55528 réponses à ce sujet

[gunslinger_ruiz]

byne wrote...

So, after farming for the final materials all day, I finally got my legendary sword in WoW

*snip*
(I figured if I wore a helm that made me look kind of like a prothean and took the screenshot in a place called 'The Crucible,' it'd technically be IT related. Sort of.)

Also thread related-sorta, that sword looks an awful lot like a Mass Relay . Awesome.

Modifié par gunslinger_ruiz, 13 juin 2012 - 05:24 .

[HellishFiend]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Oh man it's like a countdown (if it's true). What else could there be though? I like to think we've found a majority of the clues but who knows maybe there's a dozen more things far more subtle.

At this point I'm really glad that we've found sufficient evidence and clues to suspect there is something wrong with the reality of the London sequence. I would have felt silly if that  had gone entirely over our heads. Still, I dont think we should ever assume we've found everything, because we're at over 3 months later already and still finding new evidence.... 

[byne]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

byne wrote...

So, after farming for the final materials all day, I finally got my legendary sword in WoW

*snip*
(I figured if I wore a helm that made me look kind of like a prothean and took the screenshot in a place called 'The Crucible,' it'd technically be IT related. Sort of.)

Also thread related-sorta, that sword looks an awful lot like a Mass Relay . Awesome.

Huh, you're right, it does!

[SackofCat]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

Let me put it this way: if none of it is real, how do you know what parts are symbolic? Isn't it almost completely subjective?

we dont know for  a fact, we see the patterns, find out what macthes, and create a reasonable hypothesis.

same technique used by scientists.

That isn't quite the same technique scientists use. In science, for data to be valid, certain principles must be followed. For instance: falsifiability, among others.

Balance5050,
What is the "wake" of a supernova? I don't think this is meant to be some kind of modifier on the word "supernova". It most likely means "the energy after a supernova" or "the energy that is released as a result of a supernova". This means the Arrival DLC most likely contradicts the codex. However, since the codex has been proven to be inaccurate at times, what has actually been observed is most likely more accurate.

This is different than in ME2 in that an (arguably important) ending cannot be reached without the multiplayer. In ME2 you could buy everything, just not (presumably) all at once. Also, I would imagine Bioware would argue with your claim that "No Mass Efffect is "complete" without it's respective DLC.". The reality is that all previous ME games worked as standalone games even without DLC. Each one is about a story that is resolved at the end while the first 2 games also had an overarching story that each respective game progressed.

BountyHunter,
Regardless of energy dispersal, the codex implies mass relays can survive the energy of a supernova. Energy of supernova>energy of even an asteroid several km in length. Therefore it is safe to conclude that, if true, the asteroid should have bounced of or been broken by the Alpha Relay (or something other than what happened)

HellishFiend
If it is entirely subjective unless the author says otherwise, then any interpretation you have is one that you have imposed upon the work.

This thread moves too fast for me to keep up but I will be back.

Modifié par SackofCat, 13 juin 2012 - 05:38 .

[gunslinger_ruiz]

HellishFiend wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Oh man it's like a countdown (if it's true). What else could there be though? I like to think we've found a majority of the clues but who knows maybe there's a dozen more things far more subtle.

At this point I'm really glad that we've found sufficient evidence and clues to suspect there is something wrong with the reality of the London sequence. I would have felt silly if that  had gone entirely over our heads. Still, I dont think we should ever assume we've found everything, because we're at over 3 months later already and still finding new evidence.... 

Not sure if 100% indoctrination, but I'm almost positive Bioware's got something going on with the entire ending sequence. Might be a little bummed out if it turns out not to be indoctrination but I've got faith in Bioware to pull off something good with EC and DLC.

[Arian Dynas]

SackofCat wrote...

Let me put it this way: if none of it is real, how do you know what parts are symbolic? Isn't it almost completely subjective?

I'll let this speak for itself.

http://en.wikipedia....gian_archetypes

[HellishFiend]

SackofCat wrote...


HellishFiend
If it is entirely subjective unless the author says otherwise, then any interpretation you have is one that you have imposed upon the work.

This thread moves too fast for me to keep up but I will be back.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. You seem to be describing the very thing Bioware intended. Or was I misunderstanding Bioware when they said they wanted us to speculate, and that they did not want to be "prescriptive" with players' interpretations?

[gunslinger_ruiz]

SackofCat wrote...

That isn't quite the same technique scientists use. In science, for data to be valid, certain principles must be followed. For instance: falsifiability, among others.

Balance5050,
What is the "wake" of a supernova? I don't think this is meant to be some kind of modifier on the word "supernova". It most likely means "the energy after a supernova" or "the energy that is released as a result of a supernova". This means the Arrival DLC most likely contradicts the codex. However, since the codex has been proven to be inaccurate at times, what has actually been observed is most likely more accurate.

This is different than in ME2 in that an (arguably important) ending cannot be reached without the multiplayer. In ME2 you could buy everything, just not (presumably) all at once. Also, I would imagine Bioware would argue with your claim that "No Mass Efffect is "complete" without it's respective DLC.". The reality is that all previous ME games worked as standalone games even without DLC. Each one is about a story that is resolved at the end while the first 2 games also had an overarching story that each respective game progressed.
*snip*

Not to assume where this conversation has been for the past few pages but I think the "wake of a supernova" bit is refering mostly to the Mu Relay from the first game. It's the Relay that connects to Ilos and it was "lost" or moved as a result of a supernova in its system (centuries ago) so the Mass Relays are obviously capabale of surviving the force of a supernova as per the codex and game lore. As for the Arrival DLC, you can argue an asteroid the size of a small moon is not equal too or even less than the force of a supernova but it was obviously enough to destroy a Mass Relay, triggering the massive explosion. Keep in mind this massive asteroid was also being propelled at a high speed toward the relay so the force must have been impressive.

[balance5050]

@SackofCat

Wake of a supernovae means the residual energy of a supernovae, this implies that they are usually built on the outskirts of the solar system they're in, this wake would be far weaker than the giant asteroid impact that we see in Arrival.

Like you said; "what has actually been observed is most likely more accurate."

Modifié par balance5050, 13 juin 2012 - 05:51 .

[Arian Dynas]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Incoming.....

Arian Dynas wrote...

2. We have high resolution shots of the Indoctrinated eyes in Synthesis lying around here someone, someone find Prettz, he should have some.

Also, reposting for Sack of Cat, whom must have missed it in her haste to rip apart Illbountyhunter.

Arian Dynas wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

A scene of Shepard (probably) taking a breath in some rubble would imply that Shepard survived. You can argue that the catalyst was disingenuous or wrong (or that it is a reward for playing multiplayer) but not much more.

I have seen the still images of Shepard's eyes in the control/synthesis that bear a resemblance to the eyes of Saren/TIM. In the video of the control ending, Shepard's eyes clearly resemble TIM's baby blues. It is much harder, if not impossible, to spot (other than the green color, perhaps) in the video of the synthesis ending.

If Shepard's eyes are meant to symbolize (since it only happens in Shepard's head, according to IT) his/her submission to the reapers, why is there such a disparity? What narrative purpose does making it so hard to spot in the synthesis ending and easy to spot in the control ending serve?

If Shepard is transformed into some kind of disembodied will that is able to influence the reapers, the eyes in the control ending may symbolize the fundamental bond Shepard now has with the reapers. This is speculation but it can explain the disparity without requiring that the entire ending only happen in Shelard's head.

I agree that this eye pattern has only been used on 2 people that ultimately became pawns or avatars of the reapers. However, there are too many inconsistencies to argue that it symbolizes Shepard being indoctrinated without claiming that every part of the story and the story itself suddenly became exclusively symbolic at the end.

Correct me if I am mistaken.

You seem to have put a lot of thought into these counterpoints and questions, so I think you are deserving of a response. Tackling these kind of posts is not my preferred activity, but we do have a couple of regulars that enjoy responding to them. I'll make sure one of them sees it so that you get your response. 

Thank you for raising your concerns in a polite manner, by the way. Many people dont. 

1. The fact alone that the Guardian is lying should make you question why you trust this heretofore unknown being, or why you should believe anything he tells you. He flat out lies to your face. Why should you have any reason to believe him when he informs you of all this other stuff that sounds like complete bull**** and comes right the **** out of nowhere. Morever, we KNOW the Reapers are very good at psychological warfare, we see it several times in fact. Banshees, Husks in general, the aura of defeat and despair that seems to drip from them and everything they touch, not even just indoctrination, just genuine regular old natural fear, their actions are carefully planned out to demoralize and manipulate Organic minds. In Indoctrination Theory, there are really only two choices, anything else is cosmetic. The choice you have is ; Do you believe what you are told by the so-called Catalyst? Or not?

2. We have high resolution shots of the Indoctrinated eyes in Synthesis lying around here someone, someone find Prettz, he should have some. We even see some patterns resembling Reaper Cables running through the sclera of the eyes in fact. What really is unique about these eyes is just the fact that they are there. Yes, not everyone who is indoctrinated has these eyes, but the fact is, anyone who has these eyes got them from a Reaper Source and was indoctrinated by that source. (TIM and the Arch Monolith)

3. There is no narrative disparity, only visual, and that really depends on how good your picture is. It's a detail that can get lost, sorry, but that's the way it is.

4. It perhaps could... if it wasn't for the fact that they do appear in the Synthesis ending as well, and really, it comes down to; "Do you feel you can trust the Reapers?" an overwhelming majority say "No".

5. Considering a large chunk of it IS symbolic under IDT, I don't see your point.

And something to consider. If you look at it at face value, assuming you believe the Star child, Destroy has no purpose and no appeal. There is nothing about Destroy that is appealing compared to Control and Synthesis if you choose to believe that you are being told the truth. The only way it DOES have any kind of appeal whatsoever, is if you assume you are being lied to.

[HellishFiend]

You guys may be interested in checking out this question I have posed to Seival, the OP of the "control ending support thread". 

http://social.biowar...044/65#12551193 

[Arian Dynas]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

That isn't quite the same technique scientists use. In science, for data to be valid, certain principles must be followed. For instance: falsifiability, among others.

Balance5050,
What is the "wake" of a supernova? I don't think this is meant to be some kind of modifier on the word "supernova". It most likely means "the energy after a supernova" or "the energy that is released as a result of a supernova". This means the Arrival DLC most likely contradicts the codex. However, since the codex has been proven to be inaccurate at times, what has actually been observed is most likely more accurate.

This is different than in ME2 in that an (arguably important) ending cannot be reached without the multiplayer. In ME2 you could buy everything, just not (presumably) all at once. Also, I would imagine Bioware would argue with your claim that "No Mass Efffect is "complete" without it's respective DLC.". The reality is that all previous ME games worked as standalone games even without DLC. Each one is about a story that is resolved at the end while the first 2 games also had an overarching story that each respective game progressed.
*snip*

Not to assume where this conversation has been for the past few pages but I think the "wake of a supernova" bit is refering mostly to the Mu Relay from the first game. It's the Relay that connects to Ilos and it was "lost" or moved as a result of a supernova in its system (centuries ago) so the Mass Relays are obviously capabale of surviving the force of a supernova as per the codex and game lore. As for the Arrival DLC, you can argue an asteroid the size of a small moon is not equal too or even less than the force of a supernova but it was obviously enough to destroy a Mass Relay, triggering the massive explosion. Keep in mind this massive asteroid was also being propelled at a high speed toward the relay so the force must have been impressive.

Yes, it is referring to the Mu Relay. But, what people keep forgetting is the Mu Relay was never actually struck with the force of a Supernova, merely the resulting waves from it's destruction, which, having no medium to pass through, would have had little effect on the actual superstructure, and more than likely was little more than a cloud of debris which nudged it out of it's position, sending it on a trajectory into another star's gravity well.

[SackofCat]

Arian Dynas wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

Let me put it this way: if none of it is real, how do you know what parts are symbolic? Isn't it almost completely subjective?

I'll let this speak for itself.

http://en.wikipedia....gian_archetypes

Perhaps you should have explained your point at least a little. My posts do not require very much deciphering. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect me to study that wiki page looking for the point you were trying to make and whether it bears any relevance to what is being discussed?

There are a lot of things that happen in the end. Some of those things contradict the IT. The ITists select only the pieces that correspond to their assertions and conveniently declares the rest either irrelevant or purposefully misleading.

[HellishFiend]

SackofCat wrote...

There are a lot of things that happen in the end. Some of those things contradict the IT. The ITists select only the pieces that correspond to their assertions and conveniently declares the rest either irrelevant or purposefully misleading.

I dont think that is true at all, and I resent the implication, to be quite honest. We address everything, and give all counterpoints fair weight. 

What exactly do you believe contradicts IT? Because it is more than likely a misunderstanding on your part. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 13 juin 2012 - 05:59 .

[Arian Dynas]

SackofCat wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

Let me put it this way: if none of it is real, how do you know what parts are symbolic? Isn't it almost completely subjective?

I'll let this speak for itself.

http://en.wikipedia....gian_archetypes

Perhaps you should have explained your point at least a little. My posts do not require very much deciphering. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect me to study that wiki page looking for the point you were trying to make and whether it bears any relevance to what is being discussed?

There are a lot of things that happen in the end. Some of those things contradict the IT. The ITists select only the pieces that correspond to their assertions and conveniently declares the rest either irrelevant or purposefully misleading.

Very well then.

You claim that symbols and symbological concepts are subjective, correct? That one individual's interpretation of a symbolic situation would be entirely different than another individual's interpretation.

Well, speaking as someone who knows a good bit about psychology, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this is untrue.

Karl Jung, one of the founding fathers of Psychology, a contemporary and compatriot of Sigmund Freud, proposed the existence of a "collective unconcious" a sort of universal set of symbols defined by being human. As an example, we see a ring as being a symbol of rebirth and infinity throughout all cultures, dragons, common in nearly every culture on the face of the planet, are a similar creation, usually representing strength, either of the physical or mental varities.

There are commonalities between stories of a symbolic nature and dreams in general, that are universal to the understanding of all human beings.

Basically, if you are a human being, there are certain concepts and symbols you will understand, no matter the situation. Mass Effect itself demonstrates an understanding of this fact, in fact that is precisely what the Cipher was, the Collective Unconcious of the Prothean Species, the symbols they understood, the concepts that were second nature to them, ect.

In other words, there are plenty of symbols that are quite simply objective to the Human species. Since Mass Effect is (currently) only being sold to Humans, they only had to worry about symbols we would recognize and identify with.

[Turbo_J]

HellishFiend wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

There are a lot of things that happen in the end. Some of those things contradict the IT. The ITists select only the pieces that correspond to their assertions and conveniently declares the rest either irrelevant or purposefully misleading.

I dont think that is true at all, and I resent the implication, to be quite honest. We address everything, and give all counterpoints fair weight. 

What exactly do you believe contradicts IT? Because it is more than likely a misunderstanding on your part. 

So do I.

SackofCat, you came in here under the guise of genuine curiosity, but that vale is getting quite thin. You are on a slippery slope into Troll territory. If you truly want to learn and investigate the plausibility of Indoctrination, slandering generalizations is not the way to go about it productively. If you want a fight or argument, go look for it somewhere else.

[gunslinger_ruiz]

SackofCat wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

Let me put it this way: if none of it is real, how do you know what parts are symbolic? Isn't it almost completely subjective?

I'll let this speak for itself.

http://en.wikipedia....gian_archetypes

Perhaps you should have explained your point at least a little. My posts do not require very much deciphering. Do you really think it is reasonable to expect me to study that wiki page looking for the point you were trying to make and whether it bears any relevance to what is being discussed?

There are a lot of things that happen in the end. Some of those things contradict the IT. The ITists select only the pieces that correspond to their assertions and conveniently declares the rest either irrelevant or purposefully misleading.

I feel like I should make some kind of joke about how, as humans, we sometimes are required ot think at one point or another in life but I'm not a very funny person, sorry.

Arian Dynas, after reading about this far in "Carl Gustav Jung developed an understanding of archetypes as being “ancient or archaic images that derive from the collective unconscious”. The archetypes are also referred to as innate universal psychic dispositions which form the substrate from which the basic symbols or representations of unconscious experience emerge." I understood your point but kept reading the article anyway, thank you for the link.

[Arian Dynas]

My pleasure.

[HellishFiend]

Arian, I'm not sure I agree with the way you're applying that to literary interpretation. You seem to be suggesting that in any given case there is only one interpretation that can be correct according to the general objectivity of the entire species.

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian, I'm not sure I agree with the way you're applying that to literary interpretation. You seem to be suggesting that in any given case there is only one interpretation that can be correct according to the general objectivity of the entire species.

Hellish, that's actually kind of the point, not that there is only one interpretation, because plenty of things do have an alternative interpretation (A ring in one context could represent totality, whereas another could represent rebirth and the cycle of life) but nearly all symbols DO have a commonality.

Put it this way, read about what the Hero's Journey is, or read Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces.

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian, I'm not sure I agree with the way you're applying that to literary interpretation. You seem to be suggesting that in any given case there is only one interpretation that can be correct according to the general objectivity of the entire species.

Hellish, that's actually kind of the point, not that there is only one interpretation, because plenty of things do have an alternative interpretation (A ring in one context could represent totality, whereas another could represent rebirth and the cycle of life) but nearly all symbols DO have a commonality.

Put it this way, read about what the Hero's Journey is, or read Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces.

I see. I think it makes a bit more sense when you put it that way.  You're basically saying that you can put the puzzle together however you wish, but the puzzle pieces themselves remain constant. Am I right?

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian, I'm not sure I agree with the way you're applying that to literary interpretation. You seem to be suggesting that in any given case there is only one interpretation that can be correct according to the general objectivity of the entire species.

Hellish, that's actually kind of the point, not that there is only one interpretation, because plenty of things do have an alternative interpretation (A ring in one context could represent totality, whereas another could represent rebirth and the cycle of life) but nearly all symbols DO have a commonality.

Put it this way, read about what the Hero's Journey is, or read Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces.

I see. I think it makes a bit more sense when you put it that way.  You're basically saying that you can put the puzzle together however you wish, but the puzzle pieces themselves remain constant. Am I right?

Exactly.

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

I see. I think it makes a bit more sense when you put it that way.  You're basically saying that you can put the puzzle together however you wish, but the puzzle pieces themselves remain constant. Am I right?

Exactly.

Now that I get what you mean, I can actually think of some very amusingly sarcastic ways of driving that point home. That is, if I were the type to do that sort of thing... which I'm not... <_<

[Arian Dynas]

Come to think of it, if you want an excellent example of this concept, look at Lord of the Rings.

What some called allegory, claiming that LoTR was written based off stories of WWII, Tolkein preferred to call "applicability" claiming that certain aspects of his stories could be found in many stories, even if they were otherwise unrelated. (read the foreword to the books and Professor Tolkein himself will explain it far better than I could.

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Come to think of it, if you want an excellent example of this concept, look at Lord of the Rings.

What some called allegory, claiming that LoTR was written based off stories of WWII, Tolkein preferred to call "applicability" claiming that certain aspects of his stories could be found in many stories, even if they were otherwise unrelated. (read the foreword to the books and Professor Tolkein himself will explain it far better than I could.

Yeah, I get it. What you basically did was lay out a a very advanced and complex definition for a concept that is typically ingrained in common sense. Or at least, it should be...