80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Hrothdane wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
And again, I swear that this is what you sound like:

Why is that in response to me?  I agreed with what you said about the handles.  Do you regularly randomly insult people who are on your side?  Or do you just have something personal against me?

Sorry, I meant it in collective terms, and the IT group as a whole. I'm not intending to attack it as such, but I admit to a certain amount of bitterness over the group's excoriations of anyone who chose an ending that wasn't their One True Path to God.

You see a duck. We see a rabbit.

So you concede that our interpretations are equal and that neither should be explicitly raised above the other?

[paxxton]

masster blaster wrote...

TSA because we kicked their a**** out of Shepard's head. Also for Control I still won't pick it because of the close up on the brats face. Why would Bioware have a close up on the brats face, in the Control ending. He is up to something.

Because (as with Shepard's Breath Scene) it was hard for them to let go of a character that had been so well developed throughout the whole narrative... jk

[GethPrimeMKII]

Hey folks

[Davik Kang]

Xilizhra wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
Also one big thing is the cheering soldiers - the soldiers in the original version cheer in high EMS destroy and high EMS control. In the EC there's the shot of the soldiers being more victorious which only appears in high EMS destroy. Interesting...

They still cheer in high EMS control.  But in synthesis they just stand, emotionless, calm...

Well, I imagine it'd be a powerful feeling. And if you don't believe that the epilogues exist anyway, why are you bringing them up?

I do think the epilogues happen.  I don't follow IT.  You have posted multiple times in my interpretation thread, so I would have thought you would know this.  But I guess you didn't read the OP.  Or any of the posts after it.

[Xilizhra]

Davik Kang wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...
Also one big thing is the cheering soldiers - the soldiers in the original version cheer in high EMS destroy and high EMS control. In the EC there's the shot of the soldiers being more victorious which only appears in high EMS destroy. Interesting...

They still cheer in high EMS control.  But in synthesis they just stand, emotionless, calm...

Well, I imagine it'd be a powerful feeling. And if you don't believe that the epilogues exist anyway, why are you bringing them up?

I do think the epilogues happen.  I don't follow IT.  You have posted multiple times in my interpretation thread, so I would have thought you would know this.  But I guess you didn't read the OP.  Or any of the posts after it.

You follow an IT variant. But very well. I'm sorry, I'm just increasingly impatient with the idea that only one ending is ever objectively successful.

[Hrothdane]

Xilizhra wrote...
So you concede that our interpretations are equal and that neither should be explicitly raised above the other?

You have your own reasons for your interpretation and I have the reasons for mine. The fact that we have each chosen an interpretation implies that we consider it superior to our other options.

I do recognize that you have your own reasons for favoring your interpretation. All "facts" are colored by interpretation, and it is futile to attempt to convince someone of something when they interpret the same things differently on a fundamental level.

Whether BioWare decides to finally decide whether the duck-rabbit is a rabbit or a duck is out of our hands.

[paxxton]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Hey folks

Hey! Have you heard the news? Shepard is dead. For real.

Modifié par paxxton, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:30 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

Dead or not a sequel is nearly impossible if the literal ending is right. And prequels suck s so lets not go there.

[dreamgazer]

Hrothdane wrote...

Whether BioWare decides to finally decide whether the duck-rabbit is a rabbit or a duck is out of our hands.

... or they're going to do what they seem set on doing: validating both outlooks, negating neither.  

They made the ending a Schrödinger's cat scenario of literal and non-literal interpretations, and it looks like they're going to keep the box closed.

[paxxton]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Dead or not a sequel is nearly impossible if the literal ending is right. And prequels suck s so lets not go there.

Tbh, BioWare has to have something up their sleeve cause they really can't think leaving ME3 like that and releasing an unrelated story would make too many people lash out and buy it.

Modifié par paxxton, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:38 .

[masster blaster]

Na they will tells us, if they don't well.. pitch forks, and fire anyone. I remember in March that was common.

[ElSuperGecko]

Xilizhra wrote...
You follow an IT variant. But very well. I'm sorry, I'm just increasingly impatient with the idea that only one ending is ever objectively successful.

Why bother becoming impatient with others?  If you are certain you have made the right decision and are happy with it, why does it matter to you what others believe?

I have written off Synthesis as an abomination against the races of the galaxy, and Control as a pipe dream destined for failure.  I chose Destroy not simply because of the Indoctrination Theory - it was my clear choice before I even knew the topic existed - but because everything else seemed like giving in to the Reapers, kowtowing to their superiority and accepting their demands. 

But if you favour another course of action, if you're convinced another choice is equivalent or superior to the rest, and have drawn enough conclusions from the evidence available in game prior to the EC ending slides to determine it is a positive and worthy choice, why should it bother you if others feel differently?

[Hrothdane]

dreamgazer wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

Whether BioWare decides to finally decide whether the duck-rabbit is a rabbit or a duck is out of our hands.

... or they're going to do what they seem set on doing: validating both outlooks, negating neither.  

They made the ending a Schrödinger's cat scenario of literal and non-literal interpretations, and it looks like they're going to keep the box closed.

I meant to imply that possibility as well, but I guess I was not clear.

[smokingotter1]

Everything about the decision chamber deals in opposites and illusions.

The catalyst is represented as a child, yet the reapers are old.

When you are running towards the conduit the sky was up, the earth was down.



Now the sky is down, the earth is up



Red= destroy renegade, blue= control, good and paragon

So if we are dealing with opposites... than it's time to see what really is happening. Let's invert the color and find out the truth:


Oily shadows....

Conduit beam looks a lot more menacing...


Pretty sure this has been touched on before but wasn't 100% sure. (also started using gimp wanted to show off my basic skills)

Modifié par smokingotter1, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:42 .

[paxxton]

Now it looks like coffee trickling down into a sink.

Modifié par paxxton, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:44 .

[masster blaster]

Actaully why are we still speculating. People said that the reason we speculated was to wait for the EC, but we are still here, and people are still speculating. Why would Bioware tell us, and others to still speculate, if the endings are as they are?

Oh it because they don't want hurt the ITers, or make them lash out at them. Really that's what people say. I mean come on Bioware could have denied it the momunte if it was born if they didn't intend IT.

Yes their are other theorys, but most of them are not really about the endings, more like making fun of them. Yes Intoxination is a theorys, but I haven't seen that thread for 3 months. Yet here we IT are still kicking.

[Restrider]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
the results for the seventh poll are out. The list has been updated and I would like to encourage you to participate at the eigth poll and my long-time survey about your choice at your first playthrough. Spread the word!

If you ask yourself why I changed my avatar, I have to say that this thread lacked a certain classiness, although there are people here with nice avatars aswell (Home Run, Badger, TSA, Otter and even Xil to name a few). Since there was no Illusive Man in this thread I thought that I may fill that role.

[smokingotter1]

paxxton wrote...

Now it looks like coffee trickling down into a sink.

New indoctrination test = indoctrinated agents drink coffee. At least people who buy coffee at starbucks, $4 coffee? They must be indoctrinated.

Modifié par smokingotter1, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:49 .

[Davik Kang]

smokingotter1 wrote...
Pretty sure this has been touched on before but wasn't 100% sure. (also started using gimp wanted to show off my basic skills)

Oily shadows is cool and the beam does look more like a slush beam now.

Though Control kind of is Paragon because it's non-aggressive.  It's making friends with the Reapers like you can with the Geth, Krogans, Rachni etc.  Destroy is aggressive, it involves firing a gun, both on the screen and metaphorically, firing the Crucible at the Reapers.  Paragon isn't always the right choice.  It's not even always the good choice.

[BatmanTurian]

smokingotter1 wrote...

Ok apologise in advance for two long posts but I'll be busy this weekend entertaining guests so.... here goes. Beam Analysis.  My thought is that the conduit beam in the decision chamber is an analogy for the reapers direct connection to Shepard.

Shepard to Saren: "You could have resisted, you could have fought, instead you surrendered, you quit!"




Let's start with the default beam in all it's glory:



In refuse the beam dries up:

You quit.

In destroy the beam is severed:

You fought.

In control the beam maintains:

You resisted.

In synthesis the beam is massive! It is stronger:

You surrendered.

Holy crap

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:55 .

[paxxton]

smokingotter1 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Now it looks like coffee trickling down into a sink.

New indoctrination test = indoctrinated agents drink coffee. At least people who buy coffee at starbucks, $4 coffee? They must be indoctrinated.

I don't drink coffee and choose Control. Contradiction! Proves that Control is the right choice.

[Restrider]

paxxton wrote...

smokingotter1 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Now it looks like coffee trickling down into a sink.

New indoctrination test = indoctrinated agents drink coffee. At least people who buy coffee at starbucks, $4 coffee? They must be indoctrinated.

I don't drink coffee and choose Control. Contradiction! Proves that Control is the right choice.

Applies for me aswell (though my first choice was Refuse).
Edit: With this on top... really? Check out my last posts !

Modifié par Restrider, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:56 .