496 réponses à ce sujet

[killage_wizard]

Lord Goose wrote...

I'm just saying that if I would need to trick you, I wouldn't be so blunt about it. I would provide you number of options and all of them would be beneficial to me. I would say that you have to choose, and think that you can only choose how to help ME. What's why I wouldn't do anything if I don't trust Catalyst.

Speaking about Destroy. What if Shepard wakes up as paranoid and starts shooting everybody thinking they're indoctrinated? He or she cannot be reasoned with, he or she cannot be tamed. He won't use Catalyst thinking its a Reaper trap and would refuse any potentially positive option, thinking that Reapers trying to trick him. Reapers would be pleased. With enemy like that, who needs slaves?
Why it is impossible? It would be Shepards own kind of indoctrination.

And I personally think that destroy is attractive. If my Shepard didn't cared about synthetics, he would have choosen it. And even so, geth maybe sacrificed. Or they maybe dead before. If Shepard failed to save them, I don't see any downsides of Destroy.

Also, I don't buy that explanation with only one ending. It makes no sense, that if I spared Collectors base and don't have enough EMS, I would be indoctrinated any way, BUT if I've ''compromised'' with them once, AND have enough EMS, I would have an option. Why did they gave it to me? Out of respect?

You can't simply impose indoctrination on Shepard.  You must convince him to succumb to it willingly, and therefore in order for the illusion to work on Shepard's mind he must be given a choice that allows him to break the illusion.

[Ender99]

I'm not really an IT hater, and I hope you're right, it would make the game better. I just don't think you are. IT people are giving Bioware way too much credit. The ending they made just sucked, and I don't think they had any greater plan in mind.

[Feanor_II]

P47 ace wrote...

ok I know some people don't like the idea of indoc theory, and for differant reasons (mostly illogical ones), but there is one that i hear a lot that makes sence but i still have to ask Why

Here it is, tell me if you have herd it
"IT means i bought an unfinished game"

Now i understand their resoning for saying this but look at it this way

Everyone knows the game was rushed out the door, so EA and friends could get their $$$$$$

So one, you already have an unfinshed product that Sucks beyond Sucking, and many other descriptions,

now IT still has this "unfinshed game that was already unfinshed" but it will help it NOT suck

so for the IT theory Haters out there you have 2 chioces

1) unfinshed game that sucks
or
2) unfinshed game that dose not suck

the chioce is your's

Hey, hey, hey.... be a little tolerant, can't you accept that there is other people with other opinions? Don't be so dogmatic!

[Lord Goose]

You must convince him to succumb to it willingly, and
therefore in order for the illusion to work on Shepard's
mind he must be given a choice that allows him to
break the illusion.

I say that Shepard has to choose between three options which I have proposed. If he agrees with me, I win in any case, because only way to not completely agree with me is to reject all my options. Even in Destroy you have to have some faith in my words.
While, in turn you may not do anything.

[killage_wizard]

Ender99 wrote...

I'm not really an IT hater, and I hope you're right, it would make the game better. I just don't think you are. IT people are giving Bioware way too much credit. The ending they made just sucked, and I don't think they had any greater plan in mind.

And that's fine.  To your point however I could argue that their track record with the previous games, and ME3 up until the end says otherwise.

[macrocarl]

ME3 wasn't rushed. Why do people say that? And then keep saying that? Remember it was pushed back 3 or 4 months? How can you rush something that they pushed the release date back on to work on it? The answer is you don't.

[killage_wizard]

Lord Goose wrote...

You must convince him to succumb to it willingly, and
therefore in order for the illusion to work on Shepard's
mind he must be given a choice that allows him to
break the illusion.

I say that Shepard has to choose between three options which I have proposed. If he agrees with me, I win in any case, because only way to not completely agree with me is to reject all my options. Even in Destroy you have to have some faith in my words.
While, in turn you may not do anything.

But you don't want me to pick control.  You tell me that it is an option, but if I choose it I will not only commit genocide because it destroys the geth, but I also risk allowing for a synthetic race to wipe out all organic life.  The prevention of which is apparently your reason for being.

[Lord Goose]

As far as I remember, they had to rewrite plot after Drew Carpyshyn left. So they have to remade mystery behind Reapers motivation and goals. And remade ending. Given that ending really seems to be off...

[BaladasDemnevanni]

macrocarl wrote...

ME3 wasn't rushed. Why do people say that? And then keep saying that? Remember it was pushed back 3 or 4 months? How can you rush something that they pushed the release date back on to work on it? The answer is you don't.

Faulty logic which completely ignores the scope of a project.

Here's an equivalent example: if I give you a month to build a car, then give you a few more days, suddenly you'll have an effective car.

A rushed product is a combination of lack of time, limited resources, and difficulty of the project at hand. You completely ignore the last two.

[Ender99]

killage_wizard wrote...

Ender99 wrote...

I'm not really an IT hater, and I hope you're right, it would make the game better. I just don't think you are. IT people are giving Bioware way too much credit. The ending they made just sucked, and I don't think they had any greater plan in mind.

And that's fine.  To your point however I could argue that their track record with the previous games, and ME3 up until the end says otherwise.

I would concede this point with their prior games, but not with ME3. There were problems with ME3 that kept this game from being a 10 even before the ending.

The lack of side quests (fetch do NOT count), the lack of dialogue (not
just the wheel itself, but how long you can go in a conversation without
have any input at all), only having one hub world, day one DLC, face
import bug, the Rachni queen being alive even if you killed her in ME1, killing Emily Wong in a tweet, forcing Udina to be councilor even you picked Anderson in ME 1, Tali's face

The ending wasn't the only issue, it's just the straw that broke the camel's back. The whole game had a rushed feel, and because of that, I think they were just trying to get it finished as quickly as possible, no greater plan involved.

[Lord Goose]

But you don't want me to pick control. You tell me
that it is an option, but if I choose it I will not only
commit genocide because it destroys the geth, but I
also risk allowing for a synthetic race to wipe out all
organic life. The prevention of which is apparently
your reason for being.

I have my preferences, even if I'm lying.

In Synthesis I will have agent which as useful as Saren was. He would believe that Synthesis is the answer and would serve me with his heart.
In Control I will have agent of TIM-level usefulness. He may thinking that he is in control, and could uncover something dangerous, but in the end I will own him.
In Destroy I will have paranoid who believes that everyone else is indoctrinated. He won't be serving me directly, but his actions would work fine for me, since he will destroy his own chances to beat me. Least useful servitude, but still servitude nonetheless.

Also, if geth are already dead, I most likely would end up with the latter anyway. But I'm realist. Just because its not the best , it could still be useful.

[killage_wizard]

Lord Goose wrote...

But you don't want me to pick control. You tell me
that it is an option, but if I choose it I will not only
commit genocide because it destroys the geth, but I
also risk allowing for a synthetic race to wipe out all
organic life. The prevention of which is apparently
your reason for being.

I have my preferences, even if I'm lying.

In Synthesis I will have agent which as useful as Saren was. He would believe that Synthesis is the answer and would serve me with his heart.
In Control I will have agent of TIM-level usefulness. He may thinking that he is in control, and could uncover something dangerous, but in the end I will own him.
In Destroy I will have paranoid who believes that everyone else is indoctrinated. He won't be serving me directly, but his actions would work fine for me, since he will destroy his own chances to beat me. Least useful servitude, but still servitude nonetheless.

Also, if geth are already dead, I most likely would end up with the latter anyway. But I'm realist. Just because its not the best , it could still be useful.

So no matter what the Reapers win, and your whole journey was pointless?

Modifié par killage_wizard, 04 juin 2012 - 03:33 .

[Lord Goose]

You shouldn't agree with me at all. You should not believe in any single word I said, you should do something against my will. I say that you have to choose, so... reject the choice. Do not do anything and wait fo EC.


If they would play Indoctrination Theory THAT way, my respect and fondness of this company would sky-rocket.

[killage_wizard]

Lord Goose wrote...

You shouldn't agree with me at all. You should not believe in any single word I said, you should do something against my will. I say that you have to choose, so... reject the choice. Do not do anything and wait fo EC.


If they would play Indoctrination Theory THAT way, my respect and fondness of this company would sky-rocket.

But you don't want me to choose destroy.  It is the only option you present negatively.  There is no reason to belive that Shepard will become paranoid if he chooses it.  I choose destroy because I don't believe you about the Geth and EDI, and I believe your negative description of it means that if I choose destroy I break you illusion.

[Lord Goose]

But you don't want me to choose destroy. It is the only
option you present negatively.

Its because I would like someone as useful as Saren or TIM. But you still could be useful as deluded fool. You just have to choose anything from my options.

Using your example, hamburger will kill you in three days, steak would kill you immediately, and road runner would kill you in five days. If I need to kill you, I succed anyway, but I would like to finish the job faster, so I put most powerful poison in the best food. You can evade death only by refusing to eat.

[Mobius-Silent]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Just because you have to think more and tack on more concepts and ideas to make an earlier idea work does not make it more creative. Yes it means people have to think creatively, but, well consider Occam's Razor, which states that simple explanations are usually better

Occam's Razor does _not_support I.T.

There are many reasons for a person to like I.T. but "more plausable" according to Occam's razon is not one of them

[Mobius-Silent]

Silhouett3 wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...
 coming up with better and more interesting suggestions.

Really?

Such as?

All of the descussion on the nature of the control ending (When I.Ters can keep their traps shut) all the discussion on the nature of synthesis (again... I.T.ers: trap shut) The interesting discussion on the origin on the inner dais in the decision arena (It looks like it unfolded from a "secret nubbin" on the end of the Crucible) The relation to the second leaked script that suggested that the Catalyst had lost control of the Reapers the moment the Crucible docked (also explained the whole end sequence much more effectively). discussion about the nature of the Citadel (Seems to be doing processing, is it a reaper construction facility?) What is still intact after the Citadel explosion (The Presidium and maybe the Citadel tower)

All of that is nonsense from the perspective of the I.T. because I.T. is just destructive, it doesn't contribute anything to our understanding of the mass effect universe it just removes content.

[Versidious]

macrocarl wrote...

ME3 wasn't rushed. Why do people say that? And then keep saying that? Remember it was pushed back 3 or 4 months? How can you rush something that they pushed the release date back on to work on it? The answer is you don't.

It was pushed back four/five months, well in advance of the initial proposed release date of November - the extension was an estimate of the amount of time they needed, nothing better. It may even have been the best they could've gotten their publishers, EA, to give them. They may have tried to spend those extra months patching holes and finding shortcuts to shorten their game to allow it to be released. The marketing campaign then saturated its promotions with the new date of release, so if they failed, they would've had to release it anyway. This has happened before: With KoToR 2, which wasn't Bioware, but was literally an unfinished game on release, and Dragon Age 2, which also was literally an unfinished game upon release.

Bioware in general makes shortcuts and takes the lazy road all the time. Going back to their very first games they reused levels constantly, moving around some chairs and a potted plant to try and claim that it was a different room. I'm sure you remember Mass Effect 1's level reuse, and Dragon Age 2's as well? Look at how they approached the ending cut scenes. See how they're very similar? Note how the Sovereign-class/Capital Reapers, who are all supposed to be unique, are in fact completely identical? See how there's still no female Turians, or that only a few species get husks? Normally, their writing is exempt from this laziness, but in ME3, they demonstrate a number of consistency flaws, and utilise temporary character idiocy and the worst kind of plot armour to keep certain characters alive? Even Legion's death...  'I'm sorry, but in order to achieve my goals, I must use Cut and Paste instead of Copy and Paste for some reason. BLEURGH! I'm dead.'. The auto-dialogue is something I can dismiss as deliberate simplification to attract a more action-oriented audience, but the plot flaws? Nope.

As for the ending dialogue...  The game takes you back to before you attack the Cerberus base, so that you can play any DLC you download. That's what it means when it says 'Build upon the Legend'. It did the same with DA:Origins, when, if you sacrificed your Warden, you still get plonked back into the game before you go to the Landsmeet after you beat it, with a message similar to ME3's.

[The Night Mammoth]

macrocarl wrote...

ME3 wasn't rushed. Why do people say that? And then keep saying that? Remember it was pushed back 3 or 4 months? How can you rush something that they pushed the release date back on to work on it? The answer is you don't.

You'll have to ask BioWare that, but if you can't see Priority: Earth was rushed then you're a lost cause. 

[Deltoran]

I don't hate the IT. I just don't think its true, would be nice though, so long as they (Bioware) properly resolve the ME3 story after the IT events in the EC.

[Xandurpein]

My problem with IT is that so many of it's staunchest supporters try to tell me that if IT is true it would somehow transform the ending into something incredibly awesome and spectacular. I mean sure, I can see it as a possible way out of the current mess, even it feels a bit contrrieved, but that's all. If it turns out, like some still seems to think, that IT was actually Bioware's plan all along, I'll just be even more annoyed.

[killage_wizard]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Silhouett3 wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...
 coming up with better and more interesting suggestions.

Really?

Such as?

All of the descussion on the nature of the control ending (When I.Ters can keep their traps shut) all the discussion on the nature of synthesis (again... I.T.ers: trap shut) The interesting discussion on the origin on the inner dais in the decision arena (It looks like it unfolded from a "secret nubbin" on the end of the Crucible) The relation to the second leaked script that suggested that the Catalyst had lost control of the Reapers the moment the Crucible docked (also explained the whole end sequence much more effectively). discussion about the nature of the Citadel (Seems to be doing processing, is it a reaper construction facility?) What is still intact after the Citadel explosion (The Presidium and maybe the Citadel tower)

All of that is nonsense from the perspective of the I.T. because I.T. is just destructive, it doesn't contribute anything to our understanding of the mass effect universe it just removes content.

The same can be said about the current ending.

[balance5050]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Just because you have to think more and tack on more concepts and ideas to make an earlier idea work does not make it more creative. Yes it means people have to think creatively, but, well consider Occam's Razor, which states that simple explanations are usually better

Occam's Razor does _not_support I.T.

There are many reasons for a person to like I.T. but "more plausable" according to Occam's razon is not one of them

It's more plausuble because indoctrination has been a staple of Mass Effect since day one, to not accept IT is to ignore huge chunks of the story.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

killage_wizard wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Silhouett3 wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...
 coming up with better and more interesting suggestions.

Really?

Such as?

All of the descussion on the nature of the control ending (When I.Ters can keep their traps shut) all the discussion on the nature of synthesis (again... I.T.ers: trap shut) The interesting discussion on the origin on the inner dais in the decision arena (It looks like it unfolded from a "secret nubbin" on the end of the Crucible) The relation to the second leaked script that suggested that the Catalyst had lost control of the Reapers the moment the Crucible docked (also explained the whole end sequence much more effectively). discussion about the nature of the Citadel (Seems to be doing processing, is it a reaper construction facility?) What is still intact after the Citadel explosion (The Presidium and maybe the Citadel tower)

All of that is nonsense from the perspective of the I.T. because I.T. is just destructive, it doesn't contribute anything to our understanding of the mass effect universe it just removes content.

The same can be said about the current ending.

No. The current ending just plain blows. Indoctrination Theory, from what I understand of it, simply handwaves everything and says "that didn't really happen". That's what people mean when they say it simply removes content. Conflict with TIM? Didn't happen. Conflict with Catalyst? Again, didn't happen. Joker on the Normandy? Nihil. All IT does is rewind the clock without adding anything significant story-wise.

It's like what happens in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time everytime the character dies; the Prince tells us it wasn't real.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Xandurpein wrote...

My problem with IT is that so many of it's staunchest supporters try to tell me that if IT is true it would somehow transform the ending into something incredibly awesome and spectacular. I mean sure, I can see it as a possible way out of the current mess, even it feels a bit contrrieved, but that's all. If it turns out, like some still seems to think, that IT was actually Bioware's plan all along, I'll just be even more annoyed.

Also true. People have thrown a number of different criticisms of the ending as written. What IT does do is drop the craptastic justification offered by the Catalyst and (somewhat) addresses the weird nature of TIM's abilities. What it does not do is address: 1) the lack of falling action where we should be given a sense of resolution, 2) account for choices and consequences, since IT claims it all was fake, and what IT does add which is a negative is 3) indicates that the conflict with TIM and the Reapers didn't happen, meaning the writers thought people would be content leaving the story unfinished.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 juin 2012 - 04:58 .