587 réponses à ce sujet

[Unschuld]

HagarIshay wrote...

  Do you remember, pro-IT, why you thought about the indoctrnation theory in the first place? you were angry/sad/confused/lost becacuse of the ending. Don't get me wrong, I think the IT is quite brilliant. The problem is, If BioWare is going to make the IT, or take ideas from it to the EC, it's going to leave fans who didn't choose the destroy option at the same place you were, even worse if they don't like the ending as it is now.

It's not just the IT, but it did start mostly from there. Fans who wanted a happy ending, to have Shepard alive and make everyone live happily ever after. that's OK. But because you wanted you choice to be the right one, you practically screwed the people who chose a different option. By saying Shepard is indoctrinated, or the Catalyst was lying, you said that we played it wrong. And i don't want this statement to be true.

What about the fans who wanted to control an army of machines? What about the fans who wanted to create a new DNA? Hell, some want Shepard to have a noble and sad death! Why for you to have a happy ending of your own, others can't get their sort of happy ending? The point of the final choice is for the player to decide what will happen. There is no right choice exept what you believe is right. Mass Effect is a game of Moral choices. Not tactics.

Resentment to the choices of control or synthesis because of a moral question, that I will understand. But most of the time it doesn't seem this way. You simply dissmissing the choices to make your points the correct ones. And that is wrong.

If BioWare planned the IT from the start, then I guess I can't do anything about it. But let's be real: If BioWare will do the EC based on the IT, it wil be because the fans asked for it.
What concren me the most, is because so many fans wants the destroy ending to be the right choice, BioWare will answer they're demands and will make the destroy option as the "good choice", while leaving the other fans aside. You may think I am overreacting, but I don't believe I am. Mass Effect 3, as good game as it is, is a game for what the majority of people in the BSN forums thought was best to place in. Casey Hudson admitted it, if I remember corrently. And many times in the game it was proven to be true.

I'm asking from the Pro-IT, who have much power in these forums, to be more considerate of other fans, not just the majority and yourself. Because the EC is the chance for BioWare to prove themselves for many, many fans. I'm going to play the EC when it comes out, because i'm also not happy with certain things in the ending. Maybe I stand alone in this opinion, but the EC becoming a Pro-destroy, an option i really don't want my game to end in, will make the end a dissapointment for me much more than it is now.

It's probably already been said, but "you can't always get what you want". There are choices, and there are consequences. The following are examples, not necessarily my actual opinions:



-In ME2, I could kill the entire cast in the suicide mission because I hated all of them, but the result was Shepard dying-----> Can't import my ME1+ME2 game. Wrong choice.



-In ME2, I was railroaded to work with Cerberus, an unethical organization that I wouldn't be caught dead helping. I could at least choose to tell them to f*ck off at the end.



-In ME2, I finally got to work with Cerberus, and helped them the entire time. In ME3 I was railroaded into working against them, regardless if I saved the base.



-In ME2, I really wanted to romance Morinth, but was given a "Game Over" screen instead. Wrong choice.



-In ME1, Wrex died. This completely changes the dynamic on whether to cure or sabotage in ME3. 



-In ME1, I thought it was better for Jenna to stay undercover. The result was Conrad Verner dying in ME3, which I didn't want to happen. 



-In ME2, Miranda said she (or any biotic) could make a  bubble to protect us from the swarms. The result was Garrus getting carried away by bees.



-In ME3, Miranda didn't want to tell me the truth about what she was up to (again), so I didn't trust her and denied her access to classified Alliance data. The result was that she died.



-In ME2, I rewrote the heretics because it seemed nicer than killing them and would lead to better cohesion between them and organics. The result was more Geth got rewritten by the Reapers in ME3 and more Quarians were killed.



-In ME2, I had a strong sense of justice and the families of Quarians who died under Rael's experiments needed to know of his treachery. Now Tali hates me and won't be loyal. This causes her to die in the SM.



-In ME3, I decided I liked the Geth and the Quarians were just big dumb meanies even though Tali herself was a decent person. So I sided with the Geth and Tali jumped off a cliff. Not what I wanted.



The point of this is, there are choices with consequences in this game. Despite the fact that we get to have some degree over the control of this story, there are still "right" and "wrong" choices, and choices that lead to negative outcomes or Game Overs. Some of these choices we like, while we think they're right at the time, have collateral damage down the path that we couldn't foresee. It is what it is. If IT were true and Control/Synth became "wrong" choices, then that's how it is, and that's how it will effect the ending. It would be just another choice, with possible unintended consequences.

I understand your concern with being presented with a situation that doesn't go according to plan, but, well... sometimes it happens. I wouldn't say Pro-ITer's have "a lot of power" on these forums, given the fact that they're often derided as crazy tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists who see things that aren't there. I think the real problem are those on both sides of the arguement who flatly state that IT is either True or False, and vehemently argue that the other side is wrong/stupid. Honestly, none of us know for sure what happens next, IT turning out to be true or something different entirely.

So, if it does turn out to be true, what's the solution for those that like the idea of Control or Synthesis? Very simple. If you like the ending as-is, don't download the DLC. Control/Synthesis remains your canon. It's not going to empty your wallet either way.

Modifié par Unschuld, 17 mai 2012 - 08:50 .

[kookie28]

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 17 mai 2012 - 08:49 .

[dreman9999]

Chris Priestly wrote...

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

If you want to argue the point of indoctrinatio, watch the documataryfirst...It already made the comment on the trees and bushed ageint it as proof, also , look at this...
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

Modifié par dreman9999, 17 mai 2012 - 08:52 .

[Ieldra]

BatmanTurian wrote...
Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

Actually, Occams Razor was first applied in theology and philosophy.... it can be applied to any hypothesis that its supporters try to support by adding entities without necessity. In this case, the well-known problem with the development process - unreasonable deadlines, writers disconnected from the fans' perceptions and the normal inconsistencies resulting from re-using resources and the necessity to pay less attention to less important details because of time and resource constraints, all those things you always have and which nobody would even notice had the ending not been so emotionally dissatisfying are explanation enough for the state of the game. We don't need another explanation that requires an additional intention by Bioware. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2012 - 08:53 .

[BatmanTurian]

Chris Priestly wrote...

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

Kookie....when I quote you... the script comes up as Chris Priestly in my add reply box.................... wierd.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

Actually, Occams Razor was first applied in theology and philosophy.... it can be applied to any hypothesis that its supporters try to support by adding entities without necessity. In this case, the well-known problem with the development process - unreasonable deadlines, writers disconnected from the fans' perceptions and the normal inconsistencies resulting from re-using resources and the necessity to pay less attention to less important details because of time and resource constraints, all those things you always have and which nobody would even notice had the ending not been so emotionally dissatisfying are explanation enough for the state of the game. We don't need another explanation that requires an additional intention by Bioware. 

http://www.quora.com...ams-Razor-wrong

[Seboist]

Crap writers + crap story = crap ending.

It's simple.

[kookie28]

dreman9999 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

If you want to argue the point of indoctrinatio, watch the documataryfirst...It already made the comment on the trees and bushed ageint it as proof, also , look at this...
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

My trees and brush post was just an example.  You can apply that to any part of the Indoctrination Theory. 

Which is exactly why it's weak.

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

If you want to argue the point of indoctrinatio, watch the documataryfirst...It already made the comment on the trees and bushed ageint it as proof, also , look at this...
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

My trees and brush post was just an example.  You can apply that to any part of the Indoctrination Theory. 

Which is exactly why it's weak.

Like the 3 years of Shepard has been on and of contact with reaper tech and the events of arrival, where he is hit by several indoctriantion waves and sees visions and here's vocies in his head and is nknockedout for 2 days near it.
Or maybe the fact TIM control Shepard at the end of the game and at that maoment every symtom of indoctriantion happens.

Modifié par dreman9999, 17 mai 2012 - 08:58 .

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

Actually, Occams Razor was first applied in theology and philosophy.... it can be applied to any hypothesis that its supporters try to support by adding entities without necessity. In this case, the well-known problem with the development process - unreasonable deadlines, writers disconnected from the fans' perceptions and the normal inconsistencies resulting from re-using resources and the necessity to pay less attention to less important details because of time and resource constraints, all those things you always have and which nobody would even notice had the ending not been so emotionally dissatisfying are explanation enough for the state of the game. We don't need another explanation that requires an additional intention by Bioware. 

If you knew anything about literary analysis you would not apply Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is " all things being equal. " But in this case all things are not equal. You see and know what the author wants you to know. The author is god and controls everything.

You can't compare this to figuring out whether there is a God or not because in the case of a story, the Creator is already actively involved and only supplying the details the reader needs to know (or even what the author wants the reader to know if a twist is being used) , plus other extraneous things to make the story entertaining.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 mai 2012 - 09:03 .

[kookie28]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

Actually, Occams Razor was first applied in theology and philosophy.... it can be applied to any hypothesis that its supporters try to support by adding entities without necessity. In this case, the well-known problem with the development process - unreasonable deadlines, writers disconnected from the fans' perceptions and the normal inconsistencies resulting from re-using resources and the necessity to pay less attention to less important details because of time and resource constraints, all those things you always have and which nobody would even notice had the ending not been so emotionally dissatisfying are explanation enough for the state of the game. We don't need another explanation that requires an additional intention by Bioware. 

http://www.quora.com...ams-Razor-wrong

Did you actually read that article you just googled?

[Unschuld]

BatmanTurian wrote...
Kookie....when I quote you... the script comes up as Chris Priestly in my add reply box.................... wierd.

 

Me too! 

[kookie28]

dreman9999 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

If you want to argue the point of indoctrinatio, watch the documataryfirst...It already made the comment on the trees and bushed ageint it as proof, also , look at this...
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

My trees and brush post was just an example.  You can apply that to any part of the Indoctrination Theory. 

Which is exactly why it's weak.

Like the 3 years of Shepard has been on and of contact with reaper tech and the events of arrival, where he is hit by several indoctriantion waves and sees visions and here's vocies in his head and is nknockedout for 2 days near it.
Or maybe the fact TIM control Shepard at the end of the game and at that maoment every symtom of indoctriantion happens.

Once again, you are assuming that Shepard is being affected by indoctrination and that the process is taking place. 

[kleindropper]

Shepard can still fight off indoctrination for brief periods like Benezia, Saren, and TIM did to effect change under control and synthesis endings if they want to take it that far with IT. That would be a cool scene, actually, to start fighting your squadmates and then break out of indoctrination briefly to do something heroic. Eh, I'm not getting my hopes up.

[balance5050]

IT is just fun because I get to pretned I'm Shepard tryig to convince the coucil of something that exists but no one believes, it's meta....

[balance5050]

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

If you want to argue the point of indoctrinatio, watch the documataryfirst...It already made the comment on the trees and bushed ageint it as proof, also , look at this...
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

My trees and brush post was just an example.  You can apply that to any part of the Indoctrination Theory. 

Which is exactly why it's weak.

Like the 3 years of Shepard has been on and of contact with reaper tech and the events of arrival, where he is hit by several indoctriantion waves and sees visions and here's vocies in his head and is nknockedout for 2 days near it.
Or maybe the fact TIM control Shepard at the end of the game and at that maoment every symtom of indoctriantion happens.

Once again, you are assuming that Shepard is being affected by indoctrination and that the process is taking place. 

And you are assuming he's not.

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

Actually, Occams Razor was first applied in theology and philosophy.... it can be applied to any hypothesis that its supporters try to support by adding entities without necessity. In this case, the well-known problem with the development process - unreasonable deadlines, writers disconnected from the fans' perceptions and the normal inconsistencies resulting from re-using resources and the necessity to pay less attention to less important details because of time and resource constraints, all those things you always have and which nobody would even notice had the ending not been so emotionally dissatisfying are explanation enough for the state of the game. We don't need another explanation that requires an additional intention by Bioware. 

http://www.quora.com...ams-Razor-wrong

Did you actually read that article you just googled?

Yes, it point out that  occams razor only bad it the no proof to the persons assumptions. The fact that Shepard is controled by TIm in the end of the game and has every symtom of indoctrination happen proves that IT is not a bad use of  occams razor.

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

If you want to argue the point of indoctrinatio, watch the documataryfirst...It already made the comment on the trees and bushed ageint it as proof, also , look at this...
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

My trees and brush post was just an example.  You can apply that to any part of the Indoctrination Theory. 

Which is exactly why it's weak.

Like the 3 years of Shepard has been on and of contact with reaper tech and the events of arrival, where he is hit by several indoctriantion waves and sees visions and here's vocies in his head and is nknockedout for 2 days near it.
Or maybe the fact TIM control Shepard at the end of the game and at that maoment every symtom of indoctriantion happens.

Once again, you are assuming that Shepard is being affected by indoctrination and that the process is taking place. 

It would be bad use occams razo rto say he is not. TIM has implants ment to control forms of indoctination and he is now controling Shepard and Anderson. Shepardhas been near reaper tech on and off for 3 years, Anderson has been fighting and commanding ageinst reapersfor the entirity of ME3.Reaper and reaper tech can indoctrinatate given time and amount of contact. 
  Occams razor can here, say anything else is a bad use of   occams razor based on this article....
http://www.quora.com...ams-Razor-wrong

Modifié par dreman9999, 17 mai 2012 - 09:07 .

[Ieldra]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

Actually, Occams Razor was first applied in theology and philosophy.... it can be applied to any hypothesis that its supporters try to support by adding entities without necessity. In this case, the well-known problem with the development process - unreasonable deadlines, writers disconnected from the fans' perceptions and the normal inconsistencies resulting from re-using resources and the necessity to pay less attention to less important details because of time and resource constraints, all those things you always have and which nobody would even notice had the ending not been so emotionally dissatisfying are explanation enough for the state of the game. We don't need another explanation that requires an additional intention by Bioware. 

If you knew anything about literary analysis you would not apply Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is " all things being equal. " But in this case all things are not equal. You see and know what the author wants you to know. The author is god and controls everything.

You can't compare this to figuring out whether there is a God or not because in the case of a story, the Creator is already actively involved and only supplying the details the reader needs to know (or even what the author wants the reader to know if a twist is being used) , plus other extraneous things to make the story entertaining.

You don't understand. This isn't literary analysis. I am applying Occam's Razor to the creation process. And I find that the deliberate intent to deceive is something I don't need to explain the state of ME3's ending. That doesn't say anything about IT being true or not, but it says something about the supposed evidence for IT - which it reveals to be no evidence at all.

But actually, that's not the point of this thread. Bioware could choose to retcon IT into the ending if they wanted, regardless of any previous intention. And that people are lobbying for that I find objectionable because it would ruin my game. I don't care that much if the EC will deny IT or not, though of course I would prefer that it's denied. What I care about most is that the EC will not confirm it.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2012 - 09:13 .

[kookie28]

balance5050 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

If you want to argue the point of indoctrinatio, watch the documataryfirst...It already made the comment on the trees and bushed ageint it as proof, also , look at this...
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

My trees and brush post was just an example.  You can apply that to any part of the Indoctrination Theory. 

Which is exactly why it's weak.

Like the 3 years of Shepard has been on and of contact with reaper tech and the events of arrival, where he is hit by several indoctriantion waves and sees visions and here's vocies in his head and is nknockedout for 2 days near it.
Or maybe the fact TIM control Shepard at the end of the game and at that maoment every symtom of indoctriantion happens.

Once again, you are assuming that Shepard is being affected by indoctrination and that the process is taking place. 

And you are assuming he's not.

My assumption doesn't lead to more assumptions and speculations.

I can reasonably guess that Shepard was not indoctrinated from those encounters.    Your assumptions lead to more assumptions about even more assumptions.

Modifié par kookie28, 17 mai 2012 - 09:12 .

[kookie28]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

Actually, Occams Razor was first applied in theology and philosophy.... it can be applied to any hypothesis that its supporters try to support by adding entities without necessity. In this case, the well-known problem with the development process - unreasonable deadlines, writers disconnected from the fans' perceptions and the normal inconsistencies resulting from re-using resources and the necessity to pay less attention to less important details because of time and resource constraints, all those things you always have and which nobody would even notice had the ending not been so emotionally dissatisfying are explanation enough for the state of the game. We don't need another explanation that requires an additional intention by Bioware. 

If you knew anything about literary analysis you would not apply Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is " all things being equal. " But in this case all things are not equal. You see and know what the author wants you to know. The author is god and controls everything.

You can't compare this to figuring out whether there is a God or not because in the case of a story, the Creator is already actively involved and only supplying the details the reader needs to know (or even what the author wants the reader to know if a twist is being used) , plus other extraneous things to make the story entertaining.

You don't understand. This isn't literary analysis. I am applying Occam's Razor to the creation process. And I find that the deliberate intent to deceive is something I don't need to explain the state of ME3's ending. That doesn't say anything about IT being true or not, but it says something about the supposed evidence for IT - which it reveals to be no evidence at all.

But actually, that's not the point of this thread. Bioware could choose to retcon IT into the ending if they wanted, regardless of any previous intention. And that people are lobbying for that I find objectionable because it would ruin my game. I don't care that much if the EC will deny IT or not, though of course I would prefer that it's denied. What I care about most is that the EC will not confirm it.

Quoting for emphasis.

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

Actually, Occams Razor was first applied in theology and philosophy.... it can be applied to any hypothesis that its supporters try to support by adding entities without necessity. In this case, the well-known problem with the development process - unreasonable deadlines, writers disconnected from the fans' perceptions and the normal inconsistencies resulting from re-using resources and the necessity to pay less attention to less important details because of time and resource constraints, all those things you always have and which nobody would even notice had the ending not been so emotionally dissatisfying are explanation enough for the state of the game. We don't need another explanation that requires an additional intention by Bioware. 

If you knew anything about literary analysis you would not apply Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is " all things being equal. " But in this case all things are not equal. You see and know what the author wants you to know. The author is god and controls everything.

You can't compare this to figuring out whether there is a God or not because in the case of a story, the Creator is already actively involved and only supplying the details the reader needs to know (or even what the author wants the reader to know if a twist is being used) , plus other extraneous things to make the story entertaining.

You don't understand. This isn't literary analysis. I am applying Occam's Razor to the creation process. And I find that the deliberate intent to deceive is something I don't need to explain the state of ME3's ending. That doesn't say anything about IT being true or not, but it says something about the supposed evidence for IT - which it reveals to be no evidence at all.

But actually, that's not the point of this thread. Bioware could choose to retcon IT into the ending if they wanted, regardless of any previous intention. And that people are lobbying for that I find objectionable because it would ruin my game. I don't care that much if the EC will deny IT or not, though of course I would prefer that it's denied. What I care about most is that the EC will not confirm it.

Fine. I'm just saying applying it to Literature, which is the end result of the "creation process", is fallacious.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 mai 2012 - 09:18 .

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

And at every turn, every shred of "evidence" for IT you have to assume that's what Bioware intended.  You have to assume that Bioware is infallible and couldn't possibly make a mistake.

The trees and brush in the charge to the beam are the same as in the dreams!  Bioware couldn't possibly just be recycling these to save time and resources!  It must mean something other than what's given!  Shepard is having a dream!  Probably because he is indoctrinated!

And to come to that conclusion, you have to already believe that Shepard is indoctrinated.  Anyone that doesn't believe it sees all the "evidence" individually can simply chalk these things up to rational reasons.  Like lazyness.

If you want to argue the point of indoctrinatio, watch the documataryfirst...It already made the comment on the trees and bushed ageint it as proof, also , look at this...
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

My trees and brush post was just an example.  You can apply that to any part of the Indoctrination Theory. 

Which is exactly why it's weak.

Like the 3 years of Shepard has been on and of contact with reaper tech and the events of arrival, where he is hit by several indoctriantion waves and sees visions and here's vocies in his head and is nknockedout for 2 days near it.
Or maybe the fact TIM control Shepard at the end of the game and at that maoment every symtom of indoctriantion happens.

Once again, you are assuming that Shepard is being affected by indoctrination and that the process is taking place. 

And you are assuming he's not.

My assumption doesn't lead to more assumptions and speculations.

I can reasonably guess that Shepard was not indoctrinated from those encounters.    Your assumptions lead to more assumptions about even more assumptions.

If we are using 
Occam's Razor, then it means you assumtion that TIM is usingsomethingother then indoctrination is base less. We already have proof that it's implanted and proof the it only controls diffrent froms of indoctrination. And we know Andrerson has been in contact with reaper for the entirity of ME3. And has been in contact with reaperson and offfor 3years....It would be simpler basedon 
Occam's Razor to say TIM is using indoctrination being nothing is shown to be anything else.

Modifié par dreman9999, 17 mai 2012 - 09:19 .

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

Actually, Occams Razor was first applied in theology and philosophy.... it can be applied to any hypothesis that its supporters try to support by adding entities without necessity. In this case, the well-known problem with the development process - unreasonable deadlines, writers disconnected from the fans' perceptions and the normal inconsistencies resulting from re-using resources and the necessity to pay less attention to less important details because of time and resource constraints, all those things you always have and which nobody would even notice had the ending not been so emotionally dissatisfying are explanation enough for the state of the game. We don't need another explanation that requires an additional intention by Bioware. 

If you knew anything about literary analysis you would not apply Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor is " all things being equal. " But in this case all things are not equal. You see and know what the author wants you to know. The author is god and controls everything.

You can't compare this to figuring out whether there is a God or not because in the case of a story, the Creator is already actively involved and only supplying the details the reader needs to know (or even what the author wants the reader to know if a twist is being used) , plus other extraneous things to make the story entertaining.

You don't understand. This isn't literary analysis. I am applying Occam's Razor to the creation process. And I find that the deliberate intent to deceive is something I don't need to explain the state of ME3's ending. That doesn't say anything about IT being true or not, but it says something about the supposed evidence for IT - which it reveals to be no evidence at all.

But actually, that's not the point of this thread. Bioware could choose to retcon IT into the ending if they wanted, regardless of any previous intention. And that people are lobbying for that I find objectionable because it would ruin my game. I don't care that much if the EC will deny IT or not, though of course I would prefer that it's denied. What I care about most is that the EC will not confirm it.

If we are using 
Occam's Razor, then it means you assumtion that TIM is using somethingother then indoctrination is base less. We already have proof that it's implanted and proof the it only controls diffrent froms of indoctrination. And we know Andrerson has been in contact with reaper for the entirity of ME3. And has been in contact with reaperson and offfor 3years....It would be simpler basedon 
Occam's Razor to say TIM is using indoctrination being nothing is shown to be anything else. Tim controlShepard is proof enough Shepard is in the process indoctrinated.

[balance5050]

Occam's Razor = "Bioware is lazy LALALALALalalalala"