587 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

x

Modifié par dreman9999, 18 mai 2012 - 10:42 .

[ArkkAngel007]

I'll admit, I enjoy the elegance and thought put into IT. Heck, I'd love BioWare to use it. But that is only if they want to and feel like that's the story they want to tell, and that it works on the grounds of inclusion, not exclusion.

Most IT people want there to be a way for everyone to get action in an ITcentric EC. Yes, there are issues with lore, but let's face it: We don't know everything about indoctrination. We've seen exceptions to the rules before.

Maybe a few are going about that the other choices are "wrong" and that it's fine that people get left out of new content for those choices, but most aren't so narrow-minded. While I do like that you're trying to be very open about it and I sympathize with your concern, it seems a bit misdirected.

[-Skorpious-]

If the IT was in the core game, and selecting anything other than destroy resulted in a critical mission failure due to an inability to resist indoctrination, I would have immediately ceased my criticism towards ME3 and praised Bioware for a truly incredible and immersive ending sequence.

[dreman9999]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

I'll admit, I enjoy the elegance and thought put into IT. Heck, I'd love BioWare to use it. But that is only if they want to and feel like that's the story they want to tell, and that it works on the grounds of inclusion, not exclusion.

Most IT people want there to be a way for everyone to get action in an ITcentric EC. Yes, there are issues with lore, but let's face it: We don't know everything about indoctrination. We've seen exceptions to the rules before.

Maybe a few are going about that the other choices are "wrong" and that it's fine that people get left out of new content for those choices, but most aren't so narrow-minded. While I do like that you're trying to be very open about it and I sympathize with your concern, it seems a bit misdirected.

....We never seen exceptions to the rules of indocriantion at all.

[dreman9999]

-Skorpious- wrote...

If the IT was in the core game, and selecting anything other than destroy resulted in a critical mission failure due to an inability to resist indoctrination, I would have immediately ceased my criticism towards ME3 and praised Bioware for a truly incredible and immersive ending sequence.

That goes agenst the entire conceptof trying to trick the player.

[ArkkAngel007]

dreman9999 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

I'll admit, I enjoy the elegance and thought put into IT. Heck, I'd love BioWare to use it. But that is only if they want to and feel like that's the story they want to tell, and that it works on the grounds of inclusion, not exclusion.

Most IT people want there to be a way for everyone to get action in an ITcentric EC. Yes, there are issues with lore, but let's face it: We don't know everything about indoctrination. We've seen exceptions to the rules before.

Maybe a few are going about that the other choices are "wrong" and that it's fine that people get left out of new content for those choices, but most aren't so narrow-minded. While I do like that you're trying to be very open about it and I sympathize with your concern, it seems a bit misdirected.

....We never seen exceptions to the rules of indocriantion at all.

Shiala.  We've also seen variables in indoctrinated behavior and resistance.  Point is, we don't know all the rules.  Something that the lore elitists tend to forget.  I'm not trying to argue that indoctrination won't leave Shepard a blithering zombie, but I'm not arguing for it either.  It's BioWare's story on that front.

[dreman9999]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

I'll admit, I enjoy the elegance and thought put into IT. Heck, I'd love BioWare to use it. But that is only if they want to and feel like that's the story they want to tell, and that it works on the grounds of inclusion, not exclusion.

Most IT people want there to be a way for everyone to get action in an ITcentric EC. Yes, there are issues with lore, but let's face it: We don't know everything about indoctrination. We've seen exceptions to the rules before.

Maybe a few are going about that the other choices are "wrong" and that it's fine that people get left out of new content for those choices, but most aren't so narrow-minded. While I do like that you're trying to be very open about it and I sympathize with your concern, it seems a bit misdirected.

....We never seen exceptions to the rules of indocriantion at all.

Shiala.  We've also seen variables in indoctrinated behavior and resistance.  Point is, we don't know all the rules.  Something that the lore elitists tend to forget.  I'm not trying to argue that indoctrination won't leave Shepard a blithering zombie, but I'm not arguing for it either.  It's BioWare's story on that front.

Shiala is explained. Thorian spores over rode it. And risistence is based on will. We know the rules. It been stated in the lore, game and books. The only thing we don't know is how much exposer it take for it to get started and how soon to takes hold...That is based on the person.

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...
For one, the idea that the other 2 choices are lie did not come form IT. It was though up before the theory. Itr based on a dev comment"How do you know the starkid is telling the truth?"

Added I already argued many time that the 2 other endings a reaper traps even with out IT.

And there was also the comment "I don't think Destroy is the best option" (Mike Gamble on Twitter).

That the other two choices are traps is your interpretation, nothing more. It's no more valid than my interpretation that they're not. Actually, it's less valid, because all choices end the Reaper threat. The game says so. The Catalyst says so. No inconsistency here. Dismissing both is a sign of denial. I think there's no way around accepting as a fact that IT was not intended from the start.

Which means that you're lobbying for a retcon that will ruin others' games. I still can't quite believe you see nothing wrong with ruining others' games. Intentionally and with full knowledge of what you're doing.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 18 mai 2012 - 07:32 .

[Ageless Face]

-Skorpious- wrote...

If the IT was in the core game, and selecting anything other than destroy resulted in a critical mission failure due to an inability to resist indoctrination, I would have immediately ceased my criticism towards ME3 and praised Bioware for a truly incredible and immersive ending sequence.

If you have a low EMS, then you should have a critical mission failure and to never be able to replay the sequence. If i have a high EMS, why should I be punished?

[vixvicco]

I wouldn't even make it that Shepard was indoctrinated if I were to even change the ending. I would just make it a better ending. Choice matters in the game, but that suddenly changes in the last ten minutes, which is the only reason why the IT exists.  Because the choices are the same and they suck. But at the same time, that's why the IT doesn't work because it eliminates even more choice from the player, much more than even the literal ending.

Sounds like I'm going round in circles but I think you get what I mean.

Modifié par vixvicco, 18 mai 2012 - 10:17 .

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
For one, the idea that the other 2 choices are lie did not come form IT. It was though up before the theory. Itr based on a dev comment"How do you know the starkid is telling the truth?"

Added I already argued many time that the 2 other endings a reaper traps even with out IT.

And there was also the comment "I don't think Destroy is the best option" (Mike Gamble on Twitter).

That the other two choices are traps is your interpretation, nothing more. It's no more valid than my interpretation that they're not. Actually, it's less valid, because all choices end the Reaper threat. The game says so. The Catalyst says so. No inconsistency here. Dismissing both is a sign of denial. I think there's no way around accepting as a fact that IT was not intended from the start.

Which means that you're lobbying for a retcon that will ruin others' games. I still can't quite believe you see nothing wrong with ruining others' games. Intentionally and with full knowledge of what you're doing.

1. We don't no the context of that comment...It can also state one is more dramatic then the other like a player fells that allow a characters optional death is more dramatic.

2.Why do you trust the star child some much? Is there a reason why your giving him so much power overyou and you dession?In both options you giving him somemuch control over your fate.

[dreman9999]

vixvicco wrote...

I wouldn't even make it that Shepard was indoctrinated if I were to even change the ending. I would just make it a better ending. Choice matters in the game, but that suddenly changes in the last ten minutes, which is the only reason why the IT exists.  Because the choices are the same and they suck. But at the same time, that's why the IT doesn't work because it eliminates even more choice from the player, much more than even the literal ending.

Sounds like I'm going round in circles but I think you get what I mean.

It does elimitate choice for the player, it tests the players will. You don't even get options if you ems is too low. It's all about manipulating the player. Your choice is based on ems which is base on all your choices in the entire game.

[dreman9999]

HagarIshay wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

I remember thinking something similar to IT from seeing Shep being husk like and feeling like I made a huge mistake. It had nothing to do with how I felt about the quality of the ending. You don't get to tell me how I felt when I finished the game.

So very kindly keep your opinions centered solely about how you feel, not others. Ok, now to lighten it up:

I get the concern, though let's be honest: BioWare isn't going to shaft what is probably the majority of their player base if it were an IT-centric EC DLC.

The impression you gave me is that you're just trying a very veiled way of telling a group to shut up.. I agree with many that it shouldn't be forced on anyone, and that it is a theory, not a fact or absolute (not even close). I also agree that BioWare should stick to their guns and go with whatever they have if it includes something for all different playthroughs.  However, they have every right to discuss what they think/believe, as much as those who come on here calling for Blasto DLC.

I also think applying egoism to the group is very, very much a mistake. I don't see anything egoistic about that circle's behavior. Believing in something being correct, even in holding a debate, is not egoistic.

But seriously, this IT or Not? BS just needs to take a bullet. I know BioWare and mods don't want to shut these things down too much so that people don't start crying about being suppressed or whatever it is people whine about, but all the **** measuring that takes place on a constant basis gets irritating.

I'm sorry if i made false assupmtion of how you got to the IT. I just based this on the comments i saw in the forums.

Saying why you think synthesis and control, and basing your sayings on  facts, that is not wrong. But it's not like that. You are basing your fact only on assupmtions, which none of them  has been proven in the game. And if BioWare will take the idea of IT, then people who have chosen Control and syntheis are playing it wrong, when there is no reason for them to. Why does our choices are wrose than yours? Because you decided it. So yes. I call that egoism.

Let me add a countour poin to this....For one, the idea that the other 2 choices are lie did not come form IT. It was though up before the theory. Itr based on a dev comment"How do you know the starkid is telling the truth?"

Added I already argued many time that the 2 other endings a reaper traps even with out IT.

Also, you have to think of it like this...Do remeber this scene for princess bride?
 

Why did the bad guy lose? It was because he let the hero set the ruls of the game. He did not know about the hero's immunity to the posion the hero usedin the battle of wits. Let the hero set the game wasthe moment the villian lost.
Not think of it the same way as the star kid...He makes the offer, and when selected who selects how the choice is applied?
In synthesis, want is stopping the child from using the crucible and put thing into organic that can be used to control them?
Incontrol, what does"You will die. You can control us but lose everything you have" mean? And who controls what is  lost during the up load?

So really, is there a reason to trust the star child?

[KevShep]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

KevShep wrote...



No we do not support it the I.T. for no reason, there are facts to back it up. Granted that the facts STILL have speculation in them, they still point right at indoctrination. Some where inbetween the facts and speculation some people get confused.

If it's still speculation, then can you really call them facts? If there was solid hard proof, or facts supporting IT, then it would no longer be a theory imo, it would be the IF - Indocrination Fact.

I can call it fact however it is not Offical fact yet that I cant claim.

[KevShep]

Arcian wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I hear you, HagarIshay, I hear you. This attempt to enshrine their preferred choice as canonically right is the main reason why I hate IT so much and call the people who say "Destroy is the only option, those who don't choose it are indoctrinated" fundamentalists with a totalitarian mindset, and will continue to do so.

I don't have such an an issue with IT variants that don't lean towards a "right" choice in any way, though I still think they're nothing more but conspiracy theories with no compelling evidence whatsoever.

 maybe your so cought up in hating the I.T. that you keep yourself from seeing the evidence.

That's what the Illuminati believers keep telling me when I tell them that their theories are bollocks.

Iam not an illuinati so what is your meaning? Are you trying to prove something? The only thing that you have proven is that Iam wasting my time posting to you when your trying to prove that because of your ordeal with the illuinati that Iam wrong too....Weak at best.

[Ageless Face]

vixvicco wrote...

I wouldn't even make it that Shepard was indoctrinated if I were to even change the ending. I would just make it a better ending. Choice matters in the game, but that suddenly changes in the last ten minutes, which is the only reason why the IT exists.  Because the choices are the same and they suck. But at the same time, that's why the IT doesn't work because it eliminates even more choice from the player, much more than even the literal ending.

Sounds like I'm going round in circles but I think you get what I mean.

And your points are EXACTLY why i don't like the IT. BioWare wanted to give us many choices. Though they did not actally succeed, It's still what they wanted to give us. Not cutting out MORE choices. If people want to believe it, thats fine. They just need to remember not everyone chose destroy, and not everyone want the same ending. 

[kookie28]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
For one, the idea that the other 2 choices are lie did not come form IT. It was though up before the theory. Itr based on a dev comment"How do you know the starkid is telling the truth?"

Added I already argued many time that the 2 other endings a reaper traps even with out IT.

And there was also the comment "I don't think Destroy is the best option" (Mike Gamble on Twitter).

That the other two choices are traps is your interpretation, nothing more. It's no more valid than my interpretation that they're not. Actually, it's less valid, because all choices end the Reaper threat. The game says so. The Catalyst says so. No inconsistency here. Dismissing both is a sign of denial. I think there's no way around accepting as a fact that IT was not intended from the start.

Which means that you're lobbying for a retcon that will ruin others' games. I still can't quite believe you see nothing wrong with ruining others' games. Intentionally and with full knowledge of what you're doing.

1. We don't no the context of that comment...It can also state one is more dramatic then the other like a player fells that allow a characters optional death is more dramatic.

2.Why do you trust the star child some much? Is there a reason why your giving him so much power overyou and you dession?In both options you giving him somemuch control over your fate.

How do you know shooting that pipe destroys the Reapers?  How do you know that's not just an explosive filled pipe that the Catalyst prepared moments before you arrived?  He could've been tricking you into blowing yourself up.

[Ice-Whiz]

I don't believe that Pro-ITs are egotists, each person has his or her own reason for making their choice and their beliefs about why the other two options are "wrong" for them, Pro-IT are just discussing one aspect of it and why they believe so.
As far as I'm concerned: Some Pro-ITs argue that everything that could just be a flaw is evidence for IT, just as some Anti-ITs argue that anything that could be seen as a clue to IT is just a flaw.
It's a theory, the most extensive out there so far, you can believe it or not, but putting others down for their belief on the matter is sad.

[KevShep]

HagarIshay wrote...

vixvicco wrote...

I wouldn't even make it that Shepard was indoctrinated if I were to even change the ending. I would just make it a better ending. Choice matters in the game, but that suddenly changes in the last ten minutes, which is the only reason why the IT exists.  Because the choices are the same and they suck. But at the same time, that's why the IT doesn't work because it eliminates even more choice from the player, much more than even the literal ending.

Sounds like I'm going round in circles but I think you get what I mean.

And your points are EXACTLY why i don't like the IT. BioWare wanted to give us many choices. Though they did not actally succeed, It's still what they wanted to give us. Not cutting out MORE choices. If people want to believe it, thats fine. They just need to remember not everyone chose destroy, and not everyone want the same ending. 

the fact that it eliminates choice at the end and why the endings are the same is more suggesting that the I.T. is true.

Assuming that the endings were different and that they all were really awsome... Why would the devs put so much into the current endings if it wasthe I.T.? But...we see the same kind of endings no matter what, this tells me that the devs copy and paste because its just a dream. The point is that they did NOT spend time on the ending, so this seems to suggest that it is a dream.

Modifié par KevShep, 18 mai 2012 - 11:42 .

[Ageless Face]

KevShep wrote...


the fact that it eliminates choice at the end and why the endings are the same is more suggesting that the I.T. is true.

Assuming that the endings were different and that they all were really awsome... Why would the devs put so much into the current endings if it wasthe I.T.? But...we see the same kind of endings no matter what, this tells me that the devs copy and paste because its just a dream. The point is that they did NOT spend time on the ending, so this seems to suggest that it is a dream.

You are missing the point. I don't want to debate whether the IT is true. I want that my choice will be equal to any other choice if i did everything right throughout the game. There is no reason for only one choice to be right when you are giving three options, which none of them is by the look of it is better than the other.
We should be giving Choices in a game like ME. Not one road that lead to the destination, and the others are falling from a cliff on rocks. 

[vixvicco]

HagarIshay wrote...

KevShep wrote...


the fact that it eliminates choice at the end and why the endings are the same is more suggesting that the I.T. is true.

Assuming that the endings were different and that they all were really awsome... Why would the devs put so much into the current endings if it wasthe I.T.? But...we see the same kind of endings no matter what, this tells me that the devs copy and paste because its just a dream. The point is that they did NOT spend time on the ending, so this seems to suggest that it is a dream.

You are missing the point. I don't want to debate whether the IT is true. I want that my choice will be equal to any other choice if i did everything right throughout the game. There is no reason for only one choice to be right when you are giving three options, which none of them is by the look of it is better than the other.
We should be giving Choices in a game like ME. Not one road that lead to the destination, and the others are falling from a cliff on rocks. 

I agree with this. Its like that thread someone posted "so how many of you failed the test by not choosing destroy?". It shouldn't be like that, and that's an opinon, not necessarily a fact. It saying that some people are superior to others for not choosing the supposedly ideal choice.

[kumquats]

So when Shepard only has control as an option you a. failed the game and b. the Starchild is pissed at Shepard, because the Reapers can only win?
Yes, that sounds legit to me.

[jijeebo]

kumquats wrote...

So when Shepard only has control as an option you a. failed the game and b. the Starchild is pissed at Shepard, because the Reapers can only win?
Yes, that sounds legit to me.

[estebanus]

How about taking a look at the script made by Arian Dynas? He writes pretty well how you still can save the galaxy even if you chose synthesis or control!

Link: http://social.biowar.../index/12095313

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
For one, the idea that the other 2 choices are lie did not come form IT. It was though up before the theory. Itr based on a dev comment"How do you know the starkid is telling the truth?"

Added I already argued many time that the 2 other endings a reaper traps even with out IT.

And there was also the comment "I don't think Destroy is the best option" (Mike Gamble on Twitter).

That the other two choices are traps is your interpretation, nothing more. It's no more valid than my interpretation that they're not. Actually, it's less valid, because all choices end the Reaper threat. The game says so. The Catalyst says so. No inconsistency here. Dismissing both is a sign of denial. I think there's no way around accepting as a fact that IT was not intended from the start.

Which means that you're lobbying for a retcon that will ruin others' games. I still can't quite believe you see nothing wrong with ruining others' games. Intentionally and with full knowledge of what you're doing.

1. We don't no the context of that comment...It can also state one is more dramatic then the other like a player fells that allow a characters optional death is more dramatic.

2.Why do you trust the star child some much? Is there a reason why your giving him so much power overyou and you dession?In both options you giving him somemuch control over your fate.

How do you know shooting that pipe destroys the Reapers?  How do you know that's not just an explosive filled pipe that the Catalyst prepared moments before you arrived?  He could've been tricking you into blowing yourself up.

Exactly, you can't trust anything you see after Shepardis cut down...That's my point.