Uncle Jo wrote...
]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"?
Good speculation is the sort that the narrative throws at the player every step of the way. Inception is the prime example everyone loves using: was Cobb in a dream at the end? We're presented with active evidence which could indicate either possibility. We're shown what the world is like in a dream and we're shown what the world is like in reality. The totem tells us clear evidence whether Cobb is dreaming
ME3 does not do this. Many people grasped at IT after the fact. You said so yourself in your previous post; you bought IT because the current incarnation of the ending is insane. That's why I find IT distasteful; it's essentially a bandaid. A good source of speculation allows enough ambiguity for a person to think either option could be right. So maybe have Shepard actively wonder out loud "am I dreaming?". Neo does this in the Matrix. Or have someone comment on how most people who are exposed to that much Reaper tech should be heavily affected by this point.
A good plot twist requires that at some point, the developers fully reveal the twist (Darth Vader is Luke's father). Good speculation requires that enough information is given, throughout the narrative, that the player is constantly playing with the idea of whether they are being affected.
-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.
That's still handwaving it away. Okay, the Catalyst is the Citadel...now what does it do? You've given me the form, now give me the function. We're told the Crucible was modified to make use of the Catalyst....what did it do before? This all leads back to IT theory simply rewinding the clock.
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.
What exactly do I not know about it? So far, no one has told me that I got anything wrong as far as the details of the theory. I did have it right in thinking that IT theory involves Shepard waking up after Harbinger's beam, hence my point that it basically just removes the last fifteen minutes, since it contains nothing of narrative significance.
I like IT theory as an idea, I just don't think Bioware had intentions for it.
Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 04 juin 2012 - 06:52 .
Retour en haut
