80611 réponses à ce sujet

[paxxton]

Rifneno wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

We really need new stuff to discuss

Yeah, we do.

...  Though, this still beats yesterday's synthesis idiocy.

Lalalala. What have I missed?

[Rifneno]

paxxton wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

We really need new stuff to discuss

Yeah, we do.

...  Though, this still beats yesterday's synthesis idiocy.

Lalalala. What have I missed?

Just more literalist drivel.  Nothing important.

[paxxton]

Rifneno wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

We really need new stuff to discuss

Yeah, we do.

...  Though, this still beats yesterday's synthesis idiocy.

Lalalala. What have I missed?

Just more literalist drivel.  Nothing important.

Fair enough.

[RavenEyry]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Does the pic have a title? If not it should be "I need you to recover"

[demersel]

I have wondered about you
Where will you be when this through
If all goes as planned
Will you redeem my life again?

Fire the fields the weed is sown
Water down your empty soul
Wake the sea of silent hope
Water down your empty soul

Fight your foes you're on your own
Holy war is on the phone
Asking to please stay on hold
The bleeding loss of blood runs cold

And I need you to recover
Because I can't make it on my own

[demersel]

Actually. If you think about it - bioware have kinda confirmed IT already. In their pre-release statements! Just imagine that they make these statements AFTER the release of the game in response to the global outcry of "WHY????"

"This is a puzzle, a mystery to solve - and the mystery is how to beat reapers. There won't be a simple solution, no magical switch off button, and this that fisrt seem like won't may turn out to be dead ends. your desicions will matter - they will have major impacton the story, ieven in the final battle alone. The endings will not be just simle A, B or C, type of choice. We love the mass effect universe and we will give it the attention and work it deserves - woudn't have it any other way."

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Hm. Demersel, you make a good point. We should occasionally repost old ideas/theories/revelations/clues/etc for those who may have missed them or newer readers. Has potential to spark some discussion.

[RavenEyry]

demersel wrote...

Actually. If you think about it - bioware have kinda confirmed IT already. In their pre-release statements! Just imagine that they make these statements AFTER the release of the game in response to the global outcry of "WHY????"

"This is a puzzle, a mystery to solve - and the mystery is how to beat reapers. There won't be a simple solution, no magical switch off button, and this that fisrt seem like won't may turn out to be dead ends. your desicions will matter - they will have major impacton the story, ieven in the final battle alone. The endings will not be just simle A, B or C, type of choice. We love the mass effect universe and we will give it the attention and work it deserves - woudn't have it any other way."

I remember tht quote well because wha we apparently got was everything this says it wouldn't be and I think this wasn't said more than a few months before release.

"magical switch off button" - what's the crucible then?
"no A, B or C" - well, we all know this one
"attention and work it deserves" - bad riting! Oversites! They didn't care!

[KyreneZA]

demersel wrote...

"The endings will not be just simple A, B or C, type of choice."

Ah, that much maligned sentence used by the 'we should have gotten more endings' crowd. Seen from an IT perspective, there is great truth in that sentence though. The choice of Blue, Green or Red is not simple at all, even if it is just a choice between three (two actually) endings. Much thought and work had indeed gone into getting the player to choose to reject/accept indoctrination. The ultimate boss battle is a battle against indoctrination inside Shepard's own mind.

[demersel]

Actually the part that gives me the most hope is "wouldn't have it any other way".

[demersel]

Kyrene wrote...

demersel wrote...

"The endings will not be just simple A, B or C, type of choice."

Ah, that much maligned sentence used by the 'we should have gotten more endings' crowd. Seen from an IT perspective, there is great truth in that sentence though. The choice of Blue, Green or Red is not simple at all, even if it is just a choice between three (two actually) endings. Much thought and work had indeed gone into getting the player to choose to reject/accept indoctrination. The ultimate boss battle is a battle against indoctrination inside Shepard's own mind.

And it is a beautiful concept - much better and elegant than any gameplay mechanic would be - and hat is why they dropped it, like they said in the final hours - they didn't do something, not because they were not able to, but because they thought of a way how to do it better!

[Dwailing]

demersel wrote...

Kyrene wrote...

demersel wrote...

"The endings will not be just simple A, B or C, type of choice."

Ah, that much maligned sentence used by the 'we should have gotten more endings' crowd. Seen from an IT perspective, there is great truth in that sentence though. The choice of Blue, Green or Red is not simple at all, even if it is just a choice between three (two actually) endings. Much thought and work had indeed gone into getting the player to choose to reject/accept indoctrination. The ultimate boss battle is a battle against indoctrination inside Shepard's own mind.

And it is a beautiful concept - much better and elegant than any gameplay mechanic would be - and hat is why they dropped it, like they said in the final hours - they didn't do something, not because they were not able to, but because they thought of a way how to do it better!

I like this line of thought.  The way they employed indoctrination is much more elegant than simply using gameplay.  It's a twist worthy of BioWare.

[Davik Kang]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
I just posted a thread about the potential for conventional victory, which may have implications for IT.

I posted a reply in that thread, but there's something else more IT-related that I wanted to ask in here.

It's about the Refuse ending.  If you accept that the whole end is a dream/hallucination from the Harbinger blast, and more importantly, if you accept that your final choices have no effect on the battle, other than the battle in Shepard's mind, then the final choice is about accepting, or refusing to go along with, the Reapers' version of events.

I've already asked about Refuse in this context, and IT guys said that it's a failure condition.  Some said because you are indoctrinated, others said it's because you gave up and are trapped in your mind.

But the thing I want to get at is, the Dialogue options of Refuse and the physical acts involved (e.g. shooting the ReaperKid) seem to fit very well thematically with the intentions of breaking indoctrination.  You refuse to accept what he suggests; you resolve to find another way.  You shoot a gun at him, effectively saying, "f*** you".

Whereas saying "Yeah ok, let's get this over with", shooting a bunch of tubes, and accepting that EDI / Geth / possibly others have to die, seems in the context of a dream, to be at least partially accepting what the Kid says.

So, why is Destroy the right ending in IT theory?  Refuse does seem to open up the same objections or possibly more.  In Refuse you don't choose to kill the Reapers, but you don't refuse to kill them either.  You make a stand against the moral conundrum and resolve to keep fighting.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 03 octobre 2012 - 12:20 .

[RavenEyry]

@Davik:

Arian Dynas wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

The voice change, as well as giving you a big clue to Mr. Sparkle's true identity, also shows how angry he is that you wouldn't make a choice. He's supposedly been doing this cycle for millions of years, but now he's bigging up synthesis and getting upset if you let the cycle continue.

My interpretation is Harby gets very angry that you wont play his little game.

Not even that.

He's angry that he ruined the target.

Destroy is him going "Oh, well fine then. Be that way, have your little tantrum. I WILL have you, soon enough. I can be patient."

Refuse? Refuse means he's broken Shepard.

Shepard by nature is a man of action. Every option you are given, Paragon or Renegade? You still are taking an action. Only the neutral options let you opt out, they never turn out well, and they removed them in ME3. Paragon and Renegade are both still heroes, their methods and motivations vary, but they do share the same goals, Paragon is not good, merely charming and peaceable. Likewise Renegade is not evil, merely violent and direct.

Shepard always has a goal. Always. For three games it was "Destroy the Reapers and damn the consequences, this war WILL have casualties."

And now we have Shepard going "I don't want to be their killer, so I am going to let everyone die just so I don't have to do something I perceive as immoral." That's not Shepard. It might not necessarily be wrong, but it's not Shepard. Even if Destroy was the only option, Shepard would STILL take an option.

Bill Casey's sig puts it pretty well. Shepard is not a hero or a messiah. He's a soldier.

Harbinger WANTS Shepard. He wants Shepard exactly as he is. He isn't looking for "Not-Shepard" choosing Refuse, Shepard has chosen not to commit one way or another, to opt out. Refuse means he has lost his determination, his necessary drive that was an integral part of him. He lost the part of himself that Harbinger wanted. He's useless to them now. What's more, he's a frustration. Somehow, in the final moment, not only did he deny Harbinger his prize, he also denied him further methods of acquiring it.

It would be like just before crossing the finish line, watching someone not only run off with your trophy, but also break it so you couldn't posess it.

[DoomsdayDevice]

So, I've been thinking.

From what I understand, a lot of people hate the idea of IT, because that would mean there is no ending to the game.

However, we're getting ME4.

The only way I think ME4 could work is if it were a direct sequel to ME3. It would explain why Gamble said to hold on to our savegames, and that the reaction would be different if we knew what they were planning.

It would also explain why the breath scene seems like such a cliffhanger with no closure whatsoever.

The objection against this that people keep bringing up is: "But what happens next, when Shepard wakes up in London? Is he just going to go up the beam and activate the crucible? That would make no sense!", etc.

However, if we are right with IT-dream/hallucination, and the Crucible is a trap, it means it never went off, not even in the destroy ending. If ME4 with Shepard happens, the Crucible could be revealed to be an indoctrination device (we already got the datapad hint at the FOB), and we would have to beat the Reapers conventionally.

If ME4 with Shepard happens, it would make the most sense if it were:

- Post-Indoc/Destroy
- Crucible = trap
- Not Leviathans as enemies, but still the Reapers, or perhaps even both.

ME4 could start with a huge battle in which the fleets need to escape the system before being wiped out by the Reapers.

It would also explain:

"Did all that really happen?"
"Well (pause) sure... but some of the details have been lost in time..."
"Tell me another story about the Shepard..."
"Well okay, it's getting late, but... one more story."

However, no matter how much I feel like this is the only scenario that would make sense, Bioware keep saying this was it, the end of Shepard's story, etc.

I know they have lied before, but it feels so tinfoil to keep thinking they're lying.

Although yeah, it could be a huge publicity stunt to suddenly announce ME4 with Shepard, IT reveal, etc.

I don't want to believe it, because it sounds too good to be true. I just can't think of any other scenario.

A prequel wouldn't make sense. A story set during the first contact war or the Krogan Rebellions would pale in comparison to the apocalyptic scale of the Reaper conflict, plus we know how it would end.

Previous cycle? Makes no sense... it's useless.

Post ME3? Well, Synthesis, when taken literally, means no conflict. Control? Unlikely.

Only IT makes sense.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 03 octobre 2012 - 12:38 .

[Dwailing]

Davik Kang wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...
I just posted a thread about the potential for conventional victory, which may have implications for IT.

I posted a reply in that thread, but there's something else more IT-related that I wanted to ask in here.

It's about the Refuse ending.  If you accept that the whole end is a dream/hallucination from the Harbinger blast, and more importantly, if you accept that your final choices have no effect on the battle, other than the battle in Shepard's mind, then the final choice is about accepting, or refusing to go along with, the Reapers' version of events.

I've already asked about Refuse in this context, and IT guys said that it's a failure condition.  Some said because you are indoctrinated, others said it's because you gave up and are trapped in your mind.

But the thing I want to get at is, the Dialogue options of Refuse and the physical acts involved (e.g. shooting the ReaperKid) seem to fit very well thematically with the intentions of breaking indoctrination.  You refuse to accept what he suggests; you resolve to find another way.  You shoot a gun at him, effectively saying, "f*** you".

Whereas saying "Yeah ok, let's get this over with", shooting a bunch of tubes, and accepting that EDI / Geth / possibly others have to die, seems in the context of a dream, to be at least partially accepting what the Kid says.

So, why is Destroy the right ending in IT theory?  Refuse does seem to open up the same objections or possibly more.  In Refuse you don't choose to kill the Reapers, but you don't refuse to kill them either.  You make a stand against the moral conundrum and resolve to keep fighting.

The problem is, in Refusal, Shepard isn't really making a choice.  At least that's how the argument usually goes (It's one of the more dividing topics).  See, in Destroy, Shepard is saying, "I'm going to end the Reapers, no matter the cost."  In Refusal, Shepard is saying, "I want to destroy the Reapers, but I'm not willing to do whatever it takes, and would rather die that have to make that choice."  I'm a Paragon, but this isn't a war that can be won without sacrifice, and a willingness to make hard choices.  That's what we've always been told will be required to win, hard choices, or, "Ruthless calculus," to quote Garrus.  Sacrifice millions or even billions to save incalculable trillions.  That's what Shepard is up against.  THAT'S the choice he has to be willing to make.  Because think about it, in terms of the perceived consequences, in Control and Synthesis, the Reapers are still around, and if things go sideways, we're right back where we started.  Destroy is the only option that's supposed to end their threat permanently.  In Refusal, they're successful.  Supposedly.  

Anyway, tl;dr Destroy is the only choice where Shepard is truly fighting back, because Refusal is basically Shepard is basically saying that he's unwilling to do what is necessary to end this.

[TSA_383]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

So, I've been thinking.

From what I understand, a lot of people hate the idea of IT, because that would mean there is no ending to the game.

However, we're getting ME4.

The only way I think ME4 could work is if it were a direct sequel to ME3. It would explain why Gamble said to hold on to our savegames, and that the reaction would be different if we knew what they were planning.

It would also explain why the breath scene seems like such a cliffhanger with no closure whatsoever.

The objection against this that people keep bringing up is: "But what happens next, when Shepard wakes up in London? Is he just going to go up the beam and activate the crucible? That would make no sense!", etc.

However, if we are right with IT-dream/hallucination, and the Crucible is a trap, it means it never went off, not even in the destroy ending. If ME4 with Shepard happens, the Crucible could be revealed to be an indoctrination device (we already got the datapad hint at the FOB), and we would have to beat the Reapers conventionally.

If ME4 with Shepard happens, it would make the most sense if it were:

- Post-Indoc/Destroy
- Crucible = trap
- Not Leviathans as enemies, but still the Reapers, or perhaps even both.

ME4 could start with a huge battle in which the fleets need to escape the system before being wiped out by the Reapers.

It would also explain:

"Did all that really happen?"
"Well (pause) sure... but some of the details have been lost in time..."
"Tell me another story about the Shepard..."
"Well okay, it's getting late, but... one more story."

However, no matter how much I feel like this is the only scenario that would make sense, Bioware keep saying this was it, the end of Shepard's story, etc.

I know they have lied before, but it feels so tinfoil to keep thinking they're lying.

Although yeah, it could be a huge publicity stunt to suddenly announce ME4 with Shepard, IT reveal, etc.

I don't want to believe it, because it sounds too good to be true. I just can't think of any other scenario.

A prequel wouldn't make sense. A story set during the first contact war or the Krogan Rebellions would pale in comparison to the apocalyptic scale of the Reaper conflict, plus we know how it would end.

Previous cycle? Makes no sense... it's useless.

Post ME3? Well, Synthesis, when taken literally, means no conflict. Control? Unlikely.

Only IT makes sense.

That would be a cool way to do it...
Not sure I can be bothered waiting years for the conclusion of this story though after everything they've said...

[demersel]

Davik Kang wrote...

So, why is Destroy the right ending in IT theory?  Refuse does seem to open up the same objections or possibly more.  In Refuse you don't choose to kill the Reapers, but you don't refuse to kill them either.  You make a stand against the moral conundrum and resolve to keep fighting.

But that is it - in Refuse you actually don't keep fighting - It is what you the player want to do, but that is not what shepard does, and not what actually happen. In refuse - you give up. And further more - in refuse you don't reject the choices, as many people believe (bacause that is what they want to do) - but on the contrary - you achknowledge the choices - and refuse to choose, preferring to do nothing. This is what really happens - you really need to see past what you wish it was - to what it actually is. 

In the IT - the ending is a battle of a mind - nothing is really happening, and it is only important for you, Shepard. As it was well said in Harry Potter books - "of course it is all happening in your head! But why on earth should it not be real??"  - it is a real battle, and you are the battlefield.  The Mass Effect games is about fighting the reapers and making hard choices. That is Destroy. Everything esle is just a gloryfied game over screen.  The ending for mass effect 3 is a short 6 second clip of shepard taking a breath - and it is a "to be continued" message.  

[Davik Kang]

Dwailing wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Hey guys.  Thanks for your replies, though I think I didn't make my point quite well enough.

I don't support Refuse.  I think it's the moral choice, but it's the choice of the banner-waving student, who'd rather let people die than make a morally-dubious decision.  I think the right choice is, as you said, the soldier's choice, which is Destroy.  That's why I chose it and would still choose it now.

But I'm talking more thematically.  IT posits the idea that you're unconscious throughout the whole ending sequence.  What you choose doesn't actually happen.  So the real goal is to avoid intoctrination, and to keep fighting.

What I mean is, Shepard is still resisting the will of the Reapers in Refuse.  In a way, more so than in Destroy, because she refuses to accept anything the Reaper says, rather than just some.  Both are a denial of Reaper will.  
You can say Destroy is a more determined denial, in that she's willing to pay a huge price (maybe any price) to stop them.  But, if it's just a hallucination on Earth and she wakes up regardless, then she is still determined to stop the Reapers, just via different means.  So she's not indoctrinated in the generally accepted sense - i.e. not like Saren.

Now, breaking Shepard's will, ok that's a good point, it does make sense with IT.  But it still doesn't seem to fit that well with Shepard giving up after waking up.  You could say that Shepard waking up, and realising that she resisted indoctrination, could give her a lift, making her even more determined to stop them.

You could instead say that breaking her will cost Shepard her life, like in hospitals where onlookers say "Keep fighting!  Don't give up!" to unconscious patients.

That's roughly how you see it?  Or no?

Modifié par Davik Kang, 03 octobre 2012 - 01:01 .

[RavenEyry]

But refuse means throwing away what, from Shepard's point of view, is a perfect chance to destroy the reapers once and hope for another answer without making sacrifices. They may sound strong when talking down Mr. Sparkle, but they lack the true conviction to escape from this mind game.

[RavenEyry]

Another thing I just thought on the theme of sacrifice, destroy doesn't come with up sides for shepard. They're told they will die in all three actions but control will supposedly give them god like powers and synthesis has some 'they live on in all of us' bullcrap, but as far as they know, destroy will make them just die. I think that makes destroy an even bigger sacrifice than just the promised collateral damage.

[Davik Kang]

demersel wrote...
This is what really happens - you really need to see past what you wish it was - to what it actually is. 

This wasn't a personal plea though.  It was just a question about your theory.  I don't wish Refuse to be anything, I disagree with it.  I support Destroy 100%, but I can see that I'm gonna really struggle to explain myself well if people don't know what my interpretation is.

I want to make a thread on it, with a relatively short OP, but I think it might be a struggle because, unlike other Theory threads supporting IT, WNT, Synthesis, Control, or Deception, there will only be me who thinks it, and it might seem pointless or arrogant to make a thread just for my own interpretation of events.

I might have a go, anyway, just to see what happens.

[Dwailing]

Davik Kang wrote...

demersel wrote...
This is what really happens - you really need to see past what you wish it was - to what it actually is. 

This wasn't a personal plea though.  It was just a question about your theory.  I don't wish Refuse to be anything, I disagree with it.  I support Destroy 100%, but I can see that I'm gonna really struggle to explain myself well if people don't know what my interpretation is.

I want to make a thread on it, with a relatively short OP, but I think it might be a struggle because, unlike other Theory threads supporting IT, WNT, Synthesis, Control, or Deception, there will only be me who thinks it, and it might seem pointless or arrogant to make a thread just for my own interpretation of events.

I might have a go, anyway, just to see what happens.

Actually, instead of making a thread, why not make a blog post?  That's what I do to share some of my crazier ideas (Like the "Just Machines" Hypothesis and my Post-Breath Scene Hypothesis).  You can make it however long you want, and you don't have to worry about Chris closing it.

[Davik Kang]

RavenEyry wrote...
They may sound strong when talking down Mr. Sparkle, but they lack the true conviction to escape from this mind game.

Ok.  It seems like a bit of an assumption, but there's no way to really disprove what you said.  Certainly Shepard makes a weaker choice in Refuse.  So I guess then, she doesn't wake up at all?  Or she wakes up, but lacks the conviction to lead the Alliance to victory?

[Davik Kang]

Dwailing wrote...
Actually, instead of making a thread, why not make a blog post?  That's what I do to share some of my crazier ideas (Like the "Just Machines" Hypothesis and my Post-Breath Scene Hypothesis).  You can make it however long you want, and you don't have to worry about Chris closing it.

That is a good idea.  However, the reason I like the thread idea, is because I have been able to flesh out my interpretation really well by people looking at my ideas and saying, "but what about this?  and this?  and how do you explain this?  and this doesn't make sense..." etc. etc., and by answering these questions, the thread would become a better explanation of the theory as a whole, rather than some unreadable 15000-word OP.  

It would be more like what you guys have here (if it succeeds...).  Or, it would allow me to come to the conclusion that I'm wrong.  But it's win-win either way.