55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Arian Dynas]

Bill Casey wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Nah, leave it, you can redeem the Batarian race.

Batarian Gratitude
Batarian Refugee

SILENCE HEATHEN!

LET ME WALLOW IN MY HATRED!

Nah. I kind of like Batarians.

I just know alot of people who don't.

[Bill Casey]

HellishFiend wrote...

Picard picked Destroy. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie] He does admit towards the end of the ep though that he was tempted to pick Synthesis... I think...  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

He wasn't merely tempted, he actually saw five lights instead of four...
Straight up Fahrenheit 451 stuff...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 15 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[Auralius Carolus]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Nah I kid, but yeah, it is my own personal unpleasant brand of charm coming through.

And you guys wonder why I don't imagine myself to be the nicest person, or paticuarly worthy of your praise.

It's part of who I am, you shouldn't deny yours either. We're all buddies here, and buddies can take a bit of rough edges.

I can't help but get the impression that you're a "Sheriff of Rottingham" type.

Never watched "Men in Tights" so idk.

You never WHAT????

What's wrong with you man? Argh!

Well I'm willing to bet you've never watched the Marx brothers.

You're headed straight for a lost bet then. I'm familiar with several Marx's, the Marx Brothers being the only one's yet I've noted for having any sense.

Abbott and Costello had some good runs as well.

[Arian Dynas]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Here is a quote I read on another thread. I'm sure number 4 is debatable, but honestly the fact that Weekes and Gamble do talk about the ending in a literal sense makes me doubt the IT entirely.

osbornep wrote...

Posted this somewhere else, but the thread pretty much died after I did, so I thought I'd just re-post it here:

Here's most of the evidence I'm aware of against IT. This is intended more as reference than as definitive refutation, as I don't think there is any such thing. The evidence is also presented in an extremely quick fashion; I'll leave more detailed discussion to further posts. I'm not an IT supporter, but if the EC comes out and IT is true, I'll certainly be willing to admit my mistake. Still, looking back it will be useful to have a catalogue of all the evidence we had for/against the theory before the EC came out. Anyway, here goes:

1. Mike Gamble's tweets:

twitter.com/#!/GambleMike/status/189481533239865344

Above is a link to a thread discussing another tweet from Gamble where he defends the synthesis ending against the objection that it is worse than control. Why is he defending the synthesis ending if it is the losing ending?

2. Unofficial interview with Patrick Weekes:

social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/11154234/1

Everything in this interview is paraphrased, not directly quoted, so perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, I'm going to assume that it is mostly accurate. Of particular interest are two passages:

"Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive."

If IT is true, the crucible hasn't fired yet, so the question of whether or not people on the Citadel survived doesn't even arise. So why is Weekes saying this? Also, in response to a question regarding whether or not the relay explosions destroyed entire solar systems, there is this passage:

"We really didn't mean to imply that the whole galaxy had been destroyed. People interpreted the ending in ways we really didn't expect."

If IT is true, the relay explosions don't even occur. So Weekes would effectively be clarifying events that didn't take place. Also, the suggestion that the developers did not anticipate that players would draw a connection between Arrival and the ending is problematic from the point of view of IT. I've always found it unlikely that they would not expect us to make this connection, but that they would expect us to make connections with Object Rho, Ashley and Kaiden's armor in ME1 & ME2, the Rachni Queen's description of indoctrination, etc.

3.
The ending message and the "Mission Accomplished" achievement. These are relatively self-explanatory. There's no message at the end of Blade Runner saying "Deckard is not a replicant"; there's no message at the end of High Plains Drifter saying "By the way, that dude you saw disappear into the desert? TOTALLY NOT the ghost of Marshal Jim Duncan." So why include the message at the end of ME3, if IT is true?

4.
The whole EMS thing: This is a very murky issue, so I'm just bringing it up to start discussion. If your EMS is low, you can only get the destroy option. So why is your reward for doing better the opportunity to choose losing endings? That seems unlikely. Also, here's what I believe to be a passage from the leaked script:

"Shepard must now make his final decision - to control the Reapers, to destroy the Reapers, or if they had a perfect game to become one with the Reapers."

We can guess that the idea of "becoming one with the Reapers" is what evolved into synthesis. So the association of this ending with a 'perfect game' suggests that the developers didn't think of it as a losing ending. Here's the source:

www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/rgfq2/the_leaked_script_was_not_responsible_for_mass/

Since I'm a bit lazy and didn't do a ridiculous amount of research for this, I'm not 100% sure if this is reliable. If anyone can debunk this, I'd appreciate that information, and apologize in advance if it turns out incorrect. Again, this is all intended more for reference than as some kind of definitive refutation. Anyway, I hope this is useful to the OP, and hope that many speculations will ensue.

EDIT: Fixed paragraphs

Bumping because I'm lazy and don't feel like dealing with this myself right now. Someone else want to take it?

[HellishFiend]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Here is a quote I read on another thread. I'm sure number 4 is debatable, but honestly the fact that Weekes and Gamble do talk about the ending in a literal sense makes me doubt the IT entirely.

*snip because its posted right above here*

Most of those are fairly easy to interpret in either context, really. And even when they "defend" the endings we see as the wrong choices, that could just be part of the deception. Personally I even think some of that supports IT more than it contradicts it. Plus, this is, to my knowledge, the first fully immersive first person metagame ending, if IT turns out to be true. So there is no precedent for how it should be handled from a PR perspective. Bioware reps have said contradicting things, deleted tweets, carefully worded their press statements and q&a so that they can be taken in both contexts, etc.

Add all that up with the symbolic evidence we've put together, and it's pretty hard to think that IT isnt their intended direction. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 15 juin 2012 - 06:55 .

[Rosewind]

Not me you know i don;t like reading text walls.... hurts my eyes.

[Arian Dynas]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Nah I kid, but yeah, it is my own personal unpleasant brand of charm coming through.

And you guys wonder why I don't imagine myself to be the nicest person, or paticuarly worthy of your praise.

It's part of who I am, you shouldn't deny yours either. We're all buddies here, and buddies can take a bit of rough edges.

I can't help but get the impression that you're a "Sheriff of Rottingham" type.

Never watched "Men in Tights" so idk.

You never WHAT????

What's wrong with you man? Argh!

Well I'm willing to bet you've never watched the Marx brothers.

You're headed straight for a lost bet then. I'm familiar with several Marx's, the Marx Brothers being the only one's yet I've noted for having any sense.

Abbott and Costello had some good runs as well.

Ah so you are a Marxist, well then how do you feel about toothbrush moustaches and floppy shoes?

[HellishFiend]

Bill Casey wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Picard picked Destroy. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie] He does admit towards the end of the ep though that he was tempted to pick Synthesis... I think...  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

He wasn't merely tempted, he actually saw five lights instead of four...
Straight up Fahrenheit 451 stuff...

True! I've seen those episodes 2 or 3 times and I forgot that was the way he worded it. The human mind can only take so much abuse before it starts to adapt in a negative way to cope with a bad situation...

[BatmanTurian]

Arian Dynas wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Here is a quote I read on another thread. I'm sure number 4 is debatable, but honestly the fact that Weekes and Gamble do talk about the ending in a literal sense makes me doubt the IT entirely.

osbornep wrote...

Posted this somewhere else, but the thread pretty much died after I did, so I thought I'd just re-post it here:

Here's most of the evidence I'm aware of against IT. This is intended more as reference than as definitive refutation, as I don't think there is any such thing. The evidence is also presented in an extremely quick fashion; I'll leave more detailed discussion to further posts. I'm not an IT supporter, but if the EC comes out and IT is true, I'll certainly be willing to admit my mistake. Still, looking back it will be useful to have a catalogue of all the evidence we had for/against the theory before the EC came out. Anyway, here goes:

1. Mike Gamble's tweets:

twitter.com/#!/GambleMike/status/189481533239865344

Above is a link to a thread discussing another tweet from Gamble where he defends the synthesis ending against the objection that it is worse than control. Why is he defending the synthesis ending if it is the losing ending?

2. Unofficial interview with Patrick Weekes:

social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/11154234/1

Everything in this interview is paraphrased, not directly quoted, so perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, I'm going to assume that it is mostly accurate. Of particular interest are two passages:

"Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive."

If IT is true, the crucible hasn't fired yet, so the question of whether or not people on the Citadel survived doesn't even arise. So why is Weekes saying this? Also, in response to a question regarding whether or not the relay explosions destroyed entire solar systems, there is this passage:

"We really didn't mean to imply that the whole galaxy had been destroyed. People interpreted the ending in ways we really didn't expect."

If IT is true, the relay explosions don't even occur. So Weekes would effectively be clarifying events that didn't take place. Also, the suggestion that the developers did not anticipate that players would draw a connection between Arrival and the ending is problematic from the point of view of IT. I've always found it unlikely that they would not expect us to make this connection, but that they would expect us to make connections with Object Rho, Ashley and Kaiden's armor in ME1 & ME2, the Rachni Queen's description of indoctrination, etc.

3.
The ending message and the "Mission Accomplished" achievement. These are relatively self-explanatory. There's no message at the end of Blade Runner saying "Deckard is not a replicant"; there's no message at the end of High Plains Drifter saying "By the way, that dude you saw disappear into the desert? TOTALLY NOT the ghost of Marshal Jim Duncan." So why include the message at the end of ME3, if IT is true?

4.
The whole EMS thing: This is a very murky issue, so I'm just bringing it up to start discussion. If your EMS is low, you can only get the destroy option. So why is your reward for doing better the opportunity to choose losing endings? That seems unlikely. Also, here's what I believe to be a passage from the leaked script:

"Shepard must now make his final decision - to control the Reapers, to destroy the Reapers, or if they had a perfect game to become one with the Reapers."

We can guess that the idea of "becoming one with the Reapers" is what evolved into synthesis. So the association of this ending with a 'perfect game' suggests that the developers didn't think of it as a losing ending. Here's the source:

www.reddit.com/r/masseffect/comments/rgfq2/the_leaked_script_was_not_responsible_for_mass/

Since I'm a bit lazy and didn't do a ridiculous amount of research for this, I'm not 100% sure if this is reliable. If anyone can debunk this, I'd appreciate that information, and apologize in advance if it turns out incorrect. Again, this is all intended more for reference than as some kind of definitive refutation. Anyway, I hope this is useful to the OP, and hope that many speculations will ensue.

EDIT: Fixed paragraphs

Bumping because I'm lazy and don't feel like dealing with this myself right now. Someone else want to take it?

it's from this thread.

It's the thread to answer misunderstandings about IT. One guy decided he would make it his mission to also post things against it when the thread was never about arguing the merits, just the misunderstandings and stereotypes that people have about it and us.

[Bill Casey]

So the question becomes "Can Shepard overcome the Reaper's greatest weapon long enough to defeat them?"

[HellishFiend]

BatmanTurian wrote...

it's from this thread.

It's the thread to answer misunderstandings about IT. One guy decided he would make it his mission to also post things against it when the thread was never about arguing the merits, just the misunderstandings and stereotypes that people have about it and us.

You know, that attitude from the posters outside this thread was part of why I changed my demeanor here. I wanted to try and get people to see that we're actually objective when analyzing evidence and considering all angles and opinions, rather than being seen as overly biased and blind to other possibilities. Not sure if I just went about it the wrong way or if it's just a folly effort. 

[MegaSovereign]

HellishFiend wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Here is a quote I read on another thread. I'm sure number 4 is debatable, but honestly the fact that Weekes and Gamble do talk about the ending in a literal sense makes me doubt the IT entirely.

*snip because its posted right above here*

Most of those are fairly easy to interpret in either context, really. And even when they "defend" the endings we see as the wrong choices, that could just be part of the deception. Personally I even think some of that supports IT more than it contradicts it. Plus, this is, to my knowledge, the first fully immersive first person metagame ending, if IT turns out to be true. So there is no precedent for how it should be handled from a PR perspective. Bioware reps have said contradicting things, deleted tweets, carefully worded their press statements and q&a so that they can be taken in both contexts, etc.

Add all that up with the symbolic evidence we've put together, and it's pretty hard to think that IT isnt their intended direction. 

In a way, whether IT was planned or not, Bioware did want major speculationz. They want people to interpret the endings differently. They know that there are a lot of IT followers and so they're trying not to ruin anyones interpretation of the ending by outright dismissing them.

But this is really pissing me off. I want to know whether the IT is true or not and move on. What they're doing is wrong whether the IT is true or not. We were promised a satisfying conclusion to Shepard's journey with closure. Not one with major speculations.

[BatmanTurian]

Bill Casey wrote...

So the question becomes "Can Shepard overcome the Reaper's greatest weapon long enough to defeat them?"

I really don't understand people who think it's unlikely that the Reapers would ever use their greatest weapon against arguably their greatest foe.

I mean come on. We've been smacked over the head with it for two games and it's obviously something organics have little defense against. Why wouldn't they use it against Shepard? Shepard has no defense other than remarkable willpower.

It's like if The US had decided to do the ground war with Japan instead of using their nukes that they'd already built. Why WOULDN'T you use your greatest weapon and go for the jugular? It's just logical and elementary.

[HellishFiend]

Bill Casey wrote...

So the question becomes "Can Shepard overcome the Reaper's greatest weapon long enough to defeat them?"

Well, in this case I think it's a question of whether or not the Player can overcome it! 

I think it is very telling how Bioware has Shepard say "I....dont know" to the Catalyst when being posed with the last of the three choices. Your Shepard seems to have no clue which one he wants to pick. So its up to you!

[HellishFiend]

MegaSovereign wrote...

In a way, whether IT was planned or not, Bioware did want major speculationz. They want people to interpret the endings differently. They know that there are a lot of IT followers and so they're trying not to ruin anyones interpretation of the ending by outright dismissing them.

But this is really pissing me off. I want to know whether the IT is true or not and move on. What they're doing is wrong whether the IT is true or not. We were promised a satisfying conclusion to Shepard's journey with closure. Not one with major speculations.

Yeah, and you're definitely not the only one that feels that way. Even some of the regulars here in this thread are getting exhausted with the speculations and the wait. My best friend is also tired of the wait. 

But, there truly is no precedent here, so the way this plays out will probably set the standard for how this sort of thing should or shouldnt be handled in the future. 

[BatmanTurian]

HellishFiend wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

it's from this thread.

It's the thread to answer misunderstandings about IT. One guy decided he would make it his mission to also post things against it when the thread was never about arguing the merits, just the misunderstandings and stereotypes that people have about it and us.

You know, that attitude from the posters outside this thread was part of why I changed my demeanor here. I wanted to try and get people to see that we're actually objective when analyzing evidence and considering all angles and opinions, rather than being seen as overly biased and blind to other possibilities. Not sure if I just went about it the wrong way or if it's just a folly effort. 

I've been as polite as I can be, but it honestly doesn't matter to them whether you kiss their ****es or spit on them. If they don't like us, they don't like us. I'm not saying we should be jerks but we have to be realistic.

[MegaSovereign]

it's from this thread.

It's the thread to answer misunderstandings about IT. One guy decided he would make it his mission to also post things against it when the thread was never about arguing the merits, just the misunderstandings and stereotypes that people have about it and us.

I don't think his quote was condescending or insulting. He sort of does have a point with the devs taking everything literally.

Just to be clear, I'm on the fence about IT so I'm trying to find all the arguments for and against IT before I take a stance.

[Rosewind]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Nah I kid, but yeah, it is my own personal unpleasant brand of charm coming through.

And you guys wonder why I don't imagine myself to be the nicest person, or paticuarly worthy of your praise.

It's part of who I am, you shouldn't deny yours either. We're all buddies here, and buddies can take a bit of rough edges.

I can't help but get the impression that you're a "Sheriff of Rottingham" type.

Never watched "Men in Tights" so idk.

You never WHAT????

What's wrong with you man? Argh!

Well I'm willing to bet you've never watched the Marx brothers.

You're headed straight for a lost bet then. I'm familiar with several Marx's, the Marx Brothers being the only one's yet I've noted for having any sense.

Abbott and Costello had some good runs as well.

Ah so you are a Marxist, well then how do you feel about toothbrush moustaches and floppy shoes?

Like you look like a serial killer....

[BatmanTurian]

MegaSovereign wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Here is a quote I read on another thread. I'm sure number 4 is debatable, but honestly the fact that Weekes and Gamble do talk about the ending in a literal sense makes me doubt the IT entirely.

*snip because its posted right above here*

Most of those are fairly easy to interpret in either context, really. And even when they "defend" the endings we see as the wrong choices, that could just be part of the deception. Personally I even think some of that supports IT more than it contradicts it. Plus, this is, to my knowledge, the first fully immersive first person metagame ending, if IT turns out to be true. So there is no precedent for how it should be handled from a PR perspective. Bioware reps have said contradicting things, deleted tweets, carefully worded their press statements and q&a so that they can be taken in both contexts, etc.

Add all that up with the symbolic evidence we've put together, and it's pretty hard to think that IT isnt their intended direction. 

In a way, whether IT was planned or not, Bioware did want major speculationz. They want people to interpret the endings differently. They know that there are a lot of IT followers and so they're trying not to ruin anyones interpretation of the ending by outright dismissing them.

But this is really pissing me off. I want to know whether the IT is true or not and move on. What they're doing is wrong whether the IT is true or not. We were promised a satisfying conclusion to Shepard's journey with closure. Not one with major speculations.

We're right up there with you, buddy. We want to know too. We're just more sure of our interpretation than you are of it. But that's okay. Takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. It's good that you're at least trying to understand it. That's more than most people do.

[HellishFiend]

BatmanTurian wrote...

We're right up there with you, buddy. We want to know too. We're just more sure of our interpretation than you are of it. But that's okay. Takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. It's good that you're at least trying to understand it. That's more than most people do.

Truestorybro.jpg 

[MegaSovereign]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

So the question becomes "Can Shepard overcome the Reaper's greatest weapon long enough to defeat them?"

I really don't understand people who think it's unlikely that the Reapers would ever use their greatest weapon against arguably their greatest foe.

I mean come on. We've been smacked over the head with it for two games and it's obviously something organics have little defense against. Why wouldn't they use it against Shepard? Shepard has no defense other than remarkable willpower.

It's like if The US had decided to do the ground war with Japan instead of using their nukes that they'd already built. Why WOULDN'T you use your greatest weapon and go for the jugular? It's just logical and elementary.

I remember 5 years ago.

I asked myself while playing Mass Effect 1.

"How the hell does Shepard resist indoctrination? How is he immune?"

Even if IT is wrong. The fact that shepard is immune to indoctrination for no apparent reason is a massive flaw in the narrative.

[BatmanTurian]

MegaSovereign wrote...

it's from this thread.

It's the thread to answer misunderstandings about IT. One guy decided he would make it his mission to also post things against it when the thread was never about arguing the merits, just the misunderstandings and stereotypes that people have about it and us.

I don't think his quote was condescending or insulting. He sort of does have a point with the devs taking everything literally.

Just to be clear, I'm on the fence about IT so I'm trying to find all the arguments for and against IT before I take a stance.

No I understand your stance. I'm just saying that wasn't the right thread for him to set up a platform about it. If he wants to debate those points, he should come here, not hijack a thread that was about something else.

[Bill Casey]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

So the question becomes "Can Shepard overcome the Reaper's greatest weapon long enough to defeat them?"

I really don't understand people who think it's unlikely that the Reapers would ever use their greatest weapon against arguably their greatest foe.

I mean come on. We've been smacked over the head with it for two games and it's obviously something organics have little defense against. Why wouldn't they use it against Shepard? Shepard has no defense other than remarkable willpower.

It's like if The US had decided to do the ground war with Japan instead of using their nukes that they'd already built. Why WOULDN'T you use your greatest weapon and go for the jugular? It's just logical and elementary.

Nope...
Shepard clearly has PTSD and is talking to God and is being controlled by the Illusive Man's new biotic abilities...
All of these elements were thrown into a story where the main character is fighting a vast army of brainwashers...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 15 juin 2012 - 07:09 .

[HellishFiend]

MegaSovereign wrote...
I remember 5 years ago.

I asked myself while playing Mass Effect 1.

"How the hell does Shepard resist indoctrination? How is he immune?"

Even if IT is wrong. The fact that shepard is immune to indoctrination for no apparent reason is a massive flaw in the narrative.

I think that BW tried to set the stage for Shepard's high resistance to indoctrination with scenes like the one where Liara remarks how strong willed you must be, and how the consort talks about your unique strengths as an individual. Aside from that, I think its also an issue of Shepard not having any easily-corruptible morals the way that other people do in the story. 

[HellishFiend]

Bill Casey wrote...

Nope...
Shepard clearly has PTSD and is talking to God and is being controlled by the Illusive Man's new biotic abilities...
All of these elements were thrown into a story where the main character is fighting a vast army of brainwashers...

Exactly, thats why BW are merely bad writers! :happy: