Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[shodiswe]

BatmanTurian wrote...

AsheraII wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

shodiswe wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Read the OP in a televangelist's voice and you'll realize how ridiculous he sounds. He says IT is a religion, but he sounds like he's telling us that the devil is seducing us into believing the IT.
He sounds like a religious leader. Sorry, but it's true. It completely undermines everything he has to say. Seboist just sounds like a sycophant choir boy in this metaphor.

IT is still built and faith and belief more than something proven. There is no single piece of proof that noone can question. There is no line where the writers wrote. "Shepard is indoctrinated" or "this is a dream, even after you wake up from the dream!" or "this is a dream inside your dream!"...

Since im also dissapointed in the current ending I can relate to the need to reject it and the pain of it would it be all there was to it.. Which atm I think happens to be the case   It's just the simplest solution and most plausible explanation that doesn't requier lofty storytelling and very farfetched theories to prove it, even though it is done without any tangiable proof that can't be questioned.

I choose the most scientific solution to pick a hypothetical theory, Occam's razor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy or succinctness. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.


The simplest explanation with the least amount of assumptions would be that the ending sucked and the Bioware team, especialy the people responsible for making the ending thought it would make do and it would finish the job in the allotted time.
There is no proof that it's the right assumption or that it's the "only right" assumption, but given the lesser amount assumptions needed to formulate the hypotheses it's probably more correct than the IT when it commes to explain the ending we got on release.

What will Bioware do in the EC? They will do that which feels good for the team and that which is likely to pacify the largest amount of dissatisfied fans without upsettign more fans, and without loosing face entierly.
They say they wont chagne the ending but they can still add to them and they can diversify them without changing the actual endings as they were but adding more to it to make them different and satisfy consumer feedback. To some degree anyway.

It will be interesting to see what BW does. Whatever they do it will likely have ramifications that they didn't anticipate, especialy if it's true they didn't anticipate the fans reaction to the endings given at release.

I think that will be enough from me in this thread, I got other things to do, but I must say it will be interesting no matter what hapens. If not for the sake of the game but from the socialstuddies point of view and science   It will also be a nice example for marketing management classes on how and how not to manage customer relations.

Occam's Razor can't be used on literary interpretations because of hidden meanings. If you're trying to use it on Literary interpretations, you're using it wrong. It's for scientific and philisophical theories. Nice try though, sport.

This whole discussion definitely has both scientific (look logically at the facts presented within the codex) and philosophical (do you believe in the IT or not) roots, meaning Occam's Razor is applicable here. It is NOT applicable to the story as a whole, but can be applied to some of its segments. We can use it to go through the knowledge we have of indoctrination (a scientific subject within the virtual reality of the story) and whether Shepard was subject to it (factual proof within the virtual reality of the story).

It's not applicable because we are talking about story elements which are guided by a concious being or beings. Occam never meant the theory to be used in all situations and in many situations it is actually the wrong tool to use. It is especially wrong to use it on a video game whose main focus is the story. Shooting stuff comes second to the story and is only the vehicle to drive the adventure story forward.

It is a science fiction story though. Science is like shooting: it's there to drive the story forward. And we're pretty specifically discussing a science component: indcoctrination.


As you can see I applied Occam’s Razor to the question “what was wrong with the ending. “ not the IT as a whole. MY point was that it most likely was bad writing and that the Bioware staff thought it would make do as an ending. That’s my application Of Occam’s. To a simple question. I find that my conclusion is far more likely than a very elaborate theory with no solid proof that can be interpreted any way you want, with a lot of assumptions to it.
It is similar to the example that” When you see a tree that’s fallen down during the night, it’s more likely to have been caused by the wind than by an elephant or 200m high aliens.
 
There is nothing wrong about my use of Occam’s razor. Maybe I should have specified the question more clearly.
But the IT (as I see it) is actually about explaining what hapend in the ending and in some cases providing an ending that some people prefer. Which would be similar to explaining why a tree fell during the night.

Since that was the main objection to my post i'm guessing we're done here.