496 réponses à ce sujet

[Typhoniel]

Well IT sucks even more than the ending we got. I would even deinstall it and never play multiplayer again when they release EC and say. You are right IT is true. Tadaaaah! I'm sorry, but I hate this piece of irrational strawgrasping just to get something that isn't that what we got.

I want an ending like in koobismos Marauder Shields ending. That was in my mind since ME2. That everything will be epic and big and you have to make decisions like in collectors base to get through it.

IT is just a theory like God or communism.

[Mobius-Silent]

[quote]killage_wizard wrote...

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.

[/quote]

The same can be said about the current ending.

[/quote]

Actually _by definition_ it can't. The current ending (literal interpretation) is the baseline for how much content/story/exposition we have. I.T. removes large chunks of that content and discards it as a metaphor and attempt at indoctrinition. Things like examining the second leaked script can provide us with _speculative_ additional content, but the I.T. can't, it provides nothing extra it only subtracts from what we have.

[Mobius-Silent]

balance5050 wrote...

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.

You misunderstood what I said.
You may have your own criteria that defines I.T. as more plausable, thats up to you. But the critical thinking technique referred to as "Occam's Razor" (Which is one of many ways of determining truth/plausibility) does not support I.T.

[Uncle Jo]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...


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.

That's always the problem. Most of the people don't really know what the IT is and how it works. They just base their argument on some comments read or heard here and there and start calling it grasping at straws, fan-fiction, if not worse. And IT does work without further gameplay.
Or you just prefer the starbrat as such, which ruins not only ME3 but also the previous games, his nonsensical logic and absurd choices? The whole Normandy escape and crash on a random eden planet? This just because BW has bad writers or the game was rushed?
What do we have to lose?
If the EC comes with something better than the IT, than fine, I'll be more than happy with it.
But till then I haven't read anything than the IT on these forums that could explain all the crap that happened in a more logical or satisfying way, ending taken literally or not. Just my opinion tough.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 04 juin 2012 - 05:13 .

[killage_wizard]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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.

IT doesn't say what happened on the Citadel didn't happen.  It is a metaphor for how Shepard either breaks or does not break the Reaper influence.  It still happens, it just happens in Shepard's mind.  Its how he percieves the Reaper influence.

[killage_wizard]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Actually _by definition_ it can't. The current ending (literal interpretation) is the baseline for how much content/story/exposition we have. I.T. removes large chunks of that content and discards it as a metaphor and attempt at indoctrinition. Things like examining the second leaked script can provide us with _speculative_ additional content, but the I.T. can't, it provides nothing extra it only subtracts from what we have.

If you take the ending as it is literally it subtracts and discards they themes, logic, and foreshadowed that took place up until you get hit with HArbinger's beam.

Modifié par killage_wizard, 04 juin 2012 - 05:08 .

[balance5050]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

You misunderstood what I said.
You may have your own criteria that defines I.T. as more plausable, thats up to you. But the critical thinking technique referred to as "Occam's Razor" (Which is one of many ways of determining truth/plausibility) does not support I.T.

Actually it does becasue if you use only the ingame evidence (as you should if you truly wish to emulate a scintific analysis, which is the field where the razor is usually used) then I.T. is the most liekly answer that uses the fewest assumptions, you need to create different assumptions to explain every inconsistency without the I.T..

[BaladasDemnevanni]

killage_wizard wrote...

IT doesn't say what happened on the Citadel didn't happen.  It is a metaphor for how Shepard either breaks or does not break the Reaper influence.  It still happens, it just happens in Shepard's mind.  Its how he percieves the Reaper influence.

So...it didn't happen. Correct me if I'm wrong: IT theory claims that the Destroy Ending is Shepard resisting the Reapers' influence and waking up in London, after being hit with Harbinger's beam. That's the version I observed in a youtube video several months back, at least. Unless that assumption is incorrect, IT basically discards everything that happens in the last fifteen minutes.

[balance5050]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

IT doesn't say what happened on the Citadel didn't happen.  It is a metaphor for how Shepard either breaks or does not break the Reaper influence.  It still happens, it just happens in Shepard's mind.  Its how he percieves the Reaper influence.

So...it didn't happen. Correct me if I'm wrong: IT theory claims that the Destroy Ending is Shepard resisting the Reapers' influence and waking up in London, after being hit with Harbinger's beam. That's the version I observed in a youtube video several months back, at least. Unless that assumption is incorrect, IT basically discards everything that happens in the last fifteen minutes.

Actually it's a huge mental battle for your consiousness. Happens all the time in movies, tv show, and comics.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

balance5050 wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

IT doesn't say what happened on the Citadel didn't happen.  It is a metaphor for how Shepard either breaks or does not break the Reaper influence.  It still happens, it just happens in Shepard's mind.  Its how he percieves the Reaper influence.

So...it didn't happen. Correct me if I'm wrong: IT theory claims that the Destroy Ending is Shepard resisting the Reapers' influence and waking up in London, after being hit with Harbinger's beam. That's the version I observed in a youtube video several months back, at least. Unless that assumption is incorrect, IT basically discards everything that happens in the last fifteen minutes.

Actually it's a huge mental battle for your consiousness. Happens all the time in movies, tv show, and comics.

Sure, after which I expect resolution. Give it context, emotional significance, etc. Neo woke up from the Matrix- characters explain to him what's what. Shepard apparently woke up from Indoctrination- let me express how I feel and finish the fight, since that's actually what ME3 was about.

But that doesn't address my point: does IT theory not conclude with Shepard waking up after Harbinger's beam hits him? If so, it's a worthless theory, far as I'm concerned and still gives into many of the same criticisms targeted at the current ending. .

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 juin 2012 - 05:20 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

P47 ace wrote...

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

You're forgetting one thing: IT is not proven. It is speculation. And if it's wrong, then one of 1 or 2 is correct. At which point, they are not "choices" as to what to believe like IT is.

[balance5050]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

IT doesn't say what happened on the Citadel didn't happen.  It is a metaphor for how Shepard either breaks or does not break the Reaper influence.  It still happens, it just happens in Shepard's mind.  Its how he percieves the Reaper influence.

So...it didn't happen. Correct me if I'm wrong: IT theory claims that the Destroy Ending is Shepard resisting the Reapers' influence and waking up in London, after being hit with Harbinger's beam. That's the version I observed in a youtube video several months back, at least. Unless that assumption is incorrect, IT basically discards everything that happens in the last fifteen minutes.

Actually it's a huge mental battle for your consiousness. Happens all the time in movies, tv show, and comics.

Sure, after which I expect resolution. Give it context, emotional significance, etc. Neo woke up from the Matrix- characters explain to him what's what. Shepard apparently woke up from Indoctrination- let me express how I feel and finish the fight, since that's actually what ME3 was about.

But that doesn't address my point: does IT theory not conclude with Shepard waking up after Harbinger's beam hits him? If so, it's a worthless theory, far as I'm concerned and still gives into many of the same criticisms targeted at the current ending. .

Actually you should only have one criticism... that you don't actually have an ending, you have a cliffhanger.

Modifié par balance5050, 04 juin 2012 - 05:22 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

balance5050 wrote...

Actually you should only have one criticism... that you don't actually have an ending, you have a cliffhanger.

You forgot to include lack of choices and consequences. Also that they wasted all that time recording ending sequences which didn't really happen.

But considering ME3 was supposed to conclude the story, by all accounts, you pretty much just expressed why IT was a terrible idea to begin with. It's as we said before, it simply removes content and does nothing of significance, since we're never shown the effect of Shepard breaking indoctrination.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 juin 2012 - 05:27 .

[killage_wizard]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

IT doesn't say what happened on the Citadel didn't happen.  It is a metaphor for how Shepard either breaks or does not break the Reaper influence.  It still happens, it just happens in Shepard's mind.  Its how he percieves the Reaper influence.

So...it didn't happen. Correct me if I'm wrong: IT theory claims that the Destroy Ending is Shepard resisting the Reapers' influence and waking up in London, after being hit with Harbinger's beam. That's the version I observed in a youtube video several months back, at least. Unless that assumption is incorrect, IT basically discards everything that happens in the last fifteen minutes.

Actually it's a huge mental battle for your consiousness. Happens all the time in movies, tv show, and comics.

Sure, after which I expect resolution. Give it context, emotional significance, etc. Neo woke up from the Matrix- characters explain to him what's what. Shepard apparently woke up from Indoctrination- let me express how I feel and finish the fight, since that's actually what ME3 was about.

But that doesn't address my point: does IT theory not conclude with Shepard waking up after Harbinger's beam hits him? If so, it's a worthless theory, far as I'm concerned and still gives into many of the same criticisms targeted at the current ending. .

The difference is it makes sense.  It doesn't not contradict the events of the previous game like the literal interpretation of the end.  And it discards nothing.  Discarding implies that the events of the illusion do not have a consequence.  They do.  You either wake up free of Reaper control, or you are indoc'd.

[balance5050]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Actually you should only have one criticism... that you don't actually have an ending, you have a cliffhanger.

You forgot to include lack of choices and consequences. Also that they wasted all that time recording ending sequences which didn't really happen.

But considering ME3 was supposed to conclude the story, by all accounts, you pretty much just expressed why IT was a terrible idea to begin with. It's as we said before, it simply removes content and does nothing of significance, since we're never shown the effect of Shepard breaking indoctrination.

IT includes you choice and integrates it into the EC, bringing far more variation and consequnce to the plate once the EC comes out.

I.T. is actually a plan to MAKE TIME, not waste it. Bioware originally asked EA for an extension of 6 months, they got 3, the E.C. is going to be the complete game.

[shodiswe]

Zardoc wrote...

What I don't get about IT supporters (maybe not all, but a whole lot of them) is how they think their THEORY = THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. You remind me of religious zealots.

This is what I think...  I don't like the ending but the IT people have gone crazy about the whole deal... It's like someone invented an IT bible and then the other IT people swears by it...

I just think the ending was rushed, in the end they ended up puting in the minimum amount of work needed to throw in a walkway from london to the citadel where shepard kills the reapers,, or whatever shepard decides.. However the mission and several of the conversation, mostly the Catalyst conversation seems lacking... and the action is far too "GAMEY" as some Bioware people said they didn't want ti with orde modes and few emotionaly meaningful consequences for actions you actualy take. It's Horde mode with people dying over the radio no matter what you do or how many war assets you bring, the same people always dies, no more no less.

The ending was rushed and inferior to for example the ending of ME2. I know a few peopel didn't like it but I get the feelign it's a small minority. ME3's ending lacks immersion and player relevance. Sure the ending could have been worse but then it would likely have been close to criminal. Least given the things people were told about the endings and the game in general before and at release.

The catalyst conversation is horrible.. just a few lines, no asking questions or dissagreeing with the catalysts views before blowing everything up. It feels like I should elaborate on this further but I doubt anyone will have the time to read it..

PS I don't hate IT but I think it's too rigid and the people who sticks to it seems a little extreme. It seems like it made a chicken out of an egg...  Maybe shepard is suffering from soem indectrination on some level.. it doesnt change the fact that the endign is bad though and it's likely not due to the indoctrination.

Modifié par shodiswe, 04 juin 2012 - 05:37 .

[ShaneP]

What I get about IT supporters is they seem to feel the need to get all pissy towards those of us that don't share it.

I don't like it because it would be an insult towards everything Commander Shepard was meant to stand for, and it would also essentially mean "You spent 3 games trying to end this threat but sorry you failed, now suck it!" (remember indoctrination cannot be reversed) which would be an even worse way to end the games than the ending we have in their current form.

As far as I am concerned the endings just sucked there was not intended to be some hidden subplot.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

balance5050 wrote...

IT includes you choice and integrates it into the EC, bringing far more variation and consequnce to the plate once the EC comes out.

I.T. is actually a plan to MAKE TIME, not waste it. Bioware originally asked EA for an extension of 6 months, they got 3, the E.C. is going to be the complete game.

Ah, see now you're backpedaling. This isn't a discussion of current endings vs. IT +EC. This is current endings vs. IT, in its current form. And we do know Bioware never planned to make the EC in the first place, given Muzyka's formal address and statements that the entire Mass Effect production schedule had to be pushed back to allow for this. In other words: if IT theory is true, which I do not consider to be the case, Bioware actually thought people were going to be content with a version of ME3 which did not include resolution with either TIM or the Reapers. And overall, I think that's an even more insane explanation.

[Mobius-Silent]

balance5050 wrote...

Actually it does becasue if you use only the ingame evidence (as you should if you truly wish to emulate a scintific analysis, which is the field where the razor is usually used) then I.T. is the most liekly answer that uses the fewest assumptions, you need to create different assumptions to explain every inconsistency without the I.T..

Not even remotely. You forget, you don't _need_ to "explain inconsistencies" if you are presented with a sequence of events the sequence of events that requires the least assumptions is the _one you have just seen_ especially if it ends with OOC narration that says "Commander Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat.."

[BaladasDemnevanni]

killage_wizard wrote...

The difference is it makes sense.  It doesn't not contradict the events of the previous game like the literal interpretation of the end.  And it discards nothing.  Discarding implies that the events of the illusion do not have a consequence.  They do.  You either wake up free of Reaper control, or you are indoc'd.

Sure, it makes sense because it handwaves every plothole away. As I said: if you were in a dream, how would you know until you woke up? Any plothole can be handwaved that easily.

What IT theory has not done is make indoctrination explicit. No one says to Shepard "you were indoctrinated" in the way that Morpheus tells Neo that he was inhabiting a dream, there's no confrontation with Harbinger, nothing. There is no character development which stems from it, no plot point, nothing. Quite literally, there is no exposition following Shepard waking up in London, all IT theory does is rewind the clock fifteen minutes. We know as much about the Catalyst, the Crucible, the ending, as we did when Harbinger shot us: absolutely nothing, because it was all in Shepard's head.

So yes, IT saves us from some terrible plotholes involving the Catalyst. Unfortunately, in its current incarnation, it doesn't add anything of benefit.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 juin 2012 - 05:41 .

[llbountyhunter]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Actually it does becasue if you use only the ingame evidence (as you should if you truly wish to emulate a scintific analysis, which is the field where the razor is usually used) then I.T. is the most liekly answer that uses the fewest assumptions, you need to create different assumptions to explain every inconsistency without the I.T..

Not even remotely. You forget, you don't _need_ to "explain inconsistencies" if you are presented with a sequence of events the sequence of events that requires the least assumptions is the _one you have just seen_ especially if it ends with OOC narration that says "Commander Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat.."

IT has less problems than the current ending. 

that message? really is that what your resort to? IT can still be true even if the message is there. it says you ended the reaper THREAT not the reapers themselfs.

its bassically a sentece that says something but means nothing.


better luck next time.

[killage_wizard]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

The difference is it makes sense.  It doesn't not contradict the events of the previous game like the literal interpretation of the end.  And it discards nothing.  Discarding implies that the events of the illusion do not have a consequence.  They do.  You either wake up free of Reaper control, or you are indoc'd.

Sure, it makes sense because it handwaves every plothole away. As I said: if you were in a dream, how would you know until you woke up? Any plothole can be handwaved that easily.

What IT theory has not done is make indoctrination explicit. No one says to Shepard "you were indoctrinated" in the way that Morpheus tells Neo that he was inhabiting a dream, there's no confrontation with Harbinger, nothing. There is no character development which stems from it, no plot point, nothing. Quite literally, there is no exposition following Shepard waking up in London, all IT theory does is rewind the clock fifteen minutes. We know as much about the Catalyst, the Crucible, the ending, as we did when Harbinger shot us: absolutely nothing, because it was all in Shepard's head.

So yes, IT saves us from some terrible plotholes involving the Catalyst. Unfortunately, in its current incarnation, it doesn't add anything of benefit.

If the choice is that or the enourmous plotholes, I'll take IT.  I'd rather have it end on a cliffhangar, with the hopes of a true ending type DLC, than have the ending ruin the entire series.  Bioware said that it would end Shepard's story, but they also said the game could end with the Reapers winning.  If the latter is apparently not true, why does the former have to be? 

[FOX216BC]

I would accept IT if BioWare go with it in the EC.
But this doesn't mean i consider IT to be the only possibility.
At least IT is one explanation.
What i don't like lately is people trying to disprove IT.
I rather like to hear (read) other possibilties then anti IT bs.

Modifié par FOX216BC, 04 juin 2012 - 05:50 .

[llbountyhunter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

The difference is it makes sense.  It doesn't not contradict the events of the previous game like the literal interpretation of the end.  And it discards nothing.  Discarding implies that the events of the illusion do not have a consequence.  They do.  You either wake up free of Reaper control, or you are indoc'd.

Sure, it makes sense because it handwaves every plothole away. As I said: if you were in a dream, how would you know until you woke up? Any plothole can be handwaved that easily.

What IT theory has not done is make indoctrination explicit. No one says to Shepard "you were indoctrinated" in the way that Morpheus tells Neo that he was inhabiting a dream, there's no confrontation with Harbinger, nothing. There is no character development which stems from it, no plot point, nothing. Quite literally, there is no exposition following Shepard waking up in London, all IT theory does is rewind the clock fifteen minutes. We know as much about the Catalyst, the Crucible, the ending, as we did when Harbinger shot us: absolutely nothing, because it was all in Shepard's head.

So yes, IT saves us from some terrible plotholes involving the Catalyst. Unfortunately, in its current incarnation, it doesn't add anything of benefit.

well... when anderson says "your.. INDOCTRTINATED"  he is not looking at TIM, but rather at you- directly at the camera.

also you dont need someone to tell you your in a dream. its not like the matrix where its a perfect simulation. its a mental battle and the cracks in this are bigger than the grand canyon. would have to be blind to no realize somethings off.

even the end choices theselfs happen in the moset symbolic way possible.

shooting something for destroy
grabing something for control
leaping into the unknown for synthesis.

I honestly dont see how anyone could take the endings literaly. 

[Kaelef]

There's no such thing as "IT haters". There are those who believe that IT presents a viable ending for ME3, and then there are normal, healthy people.