're fairly worthless there, so you won't get a good price for them." Which by the way is a boldfaced lie since Russian cigarettes suck, and until recently they didn't make jeans or include cigarette filters.

素晴らしい!

http://t0.gstatic.co...DZxyOX0itI3Cgsg

[Starbuck8]

HellishFiend wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Good to see some REAL evidence for a change.
Imho, the last 24 h on this thread have been not very professional. Almost became boring with all that fog reading and using same images for speculations. And after catching up the last 5 h I got a little worried about the sanity of some of you guys .

Please do not get me started on this again. I explained in detail why I was interested in Turbo's findings. If that isnt good enough for you, tough. 

No! No more dramas pls

I personally enjoy trying to analyze the ending screenshots, but it's super speculative and the whole debate got out of hand. My suggestion would maybe be to discuss these screenshots in group discussion threads and post to the main thread if it's decided we have something somewhat conclusive. I understand that many people think it's pointless to look for meaning in such blurry images and that people may see it and accuse us of using such things as proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Anyway just a suggestion, I honstely don't mind you guys posting those screens and discussing them here.

Modifié par Starbuck8, 08 juin 2012 - 09:37 .

[senshi420]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Remember that Bioware is on record as having debated using indoctrination but supposedly had trouble figuring out the game mechanics. So they went a little more interpretive to pull it off. The end is, in my opinion, playing out in Shepards unconscious mind, hence the surreal and illogical aspects. This is why a seemingly bad option is nevertheless presented by Starchild.

That logic that Starchild shouldn't present a losing option applies to both endings. In fact, having the destroy option present only fits with IT because it's the only scenario where it can't actually destroy the Reapers

In my many pages of lurking i have seen arian i think say this, but its true, as a DM or GM in a tabletop roleplaying campaign, if you wanted to pull off something like indoc, you would never use a game mechanic to do it, its far more effective to actually indoc the player, make them believe in what they are experiencing, at least enough to get them to follow along the path you set,. to me indoc loses allot of its impact when you just  told you are now indoctrinated.

[Lord Goose]

How would you have reacted if you were not given the
choice to destroy the reapers at all? You'd call BS
immediately, wouldnt you?

I understand your point, but I'm asking about different thing.
Basically, I need an explanation, why Reapers can't use willingness to destroy them as part of indoctrination, just as they have done it with desire to control them? Shepard could wake up as paranoid, who will screw everything up. Even if they want such outcome to the lesser extent.

Why desire to destroy them is incorruptible? I can clearly picture a way how the could use it for their own gain.

They actually used it, if Shepard killed first rachni queen, but was convinced with the promises of fake. She calims that she will fight and will destroy ''the machines'', but still ends up stabbing you in back.

[HellishFiend]

Starbuck8 wrote...
No! No more dramas pls

I personally enjoy trying to analyze the ending screenshots, but it's super speculative and the whole debate got out of hand. My suggestion would maybe be to discuss these screenshots in group discussion threads and post to the main thread if it's decided we have something somewhat conclusive. I understand that many people think it's pointless to look for meaning in such blurry images and that people may see it and accuse us of using such things as proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Anyway just a suggestion, I honstely don't mind you guys posting those screens and discussing them here.

I have a tremendous problem with that suggestion but for the sake of keeping it civil, I am going to bite my tongue. 

Let's just say it has something to do with whether a post truly belongs in this topic or not. 

[Arian Dynas]

senshi420 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Remember that Bioware is on record as having debated using indoctrination but supposedly had trouble figuring out the game mechanics. So they went a little more interpretive to pull it off. The end is, in my opinion, playing out in Shepards unconscious mind, hence the surreal and illogical aspects. This is why a seemingly bad option is nevertheless presented by Starchild.

That logic that Starchild shouldn't present a losing option applies to both endings. In fact, having the destroy option present only fits with IT because it's the only scenario where it can't actually destroy the Reapers

In my many pages of lurking i have seen arian i think say this, but its true, as a DM or GM in a tabletop roleplaying campaign, if you wanted to pull off something like indoc, you would never use a game mechanic to do it, its far more effective to actually indoc the player, make them believe in what they are experiencing, at least enough to get them to follow along the path you set,. to me indoc loses allot of its impact when you just  told you are now indoctrinated.

Hey! Someone was listening to me when I said that...

Nah, I kid, but I do still think I'm right on that count.

[spotlessvoid]

@ Arian

I had actually brought the question of Shepard seeing the vision of TIM and Anderson choosing the options in the last thread. If the ending is meant to be taken at face value, then what exactly are those visions? Hallucinations? Out of game suggestions? Again, this new mechanic of visually displaying Shepard thoughts is never introduced prior to the ending, except dreams and beacon visions. Only if it's already in Shepards head would it make sense. Otherwise it's a cheap game mechanic that suddenly and momentarily changes the players perspective and destroys the immersion

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...
No! No more dramas pls

I personally enjoy trying to analyze the ending screenshots, but it's super speculative and the whole debate got out of hand. My suggestion would maybe be to discuss these screenshots in group discussion threads and post to the main thread if it's decided we have something somewhat conclusive. I understand that many people think it's pointless to look for meaning in such blurry images and that people may see it and accuse us of using such things as proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Anyway just a suggestion, I honstely don't mind you guys posting those screens and discussing them here.

I have a tremendous problem with that suggestion but for the sake of keeping it civil, I am going to bite my tongue. 

Let's just say it has something to do with whether a post truly belongs in this topic or not. 

I think it's more a debate of how it "Looks" to outsiders, you might not care, but some of us think that our credibility would be potentially hurt with that just hanging out for everyone to see, in a group discussion it's a bit more private and thus less potentially damaging to our reputation, since only we see it and we can't be accused of being crazy Jesus'-face-in-toast nutballs. I am not saying this is actually the case, but that is one way it could APPEAR. Does that make sense?

[Starbuck8]

HellishFiend wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...
No! No more dramas pls

I personally enjoy trying to analyze the ending screenshots, but it's super speculative and the whole debate got out of hand. My suggestion would maybe be to discuss these screenshots in group discussion threads and post to the main thread if it's decided we have something somewhat conclusive. I understand that many people think it's pointless to look for meaning in such blurry images and that people may see it and accuse us of using such things as proof "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Anyway just a suggestion, I honstely don't mind you guys posting those screens and discussing them here.

I have a tremendous problem with that suggestion but for the sake of keeping it civil, I am going to bite my tongue. 

Let's just say it has something to do with whether a post truly belongs in this topic or not. 

I understand. Like I said I enjoy analyzing those screen shot and looking for stuff, and I really want to see the high quality video and try and see what they were seeing. My suggestion would certainly be a compromise, since if it was in a group discussion, less people would get to see it and comment/contribute.

Modifié par Starbuck8, 08 juin 2012 - 09:45 .

[Arian Dynas]

spotlessvoid wrote...

@ Arian

I had actually brought the question of Shepard seeing the vision of TIM and Anderson choosing the options in the last thread. If the ending is meant to be taken at face value, then what exactly are those visions? Hallucinations? Out of game suggestions? Again, this new mechanic of visually displaying Shepard thoughts is never introduced prior to the ending, except dreams and beacon visions. Only if it's already in Shepards head would it make sense. Otherwise it's a cheap game mechanic that suddenly and momentarily changes the players perspective and destroys the immersion

I rather like Gunslinger's take on it, have a look a few posts above, I think he put it better than I could have.