587 réponses à ce sujet

[Hihoshi101]

jtav wrote...

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

And if a convicted rapist decides he want to open a clinic to help people who have been sexually assaulted you would support the idea? the primis is the same with reapers why would they offer an alternate plan if they didn't gain in some sadistic way?

Also why do people blindly believe anything a character in a game tells them unless it is made ungodly clear that they shouldn't be trusted? In the second the starbrat says "I know you have thought about destroying 'us'" your trust should flown out the nearest airlock.

Modifié par Hihoshi101, 17 mai 2012 - 06:02 .

[jtav]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

Please....Perspective is a devil on itself. Seeing something after dealing with a race that specialty is warping perspectives is not the best thing to go by.

But all ending cutscenes are presented from a neutral standpoint.

Exactly. Shepard is dead in Control and Synthesis. Those cutscenes are for players.

[dreman9999]

jtav wrote...

It's forced on people. And? We force people to be vaccinated as infants. Parents "force" their children to be born in a particular time in place (including crushing poverty). We force them to wear seatbelts or evacuate their homes in the wake of natural disasters. Evolution forces me to have opposable thumbs. So, it's always a matter of what is being forced.

That is not the same thing. We do that so that can have a better chance of seviving. Synthesis do not do that at all. We all can live with out synthesis with ease. Living with out vaccination leads to legs being different hight. and early death.

[Ieldra]

TSA_383 wrote...
Because Bioware has never used the game mechanic of tricking players and then
not revealing that they've been tricked if they do fall for it...

Except in Baldur's gate.... and Neverwinter nights... and apparently also DA:O but I'm not familiar with that.

Eh...what?

Baldur's Gate? DA:O? What are you talking about? I know those games rather well, so please enlighten me? I am unaware that there was ever a choice like that. If you're speaking of Morrigan and the Dark Ritual, the consequences of that were always obviously double-edged. You knew quite well that there was a risk and that it could backfire in an epic way. But just as in the ME3 endings, there is no indication that it actually *will* end badly. Should future games not reveal the consequence of that choice, it remains in the players' imagination. In ME3's case, there will be no future game, so the consequences of Synthesis will remain in the players' imagination.

[pseudonymic]

HagarIshay wrote...

pseudonymic wrote...

as someone pro-IT, i don't think defending the theory is like saying that the best ending is exclusively destroy or that it's what everyone else should do. under given circumstances, however, it seems to be the only choice bioware gave us if you wanted a "happier turnout", so to speak. IT, to my understanding, is mainly a way to explain the illogical and nonsensical culmination of the game. what you choose from there should receive just as much attention as the "destroy" option, should bioware ever consider rectifying any of the content. it isn't set in stone that the EC will be pro-destroy; fans just wanted something plausible to go off of. ultimately, though... it isn't an IT movement decision to allegedly leave only destroy as a non-indoctrinated result. that's bioware, and that's what they've seemingly mapped out from the get go. so i wouldn't call the fans egotistical, so much as trapped into the same non-expansive realm of possibilities that you may feel you are, for what you'd rather see panning out.

I don't believe IT started as a pro-destroy. People did only wanted a better answer. But now look: There is no thread in the "story and capaign disscussion" forum that doesn't have an explanation of how destroy is better than the other options at least once, and a Pro-synthesis or pro-destroy defending their options. It became really ridiculous. 

all consensus came from speculation, though. in the end, what we all are getting is the same product from the same company. while "destroy" might not be your personal favorite ending and others' as well, we weren't the ones who designed the game and decided that the apparent non-IT option is such. 

now, instead of being bothered by people formulating their own theories over what they find more fitting regardless of their preference, why not create your own theory based on the ending you like the best instead? my point is, while you're pointing fingers at people who are discussing IT and presuming them pro-destroy (which is not the case, i'm pro-control and find IT an incredible interpretation of what bioware hasn't given us), you aren't theorizing why pro-synthesis or pro-control are better options. that sounds a little less than proactive, imo. if you find it ridiculous, then hypothesize about what isn't being talked about instead of trash talking it and make it so that there are postings discussing issues you'd like to see discussed.

Modifié par pseudonymic, 17 mai 2012 - 06:02 .

[dreman9999]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

Please....Perspective is a devil on itself. Seeing something after dealing with a race that specialty is warping perspectives is not the best thing to go by.

But all ending cutscenes are presented from a neutral standpoint.

Are taking about Jokers final fight? The one the is sapposed to be a song of hope?

That and the battle in London when the energy wave hits the Reapers and soldiers.

Again, song of hope. That just means  hope. That's not neutral, that's to impose a feeling of hope. It's to add to the confusion of speculation.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

jtav wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

Please....Perspective is a devil on itself. Seeing something after dealing with a race that specialty is warping perspectives is not the best thing to go by.

But all ending cutscenes are presented from a neutral standpoint.

Exactly. Shepard is dead in Control and Synthesis. Those cutscenes are for players.

Also. AFAIK, isn't the colour of every cutscene that is some sort of vision far more dominated by red? The scenes have an reddish tint to them almost.

The colours in the ending cutscenes are normal.

dreman9999 wrote...

Again, song of hope. That just means
 hope. That's not neutral, that's to impose a feeling of hope. It's to
add to the confusion of speculation.

Why would Shepard dream of the Big Ben getting destroyed? If it was a "song of hope" then why wouldn't it always show the best version of the cutscenes (Big Ben not smashed, soldiers cheer).

Modifié par Lizardviking, 17 mai 2012 - 06:04 .

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

It's forced on people. And? We force people to be vaccinated as infants. Parents "force" their children to be born in a particular time in place (including crushing poverty). We force them to wear seatbelts or evacuate their homes in the wake of natural disasters. Evolution forces me to have opposable thumbs. So, it's always a matter of what is being forced.

That is not the same thing. We do that so that can have a better chance of seviving. Synthesis do not do that at all. We all can live with out synthesis with ease. Living with out vaccination leads to legs being different hight. and early death.

The denial of something good is an evil. We can easily live without vaccination as well. Most of us in the western world, anyway. If the results of Synthesis are good - and there is every indication they are - we must weigh the evil of not implementing them against the evil of forcing them on everyone. I accept that it may be unjustifiable in some people's opinion, but it's not unjustifiable in any objective sense from a consequentialist viewpoint.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
Because Bioware has never used the game mechanic of tricking players and then
not revealing that they've been tricked if they do fall for it...

Except in Baldur's gate.... and Neverwinter nights... and apparently also DA:O but I'm not familiar with that.

Eh...what?

Baldur's Gate? DA:O? What are you talking about? I know those games rather well, so please enlighten me? I am unaware that there was ever a choice like that. If you're speaking of Morrigan and the Dark Ritual, the consequences of that were always obviously double-edged. You knew quite well that there was a risk and that it could backfire in an epic way. But just as in the ME3 endings, there is no indication that it actually *will* end badly. Should future games not reveal the consequence of that choice, it remains in the players' imagination. In ME3's case, there will be no future game, so the consequences of Synthesis will remain in the players' imagination.

BG...throught the letters you get, your tricked by the bad guy  to attack his adopted father who is trying to control the city of bulders gate so he can take over his adopted fathers plans and start a war.
DA: O..Morrigan. And we still don't know the  results.

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...
Again, song of hope. That just means  hope. That's not neutral, that's to impose a feeling of hope. It's to add to the confusion of speculation.

Ah, I get your reasoning.

Everything that would support my viewpoint is deliberate deception, while everything that supports your viewpoint is to be taken at face value.

Yep, I smell conspiracy theory. I suggest you don your tinfoil hat to protect yourself against the dangers of indoctrination. After all, Bioware is out to mind-control you into thinking like the Reapers.
/sarcasm 

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

It's forced on people. And? We force people to be vaccinated as infants. Parents "force" their children to be born in a particular time in place (including crushing poverty). We force them to wear seatbelts or evacuate their homes in the wake of natural disasters. Evolution forces me to have opposable thumbs. So, it's always a matter of what is being forced.

That is not the same thing. We do that so that can have a better chance of seviving. Synthesis do not do that at all. We all can live with out synthesis with ease. Living with out vaccination leads to legs being different hight. and early death.

The denial of something good is an evil. We can easily live without vaccination as well. Most of us in the western world, anyway. If the results of Synthesis are good - and there is every indication they are - we must weigh the evil of not implementing them against the evil of forcing them on everyone. I accept that it may be unjustifiable in some people's opinion, but it's not unjustifiable in any objective sense from a consequentialist viewpoint.

No we can't. Not with out a lot of earily child deaths and deformation. Everyone on the west are vaccinated..It's made manditory by law for children to be vaacinated. Like for example chicken pox. Synthesisis not manditory at all we don't risk death with out it.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Again, song of hope. That just means  hope. That's not neutral, that's to impose a feeling of hope. It's to add to the confusion of speculation.

Ah, I get your reasoning.

Everything that would support my viewpoint is deliberate deception, while everything that supports your viewpoint is to be taken at face value.

Yep, I smell conspiracy theory. I suggest you don your tinfoil hat to protect yourself against the dangers of indoctrination. After all, Bioware is out to mind-control you into thinking like the Reapers.
/sarcasm 

Race of machies with a history of deception.
I trusth nothing I see after I'm cut down by harbinger...Even the destroy option.

[dreman9999]

Lizardviking wrote...

jtav wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

jtav wrote...

Because the game tells me that Control and Synthesis work. Heroic music, the Reapers going away, the DLC message, Stargazer. Any intuition that these options fail is not supported by the game itself. It's solely headcanon.

Please....Perspective is a devil on itself. Seeing something after dealing with a race that specialty is warping perspectives is not the best thing to go by.

But all ending cutscenes are presented from a neutral standpoint.

Exactly. Shepard is dead in Control and Synthesis. Those cutscenes are for players.

Also. AFAIK, isn't the colour of every cutscene that is some sort of vision far more dominated by red? The scenes have an reddish tint to them almost.

The colours in the ending cutscenes are normal.

dreman9999 wrote...

Again, song of hope. That just means
 hope. That's not neutral, that's to impose a feeling of hope. It's to
add to the confusion of speculation.

Why would Shepard dream of the Big Ben getting destroyed? If it was a "song of hope" then why wouldn't it always show the best version of the cutscenes (Big Ben not smashed, soldiers cheer).

What is destory in the scene doesnot matter. It the sign ofhope that is.

[BatmanTurian]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Here's the problem I see with people who choose control or Synthesis and it honestly has nothing to do with IT. I'm going to argue this at face value because Literalists will not see the game otherwise and are more likely to choose those endings.

A lot of people who choose Control believe their Shepard will choose to send the Reapers into the Sun or turn them into some ultra-cyborg police force. First, it's wrong to mind-control others, whether they are evil or not. You become no better than the Reapers themselves. Secondly, you're going to believe a (supposed) A.I. who argues the case for Reapers who have slaughtered trillions over the billion years they have existed with his faulty logic? Thirdly, (this is where it becomes completely illogical) what you believe outside of the game in your mind will not affect your Shepard. Whatever Bioware chooses to do with Shepard, you can't enforce your will on your Shepard character. So you want your Shepard to send the Reapers into the Sun or leave organics alone? Who says Shepard will do that regardless of what your headcanon is? There is no evidence in the game that Shepard has direct control other than the Reapers leaving. It is never implied that they will not be back, nor that Shepard will not become reprogrammed once absorbed into the Reaper "consensus". Shepard is dead, you can't argue once you become code that can be reprogrammed easier than by using Indoctrination.

Synthesis is quite possibly more ridiculous. What are Reapers? A fusion of organic and synthetic already. They believe they are the pinnacle of evolution. They wish to bring the worthy up to their immortal existence. You become absorbed but who says what you believe or your Shepard believes will come true, that organics and synthetics will get along since they are the "same" now? I haven't even touched Eugenics or the matter-rape of the choice of forcing the Singularity on everyone rather than the species of the galaxy researching and earning it for themselves, or the fact that people like Javik would rather kill themselves than not be mostly organic.

My entire point is that when people choose control or synthesis, they come to an illogical conclusion that their meta-will-opinion-and-values will be transferred to a video game character rather than what would more likely happen in a universe not controlled by your will as a player beyond the actions you force Shepard to make. Destroy is the only option that fits the in-game Shepard's values, whether Paragon or Renegade: The Reapers must be destroyed whatever the cost. Losing friends and innocents along the way is horrible, but Shepard always sucks it up and keeps on trucking to do what he set out to do. Also both Legion and EDI claim they would rather have non-functionality than serve the Reapers, so dying would be preferable to them than a control or synthesis ending.

Two out of three of the choices betray Shepard's friends and his own values. Two out of three of the choices are the beliefs of former antagonists who served the Reapers. Two out of three of the choices involve massive head-canon and appeal-to-transhumanism (which by the way could be completely awesome or completely horrific; We don't know what the Technological Singularity will be like, which is why it's called a Singularity) to make them justifiable because your Shepard is not controlled thereafter by your meta-will-opinion-and-values.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 mai 2012 - 06:14 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreman9999 wrote...
Why would Shepard dream of the Big Ben getting destroyed? If it was a "song of hope" then why wouldn't it always show the best version of the cutscenes (Big Ben not smashed, soldiers cheer).

What is destory in the scene doesnot matter. It the sign ofhope that is.

Bull****.

The worse version shows the battle being far more devastating. Historical landmarks like Big Ben gets destroyed and the soldiers are not even in the mood to cheer when they win.

[Bill Casey]

HagarIshay wrote...

Do you remember, pro-IT, why you thought about the indoctrnation theory in the first place?

Because I was having those recurring nightmares after doing Arrival where the indoctrinated people were having recurring nightmares?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 17 mai 2012 - 06:16 .

[dreman9999]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Why would Shepard dream of the Big Ben getting destroyed? If it was a "song of hope" then why wouldn't it always show the best version of the cutscenes (Big Ben not smashed, soldiers cheer).

What is destory in the scene doesnot matter. It the sign ofhope that is.

Bull****.

The worse version shows the battle being far more devastating. Historical landmarks like Big Ben gets destroyed and the soldiers are not even in the mood to cheer when they win.

But they all have the star gazer scene in the end....
As I said, all the matter in the scene is the sense of hope that the reaper threat ended.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Why would Shepard dream of the Big Ben getting destroyed? If it was a "song of hope" then why wouldn't it always show the best version of the cutscenes (Big Ben not smashed, soldiers cheer).

What is destory in the scene doesnot matter. It the sign ofhope that is.

Bull****.

The worse version shows the battle being far more devastating. Historical landmarks like Big Ben gets destroyed and the soldiers are not even in the mood to cheer when they win.

But they all have the star gazer scene in the end....
As I said, all the matter in the scene is the sense of hope that the reaper threat ended.

But if it was a dream and Shepard being hopeful, then why isn't there only the best version of each choice then?

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...
BG...throught the letters you get, your tricked by the bad guy  to attack his adopted father who is trying to control the city of bulders gate so he can take over his adopted fathers plans and start a war.

Hmm....either I am unaware of this or I forgot. You'll have to provide some details. And anyway, that's different because you didn't have a choice about that, and it was not at the end of saga.

DA: O..Morrigan. And we still don't know the  results.

Yep, but my point still stands. You know rather well that this could backfire. There's no deception involved. And again, it wasn't at the end of the saga.

So...no, Bioware has never set out to mislead the player in those games.

[dreman9999]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Why would Shepard dream of the Big Ben getting destroyed? If it was a "song of hope" then why wouldn't it always show the best version of the cutscenes (Big Ben not smashed, soldiers cheer).

What is destory in the scene doesnot matter. It the sign ofhope that is.

Bull****.

The worse version shows the battle being far more devastating. Historical landmarks like Big Ben gets destroyed and the soldiers are not even in the mood to cheer when they win.

But they all have the star gazer scene in the end....
As I said, all the matter in the scene is the sense of hope that the reaper threat ended.

But if it was a dream and Shepard being hopeful, then why isn't there only the best version of each choice then?

That's for bioware to tell. Really, I don't trust anything I see after being cut down by harbinger.

[Ieldra]

@BatmanTurian:
It is not for you to say what my Shepard's values are. My Shepard's goal is stop the Reapers from harvesting galactic civilization, NOTHING MORE. If they have to be destroyed to achieve that goal, then he'll do that, if they don't have to be destroyed, then he'll consider other options.

I don't know why everyone just forgets roleplaying when it comes to these things.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Why would Shepard dream of the Big Ben getting destroyed? If it was a "song of hope" then why wouldn't it always show the best version of the cutscenes (Big Ben not smashed, soldiers cheer).

What is destory in the scene doesnot matter. It the sign ofhope that is.

Bull****.

The worse version shows the battle being far more devastating. Historical landmarks like Big Ben gets destroyed and the soldiers are not even in the mood to cheer when they win.

But they all have the star gazer scene in the end....
As I said, all the matter in the scene is the sense of hope that the reaper threat ended.

But if it was a dream and Shepard being hopeful, then why isn't there only the best version of each choice then?

That's for bioware to tell. Really, I don't trust anything I see after being cut down by harbinger.

Or maybe because it is not a dream and is an actual event happening in the story? Especially when we have a message from the game itself telling us (the player) that the Reaper threat is over.

Modifié par Lizardviking, 17 mai 2012 - 06:24 .

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
BG...throught the letters you get, your tricked by the bad guy  to attack his adopted father who is trying to control the city of bulders gate so he can take over his adopted fathers plans and start a war.

Hmm....either I am unaware of this or I forgot. You'll have to provide some details. And anyway, that's different because you didn't have a choice about that, and it was not at the end of saga.

DA: O..Morrigan. And we still don't know the  results.

Yep, but my point still stands. You know rather well that this could backfire. There's no deception involved. And again, it wasn't at the end of the saga.

So...no, Bioware has never set out to mislead the player in those games.

1. Look into any walkthrough of bulder's gate. Do you remeber the scene that got the BG hero jailed in candlekeep?
2.But your let with little choice. You know that if a person is place between life and death for a neutral reason...They will pick life. It's a manipulation a peoples nature. A person only will pick death for a sound reason they beleive in. Would a perosn who has no care of anyones life jump on a live grenade to save someone?Would a person put themselve through near death forrevenge on a person they don't care for?

[dreman9999]

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Why would Shepard dream of the Big Ben getting destroyed? If it was a "song of hope" then why wouldn't it always show the best version of the cutscenes (Big Ben not smashed, soldiers cheer).

What is destory in the scene doesnot matter. It the sign ofhope that is.

Bull****.

The worse version shows the battle being far more devastating. Historical landmarks like Big Ben gets destroyed and the soldiers are not even in the mood to cheer when they win.

But they all have the star gazer scene in the end....
As I said, all the matter in the scene is the sense of hope that the reaper threat ended.

But if it was a dream and Shepard being hopeful, then why isn't there only the best version of each choice then?

That's for bioware to tell. Really, I don't trust anything I see after being cut down by harbinger.

Or maybe because it is not a dream and is an actual event happening in the story? Especially when we have a message from the game itself telling us (the player) that the Reaper threat is over.

So no one sees that indoctrination is happening to Shepard even if we take the plot as it is?

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

@BatmanTurian:
It is not for you to say what my Shepard's values are. My Shepard's goal is stop the Reapers from harvesting galactic civilization, NOTHING MORE. If they have to be destroyed to achieve that goal, then he'll do that, if they don't have to be destroyed, then he'll consider other options.

I don't know why everyone just forgets roleplaying when it comes to these things.

You don't control Shepard's actions with your meta-values. Your real-life values do not matter. They are not magically applied to the game's ending, even if you are roleplaying. For all you know, you could be roleplaying right into the enemy's plans.

Your logic is faulty and wishful thinking when you believe that what's in your head will be what Shepard will do after you can no longer control him/her at his/her death.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 mai 2012 - 06:29 .