238 réponses à ce sujet

[jules_vern18]

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

Lots of projection going on right there...

Jules... Didn't you once tell me that there's no sense in talking to the wall? Yet now you're judging people for thinking exactly that?

Because I believe that talking to most ITers is like talking to a wall.  I do not believe that talking to most anti-ITers is like talking to a wall.

The reason I made the comment about this poster was because he's directly accusing somebody of what he's been doing in the exact same breath.  You can't complain that anti-ITers are close-minded when you cannot even accept the possibility that your theory is wrong. 

[jules_vern18]

BatmanTurian wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

But we don't make threads that say you are a moron for not believing in the Indoctrination Theory.

No, you just hijack other threads to do it.

Love ya, Jules. Still kickin', I see.

Took a break and lurked for a while.  Had a bad day and thought I'd come take it out on the crazies

[WestLakeDragon]

I see a big problem in that both sides consist mostly of people whom couldn't fathom the other side being right in the end.

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

Lots of projection going on right there...

Jules... Didn't you once tell me that there's no sense in talking to the wall? Yet now you're judging people for thinking exactly that?

Because I believe that talking to most ITers is like talking to a wall.  I do not believe that talking to most anti-ITers is like talking to a wall.

The reason I made the comment about this poster was because he's directly accusing somebody of what he's been doing in the exact same breath.  You can't complain that anti-ITers are close-minded when you cannot even accept the possibility that your theory is wrong. 

What you don't understand Jules, as I said above, is that SubAstris and I have danced this dance before and had this debate and it never goes anywhere. SO why waste my time and his time? If anything, I think I'm being kind.

[KingZayd]

WestLakeDragon wrote...

I see a big problem in that both sides consist mostly of people whom couldn't fathom the other side being right in the end.

+1

[estebanus]

jules_vern18 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

Lots of projection going on right there...

Jules... Didn't you once tell me that there's no sense in talking to the wall? Yet now you're judging people for thinking exactly that?

Because I believe that talking to most ITers is like talking to a wall.  I do not believe that talking to most anti-ITers is like talking to a wall.

The reason I made the comment about this poster was because he's directly accusing somebody of what he's been doing in the exact same breath.  You can't complain that anti-ITers are close-minded when you cannot even accept the possibility that your theory is wrong. 

That's because you're one of the anti-ITers. Of course you believe talking with someone of your own affiliation is productive. I believe the exact same. That's not judgement, that's basic human nature.

I know BatmanTurian, and he can perfectly accept the IT as wrong. As can I.

As a matter of fact, our most productive members can accept it as wrong.

Modifié par estebanus, 18 juin 2012 - 10:02 .

[estebanus]

KingZayd wrote...

WestLakeDragon wrote...

I see a big problem in that both sides consist mostly of people whom couldn't fathom the other side being right in the end.

+1

++1

[jules_vern18]

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

[/quote]

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

[/quote]

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

[/quote]

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it
[/quote]

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

[/quote]

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

[/quote]

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

[/quote]

Lots of projection going on right there...

[/quote]

Jules... Didn't you once tell me that there's no sense in talking to the wall? Yet now you're judging people for thinking exactly that?

[/quote]

Because I believe that talking to most ITers is like talking to a wall.  I do not believe that talking to most anti-ITers is like talking to a wall.

The reason I made the comment about this poster was because he's directly accusing somebody of what he's been doing in the exact same breath.  You can't complain that anti-ITers are close-minded when you cannot even accept the possibility that your theory is wrong. 
[/quote]

What you don't understand Jules, as I said above, is that SubAstris and I have danced this dance before and had this debate and it never goes anywhere. SO why waste my time and his time? If anything, I think I'm being kind.

[/quote]

Fair enough.  I guess I didn't know the context.

[jules_vern18]

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

[/quote]

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

[/quote]

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

[/quote]

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it
[/quote]

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

[/quote]

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

[/quote]

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

[/quote]

Lots of projection going on right there...

[/quote]

Jules... Didn't you once tell me that there's no sense in talking to the wall? Yet now you're judging people for thinking exactly that?

[/quote]

Because I believe that talking to most ITers is like talking to a wall.  I do not believe that talking to most anti-ITers is like talking to a wall.

The reason I made the comment about this poster was because he's directly accusing somebody of what he's been doing in the exact same breath.  You can't complain that anti-ITers are close-minded when you cannot even accept the possibility that your theory is wrong. 





[/quote]

That's because you're one of the anti-ITers. Of course you believe talking with someone of your own affiliation is productive. I believe the exact opposite. That's not judgement, that's basic human nature.

I know BatmanTurian, and he can perfectly accept the IT as wrong. As can I.

As a matter of fact, our most productive members can accept it as wrong.

[/quote]

And I can accept it as right, although I highly doubt it and hope that it's not the case.

But just because someone argues against IT and attempts to refute point after point for it doesn't mean that they're incapable of accepting the possibility that it's true.  I think it all comes down to a matter of likelihood.

What I worry about most is that the EC will deliver something in between - that it will attempt to justify the endings while also leaving enough room for speculation so as not to alienate ITers.

...which would of course be a bummer for people in both camps.  I've had enough of speculating, frankly, and am at a point where I want to be practivally hand-held through an ending that is spelled out for me literally and without equivocation.

No more questions, no more theories - a definitive answer.  I think that's what people on both sides want, but I don't think that's what we're going to get.

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

What you don't understand Jules, as I said above, is that SubAstris and I have danced this dance before and had this debate and it never goes anywhere. SO why waste my time and his time? If anything, I think I'm being kind.

Fair enough.  I guess I didn't know the context.

It's fine. I figured you didn't.

[estebanus]

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

[/quote]

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

[/quote]

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

[/quote]

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it
[/quote]

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

[/quote]

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

[/quote]

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

[/quote]

Lots of projection going on right there...

[/quote]

Jules... Didn't you once tell me that there's no sense in talking to the wall? Yet now you're judging people for thinking exactly that?

[/quote]

Because I believe that talking to most ITers is like talking to a wall.  I do not believe that talking to most anti-ITers is like talking to a wall.

The reason I made the comment about this poster was because he's directly accusing somebody of what he's been doing in the exact same breath.  You can't complain that anti-ITers are close-minded when you cannot even accept the possibility that your theory is wrong. 





[/quote]

That's because you're one of the anti-ITers. Of course you believe talking with someone of your own affiliation is productive. I believe the exact opposite. That's not judgement, that's basic human nature.

I know BatmanTurian, and he can perfectly accept the IT as wrong. As can I.

As a matter of fact, our most productive members can accept it as wrong.

[/quote]

And I can accept it as right, although I highly doubt it and hope that it's not the case.

But just because someone argues against IT and attempts to refute point after point for it doesn't mean that they're incapable of accepting the possibility that it's true.  I think it all comes down to a matter of likelihood.

What I worry about most is that the EC will deliver something in between - that it will attempt to justify the endings while also leaving enough room for speculation so as not to alienate ITers.

...which would of course be a bummer for people in both camps.  I've had enough of speculating, frankly, and am at a point where I want to be practivally hand-held through an ending that is spelled out for me literally and without equivocation.

No more questions, no more theories - a definitive answer.  I think that's what people on both sides want, but I don't think that's what we're going to get.

[/quote]

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

I want a definite answer. IT or not, this speculation must stop. No matter what way it goes. I've had enough of people insulting me, and I bet you have, too. By letting the speculation continue, they'll only make the flame war between ITers and anti-ITers get totally out of control. And that's the last thing I want to see happen.

At least it's good we agree on this, right? No matter what the EC brings, I want this all to stop.

[jules_vern18]

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

[jules_vern18]

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

[/quote]

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

[/quote]

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

[/quote]

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it
[/quote]

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

[/quote]

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

[/quote]

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

[/quote]

Lots of projection going on right there...

[/quote]

Jules... Didn't you once tell me that there's no sense in talking to the wall? Yet now you're judging people for thinking exactly that?

[/quote]

Because I believe that talking to most ITers is like talking to a wall.  I do not believe that talking to most anti-ITers is like talking to a wall.

The reason I made the comment about this poster was because he's directly accusing somebody of what he's been doing in the exact same breath.  You can't complain that anti-ITers are close-minded when you cannot even accept the possibility that your theory is wrong. 





[/quote]

That's because you're one of the anti-ITers. Of course you believe talking with someone of your own affiliation is productive. I believe the exact opposite. That's not judgement, that's basic human nature.

I know BatmanTurian, and he can perfectly accept the IT as wrong. As can I.

As a matter of fact, our most productive members can accept it as wrong.

[/quote]

And I can accept it as right, although I highly doubt it and hope that it's not the case.

But just because someone argues against IT and attempts to refute point after point for it doesn't mean that they're incapable of accepting the possibility that it's true.  I think it all comes down to a matter of likelihood.

What I worry about most is that the EC will deliver something in between - that it will attempt to justify the endings while also leaving enough room for speculation so as not to alienate ITers.

...which would of course be a bummer for people in both camps.  I've had enough of speculating, frankly, and am at a point where I want to be practivally hand-held through an ending that is spelled out for me literally and without equivocation.

No more questions, no more theories - a definitive answer.  I think that's what people on both sides want, but I don't think that's what we're going to get.

[/quote]

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

I want a definite answer. IT or not, this speculation must stop. No matter what way it goes. I've had enough of people insulting me, and I bet you have, too. By letting the speculation continue, they'll only make the flame war between ITers and anti-ITers get totally out of control. And that's the last thing I want to see happen.

At least it's good we agree on this, right? No matter what the EC brings, I want this all to stop.


[/quote]

All this peacemaking today. 

And here I was geared up (grenade capacity II) for a good ol' fashioned flame war.  I'm pleasantly surprised.

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

Well, to be fair the technology is the central thing that drives everything in that universe. Also Mass Effect can mean having an effect on a mass of beings, which the Reapers do. It's still fitting imo.

[estebanus]

jules_vern18 wrote...

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

I'd say that the problem with this would be that the reapers themselves created the mass relays that are the very source for the uncontrolled spreading of dark energy. Why would the reapers create the very thing they now want to stop? That sems like a pretty big plothole to me^_^

[estebanus]

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]estebanus wrote...

[quote]jules_vern18 wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

[/quote]

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

[/quote]

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

[/quote]

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it
[/quote]

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

[/quote]

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

[/quote]

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

[/quote]

Lots of projection going on right there...

[/quote]

Jules... Didn't you once tell me that there's no sense in talking to the wall? Yet now you're judging people for thinking exactly that?

[/quote]

Because I believe that talking to most ITers is like talking to a wall.  I do not believe that talking to most anti-ITers is like talking to a wall.

The reason I made the comment about this poster was because he's directly accusing somebody of what he's been doing in the exact same breath.  You can't complain that anti-ITers are close-minded when you cannot even accept the possibility that your theory is wrong. 





[/quote]

That's because you're one of the anti-ITers. Of course you believe talking with someone of your own affiliation is productive. I believe the exact opposite. That's not judgement, that's basic human nature.

I know BatmanTurian, and he can perfectly accept the IT as wrong. As can I.

As a matter of fact, our most productive members can accept it as wrong.

[/quote]

And I can accept it as right, although I highly doubt it and hope that it's not the case.

But just because someone argues against IT and attempts to refute point after point for it doesn't mean that they're incapable of accepting the possibility that it's true.  I think it all comes down to a matter of likelihood.

What I worry about most is that the EC will deliver something in between - that it will attempt to justify the endings while also leaving enough room for speculation so as not to alienate ITers.

...which would of course be a bummer for people in both camps.  I've had enough of speculating, frankly, and am at a point where I want to be practivally hand-held through an ending that is spelled out for me literally and without equivocation.

No more questions, no more theories - a definitive answer.  I think that's what people on both sides want, but I don't think that's what we're going to get.

[/quote]

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

I want a definite answer. IT or not, this speculation must stop. No matter what way it goes. I've had enough of people insulting me, and I bet you have, too. By letting the speculation continue, they'll only make the flame war between ITers and anti-ITers get totally out of control. And that's the last thing I want to see happen.

At least it's good we agree on this, right? No matter what the EC brings, I want this all to stop.


[/quote]

All this peacemaking today. 

And here I was geared up (grenade capacity II) for a good ol' fashioned flame war.  I'm pleasantly surprised.

[/quote]

You see? Not all of us are zealots!

[ManUnderMask]

Because it went from interesting fan theory to religion.

[jijeebo]

These quote pyramids are dangerously close to showing up on google maps. xP

[BatmanTurian]

ManUnderMask wrote...

Because it went from interesting fan theory to religion.

And now we're back to insults. Tiresome.

I'm not sure how a literary interpretation of something that isn't a religious text is religion, but I'm sure you know better than I do, right?

[BatmanTurian]

jijeebo wrote...

These quote pyramids are dangerously close to showing up on google maps. xP

I know, I was like " how far down am I going to have to scroll?"

[jules_vern18]

BatmanTurian wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

Well, to be fair the technology is the central thing that drives everything in that universe. Also Mass Effect can mean having an effect on a mass of beings, which the Reapers do. It's still fitting imo.

I suppose, I just think that if they had to implement a "twist" ...ultimately revealing that mass effect technology was the undoing of organics would have been one I could swallow.  Bioware could have even kept its destroyed relays and crashed Normandy in that case.  Not sure what the end choices would have been, though. 

That's what's so striking to me about the whole artistic direction they took the game in toward the end - synthetics vs. organics was easily one of the weakest themes in the series, especially since they decided to allow players to broker peace on Rannoch.  Almost anything else would have done.

If IT turns out to be true and the EC begins with Shepard waking up, Bioware still has to explain the Reaper's motivations and the nature of the catalyst - what do you think it will be?

[estebanus]

Well, this has been rather peaceful for a small while, has it not?

EDIT. Maybe not.

Modifié par estebanus, 18 juin 2012 - 10:30 .

[jules_vern18]

estebanus wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

I still think preventing dark energy accumulation/destabilization as a result of mass effect technology going unchecked would have made a perfect motivation for the reapers.

Why else call the game "Mass Effect" if the specific technology weren't central to the narrative?

I'd say that the problem with this would be that the reapers themselves created the mass relays that are the very source for the uncontrolled spreading of dark energy. Why would the reapers create the very thing they now want to stop? That sems like a pretty big plothole to me^_^

Arg, that's right.  Maybe have them be a test - they lie dormant for the majority of each cycle, but when galactic civilization has learned enough to begin using them that's the cue for the Reapers to come in and reset our technological advancement. 

[Catamantaloedis]

Because the Indoctrination Delusion is for the weak minded. When you get list of speculations that are less contradictory, illogical, foolish, immature, cliched, and actually have evidence in the game, then I'll stop seeing you as gullible as you are now.