balance5050 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
Semantics.
No it isn't.
An interpretation is not the same as a Theory.
Did you know that if you speak Yiddish you're a semantic semitic?
But you're arguing a moot point so you can feel like you aren't wrong. The indoctrination interpretation stands.
Calling it a theory is wrong. Claiming you have evidence is wrong.
That isn't what an interpretation is.
When thousands of people interpret it the same way..... It's ok.... I know it's hard for you to see things from another perspective.
This is one of the rare occasions where I'm going to fully agree with an indoctrination-centered post from Taboo-XX:
there are two sides, the theory and the interpretation.
The theory is built around digital clues and a projection of what BioWare has planned, while the interpretation involves taking devices in the game proper and seeing them as indoctrination symptoms. I also interpret items in Mass Effect 3 as surreal components that have appeared in other genres of film and video games, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're applicable to the theory. Interpreting the surreal is not automatically interpreting them as applicable to IT. I'm in the gray area. Yes, it's lonely.
Seeing liquid-like shadows in the dreams is interpreted as a symptom, since you can take the "oily shadow" description in the codex and point-blank apply it to what you see. It's not, however, necessarily evidence of the "theory".
They're "independent", even if one relies on the other to be accurate. I currently support one and am heavily skeptical of the full implications of the other---and I feel that BioWare could very easily write (WROTE) a cutscene-only extension of the ending that ties it all together, retaining the original intentions of the endings and delivering a "variation" of the theory. They may have even had the extra clarification planned, just as the theory asserts, and wanted to create a space of speculation for a few months so that people could debate the moral implications. It doesn't mean that we're going to get a whole new ballgame at the point where Shepard wakes up.
Some of the components, unfortunately, criss-cross---such as Shepard's bleeding wound on the Citadel. It's there where the frustration and insults start flying, and why non-combative folks like myself get pushed to the edge once more exuberant posters start framing those who see something different and interpretive as "seeing things that aren't there" and "arrogant". That's where rational people start to consider walking awat from this mess, even if they want to just talk about what they're seeing.
Modifié par dreamgazer, 01 juin 2012 - 03:20 .
Retour en haut
