262 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaelef]

There's such a desperate need from some people to have everyone believe in IT. It's so reminiscent of some types of religious indoctrination. I find it kinda creepy.

[Kaelef]

icedphobos wrote...

For me the theory makes sense in every point, but I believe that wasn't Bioware's intention (I can't believe they would release a game that ends with a dream, but without any explanation of what happened in fact) - so that's why I don't accept it.

Yeah, the way I think of it is that the problems with I.T. aren't so much in-game as they are out here in the real world where artists and game designers are delivering a product to real-life consumers.

[Leafs43]

IntrepidDeath wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

 The mere fact that you accept the catalysts existence means you acknowledge the reapers at minimum are reading Shepard's mind.

How else does the catalyst show up as the child from his dreams and the beginning of the game?  Would be quite the coincidence.

Or, and this might be reaching a bit, it could just be an example of blatantly terrible writing.

Actually I'd like to exception to terrible writing premise.


If it was just terrible writing, it would be localized within the ending alone.  But we see the kid at various intervals throughout the game.  So this was a theme set up among multiple writers.

[Taboo]

Leafs43 wrote...

A lierary device in sci fi still needs to be explainable within the context.

Taboo-XX doesn't want to tackle within the context, which is why he has avoided it so.

You want me to confirm it within your bias.

You do not take any other interpretation as valid.

I value yours, even if I don't like it.

[Leafs43]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

A lierary device in sci fi still needs to be explainable within the context.

Taboo-XX doesn't want to tackle within the context, which is why he has avoided it so.

You want me to confirm it within your bias.

You do not take any other interpretation as valid.

I value yours, even if I don't like it.

You haven't offered any other interpretation within the context so there is nothing to accept.

[LucasShark]

Leafs43 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

It's an attempt to create an emotional connection between Shepard and said being. It links him to the child he could not save.

It's a very blunt attempt at being philosophical.

Whether it is deep or not is up to you.

I do not think it is.

And that emotional connection becomes the catalyst how exactly?  (You're almost there, it's okay to agree)

For the umpteenth time: His argument is from an artists standpoint: it doesn't matter HOW the image appears, it is symbolic OUTSIDE the context of the event.

And from a scietific view as an observer it needs to have a catalyst (no pun intended)

Oh for the love of... If it's a litterary device, science doesn't bloody enter into it!

A lierary device in sci fi still needs to be explainable within the context.

Taboo-XX doesn't want to tackle within the context, which is why he has avoided it so.

I'd like it to be: but saying it has to be is just incorrect. 
Watch 2001 for an example of that.
In the end: sci-fi is still a story, which is stillw ritten for the consumption, and technology in a sci-fi setting is just as much magic now and then as actual magic in fantasy.
How does Eezo work?  ****ed if we know, it just does!

[Kaelef]

Leafs43 wrote...

IntrepidDeath wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

 The mere fact that you accept the catalysts existence means you acknowledge the reapers at minimum are reading Shepard's mind.

How else does the catalyst show up as the child from his dreams and the beginning of the game?  Would be quite the coincidence.

Or, and this might be reaching a bit, it could just be an example of blatantly terrible writing.

Actually I'd like to exception to terrible writing premise.


If it was just terrible writing, it would be localized within the ending alone.  But we see the kid at various intervals throughout the game.  So this was a theme set up among multiple writers.

I always assumed the Catalyst's look was simply Shepard's interpretation - an image his brain chose, not one the Catalyst chose. 

You see?  There's more than one way to look at it.

Modifié par Kaelef, 25 mai 2012 - 01:56 .

[Taboo]

Leafs43 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

A lierary device in sci fi still needs to be explainable within the context.

Taboo-XX doesn't want to tackle within the context, which is why he has avoided it so.

You want me to confirm it within your bias.

You do not take any other interpretation as valid.

I value yours, even if I don't like it.

You haven't offered any other interpretation within the context so there is nothing to accept.

I did on the last page.

Your behavior mimics, almost to the tee, someone who argues religion.

[Leafs43]

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

IntrepidDeath wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

 The mere fact that you accept the catalysts existence means you acknowledge the reapers at minimum are reading Shepard's mind.

How else does the catalyst show up as the child from his dreams and the beginning of the game?  Would be quite the coincidence.

Or, and this might be reaching a bit, it could just be an example of blatantly terrible writing.

Actually I'd like to exception to terrible writing premise.


If it was just terrible writing, it would be localized within the ending alone.  But we see the kid at various intervals throughout the game.  So this was a theme set up among multiple writers.

I always assumed the Catalyst's look was simply Shepard's
interpretation - an image his brain chose, not one the Catalyst chose. 

You see?  There's more than one way to look at it.

But then the catalyst speaks, and there in lies the rub.  

[Kaelef]

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...


I always assumed the Catalyst's look was simply Shepard's interpretation - an image his brain chose, not one the Catalyst chose. 

You see?  There's more than one way to look at it.

But then the catalyst speaks, and there in lies the rub.  

Why?

Modifié par Kaelef, 25 mai 2012 - 01:57 .

[LucasShark]

Leafs43 wrote...

IntrepidDeath wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

 The mere fact that you accept the catalysts existence means you acknowledge the reapers at minimum are reading Shepard's mind.

How else does the catalyst show up as the child from his dreams and the beginning of the game?  Would be quite the coincidence.

Or, and this might be reaching a bit, it could just be an example of blatantly terrible writing.

Actually I'd like to exception to terrible writing premise.


If it was just terrible writing, it would be localized within the ending alone.  But we see the kid at various intervals throughout the game.  So this was a theme set up among multiple writers.

Um... the rest of it was comittee written?  While the ending was not?  Hence it is localized.  ANd for the record: the bad writing was not localized to the end.

[Leafs43]

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...


Actually I'd like to exception to terrible writing premise.


If it was just terrible writing, it would be localized within the ending alone.  But we see the kid at various intervals throughout the game.  So this was a theme set up among multiple writers.

I always assumed the Catalyst's look was simply Shepard's
interpretation - an image his brain chose, not one the Catalyst chose. 

You see?  There's more than one way to look at it.

But then the catalyst speaks, and there in lies the rub.  

Why?

The catalyst knows what Shepard wants to do.

[Kaelef]

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

But then the catalyst speaks, and there in lies the rub.  

Why?

The catalyst knows what Shepard wants to do.

It's pretty obvious what the humans are trying to do.  Hell, the Keepers probably know what Shepard et al are trying to accomplish.  Are you suggesting this knowledge could only come through omniscience?

Modifié par Kaelef, 25 mai 2012 - 02:00 .

[DieHigh2012]

I wish IT was real, but it obviously is not.

The "real IT ending" would have already been completed (before the game dropped) and released by now if that was the direction Bioware meant to take.

As it stands they are rushing franticly to appease the majority of the fans they ticked off by covering their ears and screaming "artistic integrity" over and over.

[Leafs43]

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

But then the catalyst speaks, and there in lies the rub.  

Why?

The catalyst knows what Shepard wants to do.

It's pretty obvious what the humans are trying to do.  Hell, the Keepers probably know what Shepard et al are trying to accomplish.  Are you suggesting this knowledge could only come through omniscience?

Nope, just mind reading.

[Taboo]

I can't even tell if you're trolling or not.

You're an amazing sociological specimen.

[Kaelef]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

I wish IT was real, but it obviously is not.

The "real IT ending" would have already been completed (before the game dropped) and released by now if that was the direction Bioware meant to take.

As it stands they are rushing franticly to appease the majority of the fans they ticked off by covering their ears and screaming "artistic integrity" over and over.

Agreed, but IT-ers will just say they weren't ready because they had planned to originally work on other DLC or MP or something first (which, again, completely ignores how things are done in the real world).

Modifié par Kaelef, 25 mai 2012 - 02:04 .

[Kaelef]

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

But then the catalyst speaks, and there in lies the rub.  

Why?

The catalyst knows what Shepard wants to do.

It's pretty obvious what the humans are trying to do.  Hell, the Keepers probably know what Shepard et al are trying to accomplish.  Are you suggesting this knowledge could only come through omniscience?

Nope, just mind reading.

That would be one explanation, but why resort to that when it's unnecessary?

[Leafs43]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I can't even tell if you're trolling or not.

You're an amazing sociological specimen.

Actually I could say the same about you.


Because rather than explain what happens in the game, you just fall back on "bad writing, 
bad writing, 
bad writing, bad writing."  

It's almost like you're preprogrammed to say that.

[Kaelef]

Leafs43 wrote...


Because rather than explain what happens in the game, you just fall back on "bad writing, 
bad writing, 
bad writing, bad writing."  

It's almost like you're preprogrammed to say that.

IT tries to explain things in-game that have far simpler explanations out-of-game.  People did this.  People who make mistakes and have budgets and deadlines like the rest of us.

[Taboo]

It would be really cool if they implemented this.

But as of right now, you have nothing.

Bad writing.

[Leafs43]

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

But then the catalyst speaks, and there in lies the rub.  

Why?

The catalyst knows what Shepard wants to do.

It's pretty obvious what the humans are trying to do.  Hell, the Keepers probably know what Shepard et al are trying to accomplish.  Are you suggesting this knowledge could only come through omniscience?

Nope, just mind reading.

That would be one explanation, but why resort to that when it's unnecessary?

So let see if I have you straight:

-The catalyst doesn't need to read Shepard's mind to show up as the kid because he is a projection that Shepard came up with

-But the catalyst knows exactly what Shepard wants to do


So it's actually like you are saying the catalyst is a figment of Shepard's imagination and doesn;t actually exist,

[Kaelef]

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...


The catalyst knows what Shepard wants to do.

It's pretty obvious what the humans are trying to do.  Hell, the Keepers probably know what Shepard et al are trying to accomplish.  Are you suggesting this knowledge could only come through omniscience?

Nope, just mind reading.

That would be one explanation, but why resort to that when it's unnecessary?

So let see if I have you straight:

-The catalyst doesn't need to read Shepard's mind to show up as the kid because he is a projection that Shepard came up with

-But the catalyst knows exactly what Shepard wants to do


So it's actually like you are saying the catalyst is a figment of Shepard's imagination and doesn;t actually exist,

Partly.  I read it more as the Catalyst being so far evolved that we didn't really have a good way of interpreting it, so we had to fit it into what we can interpret.

And again, what Special Knowledge does the Catalyst have that any other reasonably intelligent being in that situation wouldn't have (or easily guess/assume)?

(Never mind the fact that it's already established other being have senses which humans can hardly comprehend, like Javik's incredible (literally) ability to read his environment, the Asaris' mind-reading/connecting, etc.)

[dreamgazer]

Kaelef wrote...

IT tries to explain things in-game that have far simpler explanations out-of-game.  People did this.  People who make mistakes and have budgets and deadlines like the rest of us.

I can't emphasize enough that there are two components to this: interpreting indoctrination, and affirming a theory.  You'll find mistakes, yes, but you'll also find real devices in there that heavily suggest that Shepard is in the midst of fending off indoctrination, something that has been present in the Mass Effect lore for well over five years---and mentioned gratutiously in the third game.  

They're not explicitly one in the same, even if they both funnel to the same conclusion.  I don't know if others can partition the two as clearly, but I do. I don't know if that makes me pro-IT or what that says, but it makes me pro-interpretation.  And saying the way I'm interpreting what I see with my eyes is rooted solely in bad writing and game glitches is insulting.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 25 mai 2012 - 02:17 .

[Leafs43]

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...


The catalyst knows what Shepard wants to do.

It's pretty obvious what the humans are trying to do.  Hell, the Keepers probably know what Shepard et al are trying to accomplish.  Are you suggesting this knowledge could only come through omniscience?

Nope, just mind reading.

That would be one explanation, but why resort to that when it's unnecessary?

So let see if I have you straight:

-The catalyst doesn't need to read Shepard's mind to show up as the kid because he is a projection that Shepard came up with

-But the catalyst knows exactly what Shepard wants to do


So it's actually like you are saying the catalyst is a figment of Shepard's imagination and doesn;t actually exist,

Partly.  I read it more as the Catalyst being so far evolved that we didn't really have a good way of interpreting it, so we had to fit it into what we can interpret.

And again, what Special Knowledge does the Catalyst have that any other reasonably intelligent being in that situation wouldn't have (or easily guess/assume)?

(Never mind the fact that it's already established other being have senses which humans can hardly comprehend, like Javik's incredible (literally) ability to read his environment, the Asaris' mind-reading/connecting, etc.)

I understand what you are saying.

But if you want to go down this road it ends really with the same conclusion.


If the catalyst is some super duper AI with the ability to deduce everything from Shepard, and coincidentally controls the reapers.....what do we have?