496 réponses à ce sujet

[shodiswe]

killage_wizard wrote...

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? 

I don't know what you meen with ruin the entire series... people will build new ships and perhaps mini relays (conduit).
The universo will go on... However  Ithink the endign was crap.. poorly written and rushed. They will build ships that are a hundred times faster or a thousand times faster... the Citade seeled to make an instant jump directly to earth... which is far beyond the capabilites of the other reapers. It likely has a mass effect core comparable to that of the relays or something far more advanced.. Multicore drive, several smaller drives that increases efficiency.

As I see it the mass effect galaxy and civilization didn't end, but the ending was crap.

[killage_wizard]

Kaelef wrote...

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.

riiiiiiiiiight

[BaladasDemnevanni]

killage_wizard wrote...

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. 

Fair enough. And I'll stick with the literal interpretation. All this is really is a game of pick your poison. As written, I think IT theory sucks. Now, if given clarification, it could be the greatest plot twist ever introduced into a storyline and I envy all those who haven't played ME3 until after the EC comes out, assuming that's the case. But that doesn't mean I think Bioware planned it. Someone earlier mentioned they believe IT because the alternative was that Bioware had terrible writers. I'm really curious how IT theory (your hope of a true ending dlc not withstanding) in its current form can be viewed as quality. What it says to me is that someone at Bioware actually thought people would be happy to conclude the entire trilogy without actually concluding the entire trilogy. And that is stretching credibility to its absolute maximum.

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? 

They actually stated later on in an interview that this was no longer the case. They had contemplated including a Reapers win scenario, and then discarded it.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 juin 2012 - 06:00 .

[Vox Draco]

Kaelef wrote...

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.

And not to forget the arrogant people...

[llbountyhunter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

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? 

They actuall stated later on in an interview that this was no longer the case. They had contemplated including a Reapers win scenario, and then discarded it.

not that I dont trust or anything... but do you have a link?

[llbountyhunter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

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. 

Fair enough. And I'll stick with the literal interpretation. All this is really is a game of pick your poison. As written, I think IT theory sucks. Now, if given clarification, it could be the greatest plot twist ever introduced into a storyline and I envy all those who haven't played ME3 until after the EC comes out, assuming that's the case. But that doesn't mean I think Bioware planned it. Someone earlier mentioned they believe IT because the alternative was that Bioware had terrible writers. I'm really curious how IT theory (your hope of a true ending dlc not withstanding) in its current form can be viewed as quality. What it says to me is that someone at Bioware actually thought people would be happy to conclude the entire trilogy without actually concluding the entire trilogy. And that is stretching credibility to its absolute maximum.

thats ok, its normal for some people hate amazing works of art.

[killage_wizard]

shodiswe wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

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? 

I don't know what you meen with ruin the entire series... people will build new ships and perhaps mini relays (conduit).
The universo will go on... However  Ithink the endign was crap.. poorly written and rushed. They will build ships that are a hundred times faster or a thousand times faster... the Citade seeled to make an instant jump directly to earth... which is far beyond the capabilites of the other reapers. It likely has a mass effect core comparable to that of the relays or something far more advanced.. Multicore drive, several smaller drives that increases efficiency.

As I see it the mass effect galaxy and civilization didn't end, but the ending was crap.

Choosing control contradicts your fight with TIM.  Choosing Synthesis contradicts your fight with Saren.  Choosing Destroy wipes out the Geth for no reason other than to make it less appealing.  The mass relays are destroyed in all three endings, which means the fleet is stuck, which, means they starve to death.  It makes Joker look like a coward for running.  It introduces a new character in the star kid that was never foreshadowed in any degree prior to when you met him.  It ignores Javik's assertion that with a alliance of independent races working together you may be able to defeat the Reapers.  It condradicts and ignores so much that it kicks the rest of the series in the balls if you take the ending literally. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

llbountyhunter wrote...

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

Sure, that's a possibility. Or that camera simply panned in for a close-up. We're given close-ups of a million characters throughout the series.

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.

If the name of the game is indoctrination, yes, we do. Exposition is the prime technique by which the events of a narrative are established. Until otherwise, IT remains a fan theory, since we're given no positive evidence to validate it. What you're suggesting is similar to a viewer concluding that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father without the story telling us "Darth Vader is your father". Harbinger, Anderson, or TIM would have been perfect for this purpose. 

Ultimately, IT theory needs to do something significant, not simply handwave plotholes. Without the EC, IT simply pushes back the clock fifteen minutes. Okay, so Shepard broke indoctrination....so what? 

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.

How does this imply IT? They work just as well with a literal interpretation of the endings.

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

Primarily because if IT is true, Bioware still screwed up the presentation. Elements like the carbon copy endings, the inclusion of the Joker escape scene, Stargazer scene, etc, all that was wasted if they were simply going to conclude "It was all in your head".

[BaladasDemnevanni]

llbountyhunter wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

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. 

Fair enough. And I'll stick with the literal interpretation. All this is really is a game of pick your poison. As written, I think IT theory sucks. Now, if given clarification, it could be the greatest plot twist ever introduced into a storyline and I envy all those who haven't played ME3 until after the EC comes out, assuming that's the case. But that doesn't mean I think Bioware planned it. Someone earlier mentioned they believe IT because the alternative was that Bioware had terrible writers. I'm really curious how IT theory (your hope of a true ending dlc not withstanding) in its current form can be viewed as quality. What it says to me is that someone at Bioware actually thought people would be happy to conclude the entire trilogy without actually concluding the entire trilogy. And that is stretching credibility to its absolute maximum.

thats ok, its normal for some people hate amazing works of art.

Neither ending in its current form even remotely approaches an amazing work of art.

[Memnon]

Personally, I don't know why people can't discuss the possibilities without resorting to namecalling and insults -
nobody knows, and nobody will know what will happen until the DLC is released. Bioware probably doesn't even know ...

I'm not sure if I would consider myself an IT'er, but as I was going through the "slow-mo" sequence, my FIRST thought was that it was a dream. When I started talking to the Illusive Man and saw all of the weird stuff
going on during that sequence, I began to think I was under the influence of indoctrination - this was all before I had even heard of IT (I avoided the forums for spoilers till I finished the game). Having said that I had a lot of questions - if this entire sequence was you being indoctrinated, what happens if you pick the "wrong" option (whatever it is)? Do you get a "Critical Game Failure" once the DLC is released? That would stink!

Why in the world are your answer options tied to your readiness? That makes zero sense - the readiness score should affect the galactic-wide struggle, e.g. whether or not planets and fleets survive the battle while you're piddling with the Catalyst. The only thing I can think of was that Bioware had bigger plans for an ending (design phase up front), and had to rush something out ... they had this mechanic and had to fit it in somehow.

If this was a dream then what was the point of it, and why end the game there? If you were being indoctrinated, then same question - why end the game there? I mean, indoctrination isn't something you can fight is it? I guess you can break the effect temporarily to kill yourself a la Saren and the Illusive Man, but if you are indoctrinated then how is the DLC going to play out? My own personal opinion is that they are using the extra time to create the ending - or some modicum of it - that they originially intended. What that means, I have no idea, but anything is better than red explosion vs blue explosion vs green explosion. This was one of the worst game endings I have ever seen, and anything that changes it - including a full retcon - has my support.

Modifié par Stornskar, 04 juin 2012 - 06:18 .

[Lord Goose]

Choosing Destroy wipes out the Geth for no reason other than to make it less appealing.

In fact, is kind of logical. Destroy will unleash wave of synthetic-killing energy, which would kill all the geth and Reapers. Also, it is possible to let geth die if you don't made some decisions.



So, what exactly bad about destroy, if your geth are already dead?

It introduces a new character in the star kid that was never foreshadowed in any degree prior to when you met him.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Klencory
https://twitter.com/...420195968847873

Also, during both fights, Shepard seemed to be more concerned with the fact, that they both are clearly indoctrinated. Not that they were saying.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 04 juin 2012 - 06:17 .

[balance5050]

Lord Goose wrote...


So, what exactly bad about destroy, if your geth are already dead?

The kid says he will destroy "most technology you rely on". He basically changes his story to make sure destroy seems bad.

[llbountyhunter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

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

Sure, that's a possibility. Or that camera simply panned in for a close-up. We're given close-ups of a million characters throughout the series.

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.

If the name of the game is indoctrination, yes, we do. Exposition is the prime technique by which the events of a narrative are established. Until otherwise, IT remains a fan theory, since we're given no positive evidence to validate it. What you're suggesting is similar to a viewer concluding that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father without the story telling us "Darth Vader is your father". Harbinger, Anderson, or TIM would have been perfect for this purpose. 

Ultimately, IT theory needs to do something significant, not simply handwave plotholes. Without the EC, IT simply pushes back the clock fifteen minutes. Okay, so Shepard broke indoctrination....so what? 

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.

How does this imply IT? They work just as well with a literal interpretation of the endings.

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

Primarily because if IT is true, Bioware still screwed up the presentation. Elements like the carbon copy endings, the inclusion of the Joker escape scene, Stargazer scene, etc, all that was wasted if they were simply going to conclude "It was all in your head".

1. unlikely, because andersons eyes are actually looking at you, in other "close ups" even if the genreal face direction is at the camara the eyes are looking at who the charatcer is talking to.

2. sorry shouldve clarified, I meant its not neccesary yet, that moment will fit best in EC.... remember we are supposed to specualting  at this point. can ruin the reveal just yet.

3. it doesnt point exactly at IT, but its support that the endings are not meant to be taken literaly

4. you opinion, I dont think theyre wasted. they fit in as visions of hope, and as a way to help shepard cope. (hey that rhymed )

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 04 juin 2012 - 06:22 .

[llbountyhunter]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

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. 

Fair enough. And I'll stick with the literal interpretation. All this is really is a game of pick your poison. As written, I think IT theory sucks. Now, if given clarification, it could be the greatest plot twist ever introduced into a storyline and I envy all those who haven't played ME3 until after the EC comes out, assuming that's the case. But that doesn't mean I think Bioware planned it. Someone earlier mentioned they believe IT because the alternative was that Bioware had terrible writers. I'm really curious how IT theory (your hope of a true ending dlc not withstanding) in its current form can be viewed as quality. What it says to me is that someone at Bioware actually thought people would be happy to conclude the entire trilogy without actually concluding the entire trilogy. And that is stretching credibility to its absolute maximum.

thats ok, its normal for some people hate amazing works of art.

Neither ending in its current form even remotely approaches an amazing work of art.

again, its ok for people to express their OPINIONS.

[Uncle Jo]

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.

I suppose that you're talking about the events after the endings. If we refer to BW said: they wanted speculations, so clearly telling in a text-box that you were indoctrinated or that you failed would kinda ruin it. If the players were about to know what choice was really the best, there is no debate anymore. The most important theme of the discussion (IT true or not) is IMO, "Did you trust the brat or not"?

- Harbinger is messing with your mind since he blasted you. You're wounded, uncounscious, somewhat desperated, the perfect state to launch an indoctrination. The space troll aka the Catalyst is the shape he took to add more confusion in Shep's mind and reminds her of the "Kid" she couldn't save.
Remember how valuable would be Shep if indoctrinated. It'd be major blow for the allied forces and would make Earth as easy prey and the war much shorter. So better keep you alive, than simply kill you.
The whole Citadel scene is your mind battle with Harbinger, breaking his indoc attempt or not. My personal take is that the point of the ending was to test how high was your resolve.

-The Catalyst is what it always was : the Citadel. Not a glowing kid who pops out of nowhere. As for the Crucible, it's true that we don't know what it could really do. Maybe it's even a red-herring. But honestly I prefer not having a clue or theorizing about it and how it works than seeing what I saw at the face valued ending.

Indoctrination Theory is still an interpretation and not the absolute truth. Only Bioware can tell what really happened in the end. But bashing a theory, that still makes more sense than the face valued endings and based on an established lore (the Indoctrination ability of the Reapers), just for the sake of it and without even knowing a damn about it, is for me rather pointless.

[Lord Goose]

The kid says he will destroy "most technology you rely on". He basically changes his story to make sure destroy seems bad.

In comparison to "you will die" in Control, losing most technology doesn't sounds very bad...

[llbountyhunter]

Lord Goose wrote...

The kid says he will destroy "most technology you rely on". He basically changes his story to make sure destroy seems bad.

In comparison to "you will die" in Control, losing most technology doesn't sounds very bad...

he says you will lose your body. youll still be alive if you are able to control the reapers. 


or are you suggesting that hes lying????  

[balance5050]

Kaelef wrote...

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.

No there are IT haters for sure, the people that troll every topic with I.T. in the title just to throw insults at the people who believe it for example. Also, all polls show that a majority believe one version or another.

http://holdtheline.m...on-theory.1909/ 

[balance5050]

Lord Goose wrote...

The kid says he will destroy "most technology you rely on". He basically changes his story to make sure destroy seems bad.

In comparison to "you will die" in Control, losing most technology doesn't sounds very bad...

Right, sending everyone you love into a galactic dark age doesn't sound bad.....

[Lord Goose]

he says you will lose your body. youll still be alive if you are able to control the reapers.


or are you suggesting that hes lying????

I'm saying, that idea about him trying to convince me that destroy is bad, sounds far-fetched, assuming that I didn't saved the geth. If geth are dead, in Control you will control the Reapers, but your body would die. In Destroy you will kill the Reapers and most of your implants would be disabled. So, why do I need to sacrifice myself to control the Reapers, if geth are dead?

[Lord Goose]

Right, sending everyone you love into a galactic dark age doesn't sound bad.....

Eh. So, you think that by "you" he meant galactic civilization?

[llbountyhunter]

Lord Goose wrote...

he says you will lose your body. youll still be alive if you are able to control the reapers.


or are you suggesting that hes lying????

I'm saying, that idea about him trying to convince me that destroy is bad, sounds far-fetched, assuming that I didn't saved the geth. If geth are dead, in Control you will control the Reapers, but your body would die. In Destroy you will kill the Reapers and most of your implants would be disabled. So, why do I need to sacrifice myself to control the Reapers, if geth are dead?

well edi, is still alive... and with destroy (according to the star brat) most of technology will be disabled as well. resulting in many more deaths

so yes the catalyst does paint destroy in the worst light.

[PlumPaul93]

Kaelef wrote...

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.

This

[Lord Goose]

well edi, is still alive... and with destroy (according to the star brat) most of technology will be disabled as well. resulting in many more deaths

I always assumed that by "you" he means Shepard. Not galactic civilizations in general.

[balance5050]

Lord Goose wrote...

Right, sending everyone you love into a galactic dark age doesn't sound bad.....

Eh. So, you think that by "you" he meant galactic civilization?

Uhm yes. He differentiates between synthetics, technology, and your implants as different things that will be destroyed.

"You can destroy all synthetic life if you want, including the Geth, and most of the technology you rely on. Even you are partly synthetic."

He says all 3 in this video:

http://www.youtube.c...czhHtqgY#t=986s

Modifié par balance5050, 04 juin 2012 - 06:39 .