308 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

Have they? If you had said this after ME2, I would agree, but another 3 major launches and underwhelming releases later, I'm inclined to dissagree.

I also find it interesting that people tend to run to DA2, as if that's their first and only failure. I wonder if it's flat out ignorance to Pinnacle Station, or they blocked it out?

It's funny and a bit sad that you think a crappy DLC counts. Someone should tell the millions of people buying Skyrim that Bethesda sucks because of that horse armor dlc.

Was it? I must have missed that part...the first 10 hours or so of the game, I was strongly tempted to put down the game and never play again. Once I got to Tuchanka, it was great...and mostly stayed that way untill the end of Thessia. Then...it PLUMMETED in quality once again. Maybe you LOVED the game as much as you're saying. If that's the case, then great for you...but not all of us did.

Oh my, did I give the false impression we were exchanging personal opinions? Because like everyone else, I already knew you were going to rant about how "bad" the game was. How else could you rage about it? No, I was referring to the general fan feedback I've seen. Most people felt it was excellent until the conduit run.

Yes, because major corporations NEVER steal anything from their consumers and then lie about it.

If this is what happens, and you believe them, then yay, I'm happy for you. Personally, I'm a skeptic by nature. They had more than enough of a chance to lay claim to this theory, and they just flat out haven't. That alone casts doubt on it being their intention from the get go.

I'm misanthropic by nature, as you can probably tell. Probably because of people that are so wrapped up in their own bull**** that they think people are stealing rather than consider the notion that "hey, maybe the reason half the audience thinks it's feasible is because they DID intend it."

[BatmanTurian]

Erield wrote...

2.  Occam's razor:  "is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that
which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest
explanation
of the effect." [source: Wikipedia.]  Anti-IT theory makes two
assumptions.  First, what is presented in the game is 'real' so far as
we are concerned, in how it affects Shepard.  Second, perceived
plot-holes and inconsistencies can be directly attributed to poor
storytelling exposition or rushed delivery of the game. 

Trying to use Occam's Razor for Literary Interpretation again. You guys look like you never took a literature class in your lives when you do this.

You can't apply Occam's Razor to Literature (stories in movies, games, books, poetry) because of the fact that Hidden Meanings exist in stories, sometimes even without the author's concious intent. This means situations, events, and the meaning of the work can be more complex than what one would assume in a literal interpretation. Long story, short: You can't use a scientific tool to judge if a literary interpretation is true, especially when it has merit based on evidence gathered from the story.

Now you can say " it was rushed" all you like, but Bioware are storytellers and even rushed storytellers can place metaphors and symbolism in their work. It's not hard to to quickly do at all, if you have any talent at writing. Ask any writer.

From that page, which is the work of a college professor in English 211 at Goucher College in Baltimore, MD, :

  " Most students begin by being very skeptical of the notion that there are "hidden meanings" in literature. This resembles a very wise logical rule called "Occam's razor," after William of Occam (or Ockham), the 14th-century monk who used it in logical debates about the metaphysics of angels and salvation. "Occam's razor" says that, when trying to explain something, we shouldn't unnecessarily multiply the number of invisible entities necessary to make it happen (e.g., angels, demons, aether, deans, etc.). The principle is an outgrowth of Aristotelian thinking that emphasizes the study of the material world using rational interpretations of independently verifiable phenomena.  So we want words to mean what the dictionary says they mean for very good reasons.  However, there are several other good reasons why literature might contain hidden meanings, that is, meanings that are not readily obvious to the casual reader and that can't be found in ordinary dictionaries. "

And this is what I see everytime one of you uses Occam's Razor on literature. You appear skeptical of hidden meanings in literature, which is silly since even the simplest Fairy Tales such as Cinderella and Red Riding Hood have a deeper meaning beneath that is not readily apparent without critical thinking.

It goes on to list the reasons. I won't post the entire page. The point is, it is the wrong tool to use when considering literary interpretations. Also, by the way (and not to single you out on this but I see it often), literary interpretations are not conspiracy theories nor are they religious in nature when dealing with a non-religious text. Saying so only shows an individual's incompetance in analytically interpreting literature or even considering serious analytical interpretation of art in general. In short, it shows you have no imagination nor the motive to use it to read the symbolism and metaphor of the arts.

Now, if this sounds condescending to you, then you have thin skin, for I am speaking only truth. If any of you have had a literature class in Junior High, High School, or at a University, this should all be common sense.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 21 mai 2012 - 03:38 .

[jsadalia]

Rifneno wrote...

jsadalia wrote...

3. "Just reload and pick the right one." If you can't see why that makes the whole thing pointless, and why a company would not invest so much effort in the alternatives, then please just sit smugly in your smug tower throwing smug little darts of snark down on all those not blessed with your infallible insight.

Either you have nothing, or you can't quite figure out how to say "some of us consider our first run, a blind run, as our canon run." In which case, perhaps you should've picked a game more suited to hand holding. Most of us actually like when the game doesn't hold our hands to nothing bad can possibly happen. It sure sucks when there's consequences to your actions. Or something.

Wowky wrote...

To be fair, when I went through the ending the first time, a lot of what are considered "alarm bells" or "clues" did go over my head, and hell even some of the clues/alarm bells throughout the games (e.g. the dreams - I just kinda thought he was guilty) did too - I'm a bright guy, but I was just overwhelmed by the sheer awesome of the game that I just wasn't paying such close attention.

In hindsight yeah, watching videos etc a lot of those things do seem "odd" and on my second playthrough they stuck out like sore thumbs, but like I said, the first time through a lot of it went over my head.

Of course, I didn't mean to imply there was something wrong with missing the clues and taking it at face value. I didn't figure it out on my first run either. I only meant that you didn't need to have read all the books and comics as some people seem to think in order to get it.

Nothing wrong with not picking it up on one's own. Lots wrong with raging and going "lulz like cultists n religius nutz" before being distracted by something shiny.

Most IT adherents are reasonable and curious people.  The slightly-more-than-averagely bright variety who think they are in fact vastly-more-than-averagely bright are just hilarious.  You're funny like you're a clown.  You amuse me.

Mass Effect is suited to hand holding.  Very nearly all video games are.  They are not tools for masochistic solipsism.  This is my point.

[eddieoctane]

Erield wrote...

2.  Occam's razor:  "is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that
which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest
explanation of the effect." [source: Wikipedia.]  Anti-IT theory makes two assumptions.  First, what is presented in the game is 'real' so far as we are concerned, in how it affects Shepard.  Second, perceived plot-holes and inconsistencies can be directly attributed to poor storytelling exposition or rushed delivery of the game. 

IT requires significantly more assumptions.  "The husk eyes in Synth/Control at the end are an indication of IT." "The infinite ammo hand-cannon is proof of IT."  "TIM is really the Reapers, and Anderson is your mind still fighting them off."  "You never really left Earth."  "Shepard did not, in fact, end the Reaper threat...yet.  But he will."

You can't say writing off every "perceived" plothole and inconsistency is all one assumption, but every piece of evidence in favor of IT has to be considered separately. Each problem is unique as each piece of evidence is unique. Even if it's the same reason for each inconsistency in the game, it's an assumption each time you dismiss one of them. The question then becomes do the plotholes outnumber the bits of of the game in favor of IT.

If you wave off every logical problem the ending has with "bad writing" or "out of time/money", all at once, then it's not unfair to include every bit of IT evidence under the whole "you're missing the clues" argument in one fell swoop. Either everything is grouped or everything is singular.

[ardias89]

If the temperature doesnt link the the planet to this then why is it strangely marked in the game? Is it a bug?

[TSA_383]

jsadalia wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

jsadalia wrote...

As an aside, and this should probably be in another thread, the main difficulty I have with IT is a real-world one: the idea that BioWare would create an ending in which only very subtle observation leads the player to the correct choice, and the other two choices result in complete failure and the destruction of all the player holds dear--it seems astonishingly unlikely.  Saying to two-thirds of players, "Nope, sorry, you weren't paying enough attention, you lose."  I can't see a video game company making that decision.

There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin.

1. Some of the clues are very subtle.  Others are about as subtle as a cruise missile.  The dreams for instance.  Or the entire surreal nature of everything past Harbinger's beam.  When Shepard asks TIM why he doesn't just do it, why he doesn't just control the Reapers, why he's sitting there chatting up him and Anderson, to which TIM thoughtfully replies "Because I need you to believe."  If that didn't set off some alarm bells with you, perhaps you should check your alarm system wiring.

2. The entire point of a plot twist is to take the audience by surprise.  How so many literalists can't accept this is simply beyond me.

3. " complete failure and the destruction of all the player holds dear"?  Melodramatic much?  Remind me how failing the indoctrination test is any different than any old game over.  Do you think failing it somehow marks you for life so the computer knows never to let you see the rest of the game?  Just reload and pick the right one.  Gah.

3. "Just reload and pick the right one."  If you can't see why that makes the whole thing pointless, and why a company would not invest so much effort in the alternatives, then please just sit smugly in your smug tower throwing smug little darts of snark down on all those not blessed with your infallible insight.

Which, I presume, is why they created the "LegendSave" file, the save of as yet unknown purpoe that saves the first time you complete the game with any given character and cannot be overwritten.
I have a little thread on here where I was getting people to send me their files so I can do hex comparison, but at the moment I've not been able to work out the difference between the legendsave and the regular post-ending save, there's a lot of variables of unknown purpose that aren't in the regular save.

Chief Commander wrote...

OP I had a thought: The first two
clues were just hints at that we would finally play on Earth. Iron is
the most common element on Earth and‘-128.5°F is the coldest recorded
temperature. So sadly I don´t think this "clue hunt" was saying anything
other than "Our new game is ME3 and you will play on earth,
specifically in London, where Anderson was born."

Quite possibly - it all seems to be lending itself to the ending, given that we've never played on earth in the first two games and the first time you play in london is at the end sequence, which is what makes the last three clues so fascinating.

Still can't help but think the "red herring" bit is what really stands out for me though...

Rifneno wrote...

jsadalia wrote...

As an
aside, and this should probably be in another thread, the main
difficulty I have with IT is a real-world one: the idea that BioWare
would create an ending in which only very subtle observation leads the
player to the correct choice, and the other two choices result in
complete failure and the destruction of all the player holds dear--it
seems astonishingly unlikely.  Saying to two-thirds of players, "Nope,
sorry, you weren't paying enough attention, you lose."  I can't see a
video game company making that decision.

There's so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin.

1. Some
of the clues are very subtle.  Others are about as subtle as a cruise
missile.  The dreams for instance.  Or the entire surreal nature of
everything past Harbinger's beam.  When Shepard asks TIM why he doesn't
just do it, why he doesn't just control the Reapers, why he's sitting
there chatting up him and Anderson, to which TIM thoughtfully replies
"Because I need you to believe."  If that didn't set off some alarm
bells with you, perhaps you should check your alarm system
wiring.

Yes. In fact, here's some of Anderson & TIM's misc lines from that scene:

Anderson:


TIM:


It's a pretty glaring contrast, no?

BatmanTurian wrote...
Trying to use Occam's Razor for Literary
Interpretation again. You guys look like you never took a literature
class in your lives when you do this.

You can't apply Occam's Razor to Literature (stories in movies, games, books, poetry) because of the fact that Hidden Meanings
exist in stories, sometimes even without the author's concious intent.
This means situations, events, and the meaning of the work can be more
complex than what one would assume in a literal interpretation. Long
story, short: You can't use a scientific tool to judge if a literary
interpretation is true, especially when it has merit based on evidence
gathered from the story.

I've been trying to say this on maybe a dozen threads on this forum.
Have
come to the conclusion that as an aeronautics student I'm expected to
be pretty blind to literature and such, so if I pick up on it it can't
be too convoluted [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

ardias89 wrote...

If the temperature doesnt link the the planet to this then why is it strangely marked in the game? Is it a bug?

Originally intended to be a mission there which got taken out and they missed something?

Any chance someone could screenshot it in ME3 so we can see the description? I'd do it but my desktop gaming rig is currently 400 miles away from where I am

Wowky wrote...

In hindsight yeah, watching videos etc a
lot of those things do seem "odd" and on my second playthrough they
stuck out like sore thumbs, but like I said, the first time through a
lot of it went over my head.

Me too, was halfway to the jump point for synthesis and had a "hold on, the ****?" moment and went for destroy.

[David7204]

You know, if they use the IT and it turns out great, even if it turns out the massive amount of evidence and foreshadowing was just one long and incredibly lucky series of flukes on BioWare's part, I wouldn't care. Any hero will admit that half of heroism is just luck anyway.

[hoodaticus]

WTF was wrong with Pinnacle Station?

[David7204]

Pinnacle Station wasn't made by BioWare.

Modifié par David7204, 21 mai 2012 - 11:09 .

[ZackG312]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Erield wrote...

2.  Occam's razor:  "is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that
which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest
explanation
of the effect." [source: Wikipedia.]  Anti-IT theory makes two
assumptions.  First, what is presented in the game is 'real' so far as
we are concerned, in how it affects Shepard.  Second, perceived
plot-holes and inconsistencies can be directly attributed to poor
storytelling exposition or rushed delivery of the game. 

Trying to use Occam's Razor for Literary Interpretation again. You guys look like you never took a literature class in your lives when you do this.

You can't apply Occam's Razor to Literature (stories in movies, games, books, poetry) because of the fact that Hidden Meanings exist in stories, sometimes even without the author's concious intent. This means situations, events, and the meaning of the work can be more complex than what one would assume in a literal interpretation. Long story, short: You can't use a scientific tool to judge if a literary interpretation is true, especially when it has merit based on evidence gathered from the story.

Now you can say " it was rushed" all you like, but Bioware are storytellers and even rushed storytellers can place metaphors and symbolism in their work. It's not hard to to quickly do at all, if you have any talent at writing. Ask any writer.

From that page, which is the work of a college professor in English 211 at Goucher College in Baltimore, MD, :

  " Most students begin by being very skeptical of the notion that there are "hidden meanings" in literature. This resembles a very wise logical rule called "Occam's razor," after William of Occam (or Ockham), the 14th-century monk who used it in logical debates about the metaphysics of angels and salvation. "Occam's razor" says that, when trying to explain something, we shouldn't unnecessarily multiply the number of invisible entities necessary to make it happen (e.g., angels, demons, aether, deans, etc.). The principle is an outgrowth of Aristotelian thinking that emphasizes the study of the material world using rational interpretations of independently verifiable phenomena.  So we want words to mean what the dictionary says they mean for very good reasons.  However, there are several other good reasons why literature might contain hidden meanings, that is, meanings that are not readily obvious to the casual reader and that can't be found in ordinary dictionaries. "

And this is what I see everytime one of you uses Occam's Razor on literature. You appear skeptical of hidden meanings in literature, which is silly since even the simplest Fairy Tales such as Cinderella and Red Riding Hood have a deeper meaning beneath that is not readily apparent without critical thinking.

It goes on to list the reasons. I won't post the entire page. The point is, it is the wrong tool to use when considering literary interpretations. Also, by the way (and not to single you out on this but I see it often), literary interpretations are not conspiracy theories nor are they religious in nature when dealing with a non-religious text. Saying so only shows an individual's incompetance in analytically interpreting literature or even considering serious analytical interpretation of art in general. In short, it shows you have no imagination nor the motive to use it to read the symbolism and metaphor of the arts.

Now, if this sounds condescending to you, then you have thin skin, for I am speaking only truth. If any of you have had a literature class in Junior High, High School, or at a University, this should all be common sense.

Thank you sir.

[DukeOfNukes]

David7204 wrote...

Pinnacle Station wasn't made by BioWare.

I
was surprised somebody got on that. You're right, of course...it was
made by Demiurge, who made the PC port of the first ME. BioWares
"failing" (most likely it was actually EA's) here was letting somebody
else add content into their game.

Rifneno wrote...

It's funny and a bit sad that you think a crappy DLC counts. Someone should tell the millions of people buying Skyrim that Bethesda sucks because of that horse armor dlc.

I'll remember that the next time an Indoctrination Theorist points to Arrival...or anyone talks about how good LotSB, Arrival, or Overlord was when they're talking about ME2. If a company releases DLC, we shouldn't hold that against or in favor of them...check.

Oh my, did I give the false impression we were exchanging personal opinions? Because like everyone else, I already knew you were going to rant about how "bad" the game was. How else could you rage about it? No, I was referring to the general fan feedback I've seen. Most people felt it was excellent until the conduit run.

Most people think that Earth orbits the sun, but that doesn't make it true. Lots of theory right now says that they both revolve around the Solar Systems center of mass.

You're talking opinions, when any scientist worth his salt knows, fact isn't necessarily truth...so what does that make opinion?

I'm misanthropic by nature, as you can probably tell. Probably because of people that are so wrapped up in their own bull**** that they think people are stealing rather than consider the notion that "hey, maybe the reason half the audience thinks it's feasible is because they DID intend it."

I've considered it...and would have been willing to accept it 2 months ago. I will say, even if they did intend it...half the crap people are pointing out as "proof" is idiotic. Klencory, for example...is not "proof" they had the games ending in mind from ME1.

[Wowky]

TSA_383 wrote...
Me too, was halfway to the jump point for synthesis and had a "hold on, the ****?" moment and went for destroy.

Hah, pretty much the same thing happened to me on the first playthrough. Even though most of the clues people have since brought up that exist in the game went totally over my head (or perhaps were just being registered by me outside of my awareness rather than consciously), even the first time the whole ending just didn't feel quite "right" and I was really suspicious of the kid. I entertained his options for a moment then was like "no, **** you Reapers" and went for destroy.

[Destructorlio]

Wowky wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
Me too, was halfway to the jump point for synthesis and had a "hold on, the ****?" moment and went for destroy.

Hah, pretty much the same thing happened to me on the first playthrough. Even though most of the clues people have since brought up that exist in the game went totally over my head (or perhaps were just being registered by me outside of my awareness rather than consciously), even the first time the whole ending just didn't feel quite "right" and I was really suspicious of the kid. I entertained his options for a moment then was like "no, **** you Reapers" and went for destroy.

Same same. I had heard such bad things about the ending that when it did come I actually didn't think it was that bad, although it was still a bit nonsense. But even then I instinctively did not trust that child and knew I must destroy. Then I discovered IT and...

Modifié par Destructorlio, 22 mai 2012 - 06:30 .

[David7204]

Aequitas has been lit up for me since I met up with Tali until the end of the game.

[A0170]

Awesome find OP!

[WolfyZA]

DukeOfNukes wrote...

Interesting if true, but as I've said (and heard said) elsewhere, the evidence we've seen since release just plain points to the idea that BioWare didn't put enough thought into the ending for this to be the case.

What's sad is that, no matter what, this cannot be verified at this point. If BioWare uses the IT, there's no way they can convince everyone that it's what they intended all along. Their silence, and the fact that they actually had to recall in the voice talent, suggests that the ending we saw is what they had intended all along.

THIS!!!

[StElmo]

evermandibles wrote...

Whuat.

If this isn't pointing to IT, then what is it doing?

Please speculate. Someone provide counter arguments as to what this means.

WOW

[StElmo]

WolfyZA wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

Interesting if true, but as I've said (and heard said) elsewhere, the evidence we've seen since release just plain points to the idea that BioWare didn't put enough thought into the ending for this to be the case.

What's sad is that, no matter what, this cannot be verified at this point. If BioWare uses the IT, there's no way they can convince everyone that it's what they intended all along. Their silence, and the fact that they actually had to recall in the voice talent, suggests that the ending we saw is what they had intended all along.

THIS!!!

Of course they can, because they can point to all this evidence layed down prior to the game's release, such as that what is posted in this thread.

Why wouldn't people believe them if the evidence is all put there BEFORE the ending?

[WolfyZA]

Because then they sold people an incomplete game!!!! And say we are nagging idiots for not seeing the bigger picture and questioning their art! Correct me if im wrong, but if IT was suppose to be real deal, then why the hell is it necessary to recall back all the voice actors?? Surely if it was "planned" then all the dialogue would've been recorded already!

Sometimes I just think we are too gullible and believe everything we read here... One person will like post something from Facebook in post production stages before the original ending leak and EVERYBODY is like... WOW they planned it ALL along!!!

Where in reality it doesnt actually mean anything.. Face it they screwed up DA ending... They screwed up DA 's ending and now they screwed up ME3's ending... Nothing more... Nothing less

[Shepard Wins]

What is this I don't even

[SolidisusSnake1]

ardias89 wrote...

If the temperature doesnt link the the planet to this then why is it strangely marked in the game? Is it a bug?

See that planet is what intrigues me the most, a planet they hint at as far back as 2010 and just so happens to be a "bug" in the game. Either it was simply cut content or they are planning something.

[TSA_383]

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

ardias89 wrote...

If the temperature doesnt link the the planet to this then why is it strangely marked in the game? Is it a bug?

See that planet is what intrigues me the most, a planet they hint at as far back as 2010 and just so happens to be a "bug" in the game. Either it was simply cut content or they are planning something.

Aequitas as a "bug" might still be a hint to currently locked content, but it could also be something that's just been totally removed. If we assume 1 & 2 are "earth" (since we'd not played on earth before ME3 it'd be pretty notable as a hint) then:

1 & 2: Earth
3: ????? (Secrets? Not sure what to make of it... MI6 is the UK's spy agency so could be that)
4: Major battle in London.
5. Red Herring (it's a trap! )

It's a possible clue either way...

Modifié par TSA_383, 25 mai 2012 - 12:00 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

The ending sucked balls and the only thing headed our way is a disappointing patchwork solution to a problem started at the beginning of ME2; get over it.

[hoodaticus]

TSA_383 wrote...

SolidisusSnake1 wrote...

ardias89 wrote...

If the temperature doesnt link the the planet to this then why is it strangely marked in the game? Is it a bug?

See that planet is what intrigues me the most, a planet they hint at as far back as 2010 and just so happens to be a "bug" in the game. Either it was simply cut content or they are planning something.

Aequitas as a "bug" might still be a hint to currently locked content, but it could also be something that's just been totally removed. If we assume 1 & 2 are "earth" (since we'd not played on earth before ME3 it'd be pretty notable as a hint) then:

1 & 2: Earth
3: ????? (Secrets? Not sure what to make of it... MI6 is the UK's spy agency so could be that)
4: Major battle in London.
5. Red Herring (it's a trap! )

It's a possible clue either way...

In IT, the Catalyst is the living embodiment of a red herring.

[Xellith]

bump