80611 réponses à ce sujet

[CmdrShep80]

Jaulen wrote...

Argh! I got sucked into watching videos.

Really, it's bedtime now. *leave! Just turn off the computer!*

So, what's the general consensus on the Extended Cut and how that effects IT? (just watched angryjoes take so I'm wondering what the IT community feels)

Do the ending comparison video.  I don't know about everyone else but I think the general consensus was it added a little bit more hard proof that IT was the right choice. 

[CmdrShep80]

36812180234 wrote...

Count me in as a firm believer of IT. Even before I heard the theory, only “destroy” did make a sense for me. Other options are plain stupid – they can not exist at all or be considered as options by sane person. And the IT just plainly put all the pieces together – with IT other endings are just one more “critical mission failure”. And the opposition to IT is so strong because it is hard to admit that they were fooled by the Reapers.

One may say this is the wishful thinking. To counter that I will say that I have some experience in scientific evidence handling and logic (PhD in engineering and 44 years old; merely a baby for Asari – I know

Yet even though the EC gave a bit more hard proof, and ass "36" said those who just don't see the truth behind the IT and refusing to see that they were fooled, tricked, wool was put over their eyes, etc.  Guess it may just mean that indoctrination actually worked and they are just indoctrinated themselves because of all the suble messages they received about the other endings

[Andromidius]

Glad to see more friendly faces here by the way.

Multiplayer is feeling more and more like a VR Combat Simulator (in-universe). It explains why enemies spawn out of nowhere as well. I mean ultimately its not a big deal, but it is a nice touch.

[Skillz1986]

Damn you gotta love the suicide mission sondtrack!

[spotlessvoid]

36812180234:


I think that it's going to be interesting to see what happens and the fan reaction. I think Bioware isn't going to let pro ending people and those who despise IT to stop them from fulfilling their artistic vision. If IT was planned, which we know it was until at the latest November (23 months into a 27 month development cycle) then I think they are going to eventually take the next logical step. The question is when and how. Indoctrination Theory is the only way they can keep their IP intact.
They aren't going to pass that up, and it's absolute fact they wanted to use indoctrination deep into development. We know they dropped a certain game mechanic. Everyone here pretty much believes the narrative didn't change, only that mechanic did. It can be tough waiting, but we have the lore, themes, evidence, narrative, and Bioware's history on our side. Time will tell, but one way or another, I think there's a heck of a chance we're getting what we want.

[spotlessvoid]

As far as the EC goes...a couple minutes of monologue and some still pictures do not make a proper DLC. No way Bioware let's this trilogy go out like that. It's a soggy band-aid on the massive head wound that is the face value interpretation. It calmed the fan base down. Now Bioware has the extra time they asked EA for to put their plan in place. Lead up with dlc until IT DLC/Expansion/ME4 drops the hammer. Bioware didn't spend 3 games heavily foreshadowing against synthesis and control to just let those stand.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

spotlessvoid wrote...

As far as the EC goes...a couple minutes of monologue and some still pictures do not make a proper DLC. No way Bioware let's this trilogy go out like that. It's a soggy band-aid on the massive head wound that is the face value interpretation. It calmed the fan base down. Now Bioware has the extra time they asked EA for to put their plan in place. Lead up with dlc until IT DLC/Expansion/ME4 drops the hammer. Bioware didn't spend 3 games heavily foreshadowing against synthesis and control to just let those stand.

I would call it more than foreshadowing against Control and Synthesis. They couldnt have made it more clear it was a bad idea if they had tatooed Shepards face with the words "Control and Synthesis is a bad idea."

[36812180234]

The reapers idea of synthesis is Phantom instead of Asari. And we all know we are talking with the Master Reaper in the end. What else evidence do someone need before choosing against the synthesis?

[paxxton]

Andromidius wrote...

Glad to see more friendly faces here by the way.

Multiplayer is feeling more and more like a VR Combat Simulator (in-universe). It explains why enemies spawn out of nowhere as well. I mean ultimately its not a big deal, but it is a nice touch.

I've seen several times large groups of enemies spawning around me. Next second I was punching Spacebar awaiting revival. This happens especially in Firebase Glacier in the hallway with a door.

[spotlessvoid]

36812180234 wrote...

The reapers idea of synthesis is Phantom instead of Asari. And we all know we are talking with the Master Reaper in the end. What else evidence do someone need before choosing against the synthesis?

Lol, face tattoos might help a little. Honestly, for some, only providing one option would be required for them to make the right choice. And then there's those who even then would probably still let time run out waiting for the green space magic to start.

[BleedingUranium]

spotlessvoid wrote...

36812180234 wrote...

The reapers idea of synthesis is Phantom instead of Asari. And we all know we are talking with the Master Reaper in the end. What else evidence do someone need before choosing against the synthesis?

Lol, face tattoos might help a little. Honestly, for some, only providing one option would be required for them to make the right choice. And then there's those who even then would probably still let time run out waiting for the green space magic to start.

Yeah, the biggest problem is people just don't give anything any thought. The hardcore literalist are the worst, because they go out of their way to refuse to give the end any meaningful thought!

I think this is also why Bioware was so surprised at the backlash from the end at launch, they figured way more people would get it. That's a side effect of a series becoming more popular though, the people you pick up along the way are usually the type that think and pay attention less, and just want to shoot stuff. It's a shame, really.

[paxxton]

spotlessvoid wrote...

As far as the EC goes...a couple minutes of monologue and some still pictures do not make a proper DLC. No way Bioware let's this trilogy go out like that. It's a soggy band-aid on the massive head wound that is the face value interpretation. It calmed the fan base down. Now Bioware has the extra time they asked EA for to put their plan in place. Lead up with dlc until IT DLC/Expansion/ME4 drops the hammer. Bioware didn't spend 3 games heavily foreshadowing against synthesis and control to just let those stand.

They should make Control as valid as Destroy. Either way the Reaper invasion would end, or in IT it would accomodate for siding with TIM, which some people say would be a nice addition to ME3. Synthesis is less morally justifiable, not because there are no benefits but rather because it involves forcing everybody to undergo it without their consent. Because, of course, everybody knows what's best.

Modifié par paxxton, 08 octobre 2012 - 08:45 .

[36812180234]

paxxton wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

As far as the EC goes...a couple minutes of monologue and some still pictures do not make a proper DLC. No way Bioware let's this trilogy go out like that. It's a soggy band-aid on the massive head wound that is the face value interpretation. It calmed the fan base down. Now Bioware has the extra time they asked EA for to put their plan in place. Lead up with dlc until IT DLC/Expansion/ME4 drops the hammer. Bioware didn't spend 3 games heavily foreshadowing against synthesis and control to just let those stand.

They should make Control as valid as Destroy. Either way the Reaper invasion would end, or in IT it would accomodate for siding with TIM, which some people say would be a nice addition to ME3. Synthesis is less morally justifiable, not because there are no benefits but rather because it involves forcing everybody to undergo it without their consent. Because, of course, everybody knows what's best.

Assuming You believe you will be really allowed to control them. Which I do not – this is obviously a trap. Free cheese anybody?

[spotlessvoid]

Ah, paxxton... Indoctrination theory's favorite half-husk. If Shepard can control the Reapers it's over. Lets use a metaphor:

Two kids are playing in a pool on Terra Nova. Kid one splashes kid two. Kid two splashes kid one. Kid one dunks kid two underwater. The lifeguard drops an aircraft carrier on both of them. Guess who Shepard is. If you guessed aircraft carrier you'd be right


Synthesis version of that metaphor:

Two Shepards are playing in a pool on Shepard. Shepard splashes Shepard. Shepard splashes Shepard. Shepard dunks Shepard. Shepard drops a Shepard on Shepards.

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 08 octobre 2012 - 09:04 .

[BleedingUranium]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Ah, paxxton... Indoctrination theory's favorite half-husk. If Shepard can control the Reapers it's over. Lets use a metaphor:

Two kids are playing in a pool on Terra Nova. Kid one splashes kid two. Kid two splashes kid one. Kid one dunks kid two underwater. The lifeguard drops an aircraft carrier on both of them. Guess who Shepard is. If you guessed aircraft carrier you'd be right


Synthesis version of that metaphor:

Two Shepards are playing in a pool on Shepard. Shepard splashes Shepard. Shepard splashes Shepard. Shepard dunks Shepard. Shepard drops a Shepard on Shepards.

Hahahahaha

[spotlessvoid]

From a narrative standpoint, having 3 options could be interesting.

Synthesis: You are Harbinger's personal ****. The only thing you get to import is your shame.

Control: You become the next indoctrinated bad guy. The Illusive Shepard if you will. Import this and Shepard is the bad guy you have to defeat

Destroy: Can you say rear admiral Shepard?

The problem is that would involve a massive amount of extra work


The problem paxxton is I don't know if that's really feasible from a game development standpoint.

[paxxton]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Ah, paxxton... Indoctrination theory's favorite half-husk. If Shepard can control the Reapers it's over. Lets use a metaphor:

Two kids are playing in a pool on Terra Nova. Kid one splashes kid two. Kid two splashes kid one. Kid one dunks kid two underwater. The lifeguard drops an aircraft carrier on both of them. Guess who Shepard is. If you guessed aircraft carrier you'd be right


Synthesis version of that metaphor:

Two Shepards are playing in a pool on Shepard. Shepard splashes Shepard. Shepard splashes Shepard. Shepard dunks Shepard. Shepard drops a Shepard on Shepards.

My name is Shepard. I'm looking for Shepard to prove Saren's a Shepard.

Modifié par paxxton, 08 octobre 2012 - 09:22 .

[paxxton]

36812180234 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

As far as the EC goes...a couple minutes of monologue and some still pictures do not make a proper DLC. No way Bioware let's this trilogy go out like that. It's a soggy band-aid on the massive head wound that is the face value interpretation. It calmed the fan base down. Now Bioware has the extra time they asked EA for to put their plan in place. Lead up with dlc until IT DLC/Expansion/ME4 drops the hammer. Bioware didn't spend 3 games heavily foreshadowing against synthesis and control to just let those stand.

They should make Control as valid as Destroy. Either way the Reaper invasion would end, or in IT it would accomodate for siding with TIM, which some people say would be a nice addition to ME3. Synthesis is less morally justifiable, not because there are no benefits but rather because it involves forcing everybody to undergo it without their consent. Because, of course, everybody knows what's best.

Assuming You believe you will be really allowed to control them. Which I do not – this is obviously a trap. Free cheese anybody?

I love cheese.

[spotlessvoid]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

As far as the EC goes...a couple minutes of monologue and some still pictures do not make a proper DLC. No way Bioware let's this trilogy go out like that. It's a soggy band-aid on the massive head wound that is the face value interpretation. It calmed the fan base down. Now Bioware has the extra time they asked EA for to put their plan in place. Lead up with dlc until IT DLC/Expansion/ME4 drops the hammer. Bioware didn't spend 3 games heavily foreshadowing against synthesis and control to just let those stand.

I would call it more than foreshadowing against Control and Synthesis. They couldnt have made it more clear it was a bad idea if they had tatooed Shepards face with the words "Control and Synthesis is a bad idea."

How bout an email after every mission saying " make sure to choose destroy at the end of this game to not get indoctrinated"
   


sometimes I wishI had my own translucent kid to convince people of dumb stuff. 

[Macross]

spotlessvoid wrote...

From a narrative standpoint, having 3 options could be interesting.

Synthesis: You are Harbinger's personal ****. The only thing you get to import is your shame.

Control: You become the next indoctrinated bad guy. The Illusive Shepard if you will. Import this and Shepard is the bad guy you have to defeat

Destroy: Can you say rear admiral Shepard?

The problem is that would involve a massive amount of extra work


The problem paxxton is I don't know if that's really feasible from a game development standpoint.

I don't think they'd actually have to make that much of a difference. If they do an expansion pack/DLC ending to Mass Effect 3 (or an episodic DLC release akin Half Life 2's Episodes,) then they could have the players play through a single story and depending on what you picked affects Shepard in that story.

Say you picked Synthesis: Shep is harby's little ****. He goes back to the others fully indoctrinated but no one is aware of it, through out the Expansion he secretly undermines everything that team does until the final battle where he sides with harby and the reapers- the final battle in that context would be Shepard vs his entire crew.

You pick control: through out the expansion you struggle with Indoctrination and through out the expanision you get choices that may or may not undermine your squads efforts (these choices shouldn't be exactly clear on what they do though) and when you get to the final battle Shepard (depending on the choices) will either throw of the indoctrination long enought to scarfice himself to defeat the reapers or succumb to Indoc and once again become Harby's **** and fight his squad.

Destroy: Shepard has fully thrown of the bounds of Indoc and fights his way through the expansion defeating the reapers and living happily ever after. The End

Refuse: Either like Destory or more likely (seeing as Bioware treated this as something of a screw you) like the everyone dies ending of ME2, you don't get to import this as Shepard died/lost the will to live/killed himself as a screw you to the reapers. The galaxy looses but the next cycle wins.

[RavenEyry]

Control is a trap you say? But Shepard is super special awesome, that thing that admits to being a villain says so!

"We're not ready!"

Ssh Shepard-from-ten-minutes-ago, the adults are talking.

[HeadStrikeRxx]

Wow the interest in this topic is so huge, over 4k pages of discussion, i'll never be able to plow through that But i hope Bioware works with the IT, it's very interesting and i also support it.

For me destroy is the ending which gives Shepard a chance to survive. Synthesis and Control seem like an interesting choice, but also a choice where the Reapers can survive, the Reapers also have a self preservation instinct.

Modifié par HeadStrikeRxx, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:04 .

[Restrider]

List of meta-reasons :

   1) IT is as valid as a literal interpretation
   2) new game in the MEU :
   - prequel with humans would only have the First Contact War as topic
   - prequel without humans would alienate a big part of the fanbase
   - prequel in a previous cycle is like a whole new universe
   - any prequel would have an already known ending
   - a game during the events of ME1-ME3 would not be able to have any choices with impact
   - Control has no real conflict potential, since we have Shreaper/Harpard
   - Synthesis has no real conflict potential, since everything is nice and dandy
   - Refuse has no real potential
   - this only leaves Destroy as possible candidate as canon 
   3) Mike Gamble's tweet

Edit: BSN formating is cruel.                                                                                                                                                           

Modifié par Restrider, 08 octobre 2012 - 10:06 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

HeadStrikeRxx wrote...

Wow the interest in this topic is so huge, over 4k pages of discussion, i'll never be able to plow through that But i hope Bioware works with the IT, it's very interesting and i also support it.

Yeah it is a sizeable topic, but alot of ground has been covered here with probably the most in deepth look at all 3 Mass Effect games you will find anywhere.

I have been on the thread(s) since page 500 or so, but I still discover bits and pieces I never knew, it is quite amazing.

Anyway if you got any questions regarding the IT just ask or look up some of the compilations of material on page 1 of the thread

[MaximizedAction]

Restrider wrote...


List of meta-reasons :

   1) IT is as valid as a literal interpretation
   2) new game in the MEU :
   - prequel with humans would only have the First Contact War as topic
   - prequel without humans would alienate a big part of the fanbase
   - prequel in a previous cycle is like a whole new universe
   - any prequel would have an already known ending
   - a game during the events of ME1-ME3 would not be able to have any choices with impact
   - Control has no real conflict potential, since we have Shreaper/Harpard
   - Synthesis has no real conflict potential, since everything is nice and dandy
   - Refuse has no real potential
   - this only leaves Destroy as possible candidate as canon 
   3) Mike Gamble's tweet

Edit: BSN formating is cruel.                                                                                                                                                           

Nice list, though Gamble's tweet isn't really a fact, more of a statement that, out of all statements, besides wishful thinking, bears a higher probability of being the truth. If you decide to distrust a group of people, you distrust them - you don't pick exclusions just cuz they sound nice.
I also think this is one of the reasons for why we might seem not-so-objective to non-ITers.

Anywhooo, I wanted to add that REFUSE has a potential for being an alternative path to victory because it's failure seems so forced and the reasoning just as against the lore (and against the general lore of every epic story telling, in general).
I know this is a very debatable topic on the IT thread and some ITers like REFUSE and some don't. But that doesn't make it less possible.