80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Iconoclaste]

Hrothdane wrote...


Now, I'm sure you guys wonder what this has to do with
IT. I think the Reapers are trying to isolate Shepard during the
ending sequence. Once the Catalyst shows up, you can't talk to
anyone. None of your friends or lovers can ground you in any way.
This is also why the Reaper Consciousness appears as the boy instead
of a close friend or love interest; the latter two would make Shepard
consider what that person would do as well. The little boy is just an
emotional symbol that appeals to Shepard's guilt, not a
fully-realized person that he/she can connect with on an intellectual
level. Start thinking about what the other party members would say if
they were with Shepard when he/she met the Catalyst. EDI would
cut apart his logic and might even tell Shepard she is fine
sacrificing herself for Destroy, Tali would say peaceful resolution
of the Geth/Quarian conflict proves the Catalyst wrong, Garrus would
see the Reaper Consciousness as another criminal trying to talk his
way out of justice, Javik would throw the kid out the airlock,
Liara's scientific curiosity would make her push the Catalyst for
more information before making a choice and might bring up the
ethical issues of synthesis, Ashley and Kaiden have serious trust
issues, and James would hold the airlock open while Javik figures out
how to pick up an energy being.

Just imagine how many different endings this could have generated, since Shepard could have brought along any squadmate to the meeting with Star-Child. So, it may well be an "isolation attempt", but for the purpose of "ending the story arc" that would have been a mighty puzzle for the devs, no?

[Gwyphon]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Gwyphon wrote...

When he uses "endings" in quotation marks, this leads me to believe they're not going to add any more CHOICES to the decision chamber, but it doesn't mean some can't be elaborated on. Can't really think of another reason to refer to the endings the way he did unless he doesn't like the term "endings".

That's what I figured, since we know Leviathan adds dialogue with the kid, at least.

-BleedingUranium

Kind of afraid it will be something insignificant like:
"hey I talked to your creator, he says hi."
"Oh cool, now would you kindly jump into the synthesis beam?"

[Big_Boss9]

Iconoclaste has a point. The links on the 1st page are excellent, but a primer of sorts would be a great idea for newcomers and/or those on the fence. As it stands, it's simply too much material for those except the most hardcore to pour through. I know some people in this thread were irritated at that "Are you Indoctrinated?" thread getting some positive attention, but the fact is the TC lays everything out and it can be read in a few minutes. Something similar would be great for the beginning of this thread as well. Just my two cubits.

Modifié par Big_Boss9, 04 août 2012 - 03:24 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...


Now, I'm sure you guys wonder what this has to do with
IT. I think the Reapers are trying to isolate Shepard during the
ending sequence. Once the Catalyst shows up, you can't talk to
anyone. None of your friends or lovers can ground you in any way.
This is also why the Reaper Consciousness appears as the boy instead
of a close friend or love interest; the latter two would make Shepard
consider what that person would do as well. The little boy is just an
emotional symbol that appeals to Shepard's guilt, not a
fully-realized person that he/she can connect with on an intellectual
level. Start thinking about what the other party members would say if
they were with Shepard when he/she met the Catalyst. EDI would
cut apart his logic and might even tell Shepard she is fine
sacrificing herself for Destroy, Tali would say peaceful resolution
of the Geth/Quarian conflict proves the Catalyst wrong, Garrus would
see the Reaper Consciousness as another criminal trying to talk his
way out of justice, Javik would throw the kid out the airlock,
Liara's scientific curiosity would make her push the Catalyst for
more information before making a choice and might bring up the
ethical issues of synthesis, Ashley and Kaiden have serious trust
issues, and James would hold the airlock open while Javik figures out
how to pick up an energy being.

Just imagine how many different endings this could have generated, since Shepard could have brought along any squadmate to the meeting with Star-Child. So, it may well be an "isolation attempt", but for the purpose of "ending the story arc" that would have been a mighty puzzle for the devs, no?

How would it be problem? It'd be the same as having your two squadmates comment on saving the Rachni Queen/Council or not in ME1; same with the two you bring to the Proto-Reaper in ME2. Those are just the important times too.

-BleedingUranium

[DoomsdayDevice]

Kizzamity wrote...

Forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but has anyone noticed that when Shepard enters the Citadel through the beam something a little strange happens. When he hears Anderson on his radio and his eyes open, there's a strange noise.



I've copied the video URL a few seconds before it happens. I noticed this when I played the extended cut for the first time and though it looks really suspicious. Like he's being controlled to wake up.

Again, sorry if this has been brought up before. I haven't looked through ever post on this thread :$

I've noticed that too, I looked it up and it doesn't happen in the original ending. The sound, that is.

[BansheeOwnage]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Iconoclaste has a point. The links on the 1st page are excellent, but a primer of sorts would be a great idea for newcomers and/or those on the fence. As it stands, it's simply too much material for those except the most hardcore to pour through. I know some people in this thread were irritated at that "Are you Indoctrinated?" thread getting some positive attention, but the fact is the TC lays everything out and it can be read in a few minutes. Something similar would be great for the beginning of this thread as well. Just my two cubits.

We should have something like that, but I feel it's a collective laziness and not being sure who should do it, combined with there being so much stuff to put together.

-BleedingUranium

[byne]

@Iconoclaste, I agree with some of your points about IT supporters sometimes being too quick to jump on people and declare them trolls, as well as sometimes acting too certain IT is true, but really, from what I saw, you were acting pretty troll like, responding to pretty much every post with 'How does x relate to IT?', seemingly just to get a reaction out of people.

I admit, I came in late, so I may have missed the beginnings of the conversation, but thats what it seemed like to me.

We dont jump on all doubters and declare them trolls. Two literalists that immediately come to mind are HagarIshay and Epyon. Hell, Epyon has been coming to the IT threads for as long as I can remember, and has pretty consistently been one of my favorite posters. The difference between them and other literalists is that they at least try to understand what we think instead of just writing us off as crazy.

Coming up with any sort of basic IT guide for newcomers would be pretty difficult, as many people have differing views on what is and is not evidence of IT, and even when the hallucination starts. So while I could come up with an outline of my beliefs, it wouldnt necessarily align with anyone else's.

I feel like putting out any sort of official list of what is and isnt IT evidence would stifle discussion, so I am not inclined to do so.

I also agree with you on people going to other threads and bringing up IT. I'm generally against inserting IT into random threads. If you want to discuss IT, do it here. If this was a forum I ran, and I had mod powers, I could possibly do something about it, but since it isnt, and I dont, I cant.

Appointing people to keep things civilized would likely boil down to me telling Arian to stop people from yelling at other people, but aside from crushing them with walls of text, he couldnt really do any better than I can.

As for the off-topicness (to which I'm certain I contribute to a lot of), well, its nice to talk about something else every once in a while. Everyone here is friendly with eachother (for the most part) and share similar interests, so off-topic discussions are bound to pop up a lot.

Anyhow, if anything I said doesnt make sense, or I just seem to be rambling, I blame it on my being super tired.

[TSA_383]

byne wrote...
If TSA were here he could explain it way better, I'm sure.

Page 21.
Look for a massive spoiler.
You literally can't miss it.

munnellyladt wrote...
Your on,but I got one question;
How many 10$ i euros?

about 8.15.

Although it is the euro, it could be more by the time it releases [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

[byne]

BleedingUranium, you have your own account, dont you?

Modifié par byne, 04 août 2012 - 03:30 .

[byne]

TSA_383 wrote...

munnellyladt wrote...
Your on,but I got one question;
How many 10$ i euros?

about 8.15.

Although it is the euro, it could be more by the time it releases [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

I already made that joke!

[Big_Boss9]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Iconoclaste has a point. The links on the 1st page are excellent, but a primer of sorts would be a great idea for newcomers and/or those on the fence. As it stands, it's simply too much material for those except the most hardcore to pour through. I know some people in this thread were irritated at that "Are you Indoctrinated?" thread getting some positive attention, but the fact is the TC lays everything out and it can be read in a few minutes. Something similar would be great for the beginning of this thread as well. Just my two cubits.

We should have something like that, but I feel it's a collective laziness and not being sure who should do it, combined with there being so much stuff to put together.

-BleedingUranium

A brief summary dealing with just the thematic elements would suffice.  In my experience, some of the curious are put off by all the "OMG!1!1 Anderson looked this way at the camera, what does it mean?!?" type talk WITHOUT knowing the thematic context. I think that's where the kneejerk wingnut labeling comes from. It's a lack of understanding of context as to why all of those minute details are being sifted through. Give them a foundation and let them go from there, as it were. I think that would help a great deal.

Modifié par Big_Boss9, 04 août 2012 - 03:37 .

[Hrothdane]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...


Now, I'm sure you guys wonder what this has to do with
IT. I think the Reapers are trying to isolate Shepard during the
ending sequence. Once the Catalyst shows up, you can't talk to
anyone. None of your friends or lovers can ground you in any way.
This is also why the Reaper Consciousness appears as the boy instead
of a close friend or love interest; the latter two would make Shepard
consider what that person would do as well. The little boy is just an
emotional symbol that appeals to Shepard's guilt, not a
fully-realized person that he/she can connect with on an intellectual
level. Start thinking about what the other party members would say if
they were with Shepard when he/she met the Catalyst. EDI would
cut apart his logic and might even tell Shepard she is fine
sacrificing herself for Destroy, Tali would say peaceful resolution
of the Geth/Quarian conflict proves the Catalyst wrong, Garrus would
see the Reaper Consciousness as another criminal trying to talk his
way out of justice, Javik would throw the kid out the airlock,
Liara's scientific curiosity would make her push the Catalyst for
more information before making a choice and might bring up the
ethical issues of synthesis, Ashley and Kaiden have serious trust
issues, and James would hold the airlock open while Javik figures out
how to pick up an energy being.

Just imagine how many different endings this could have generated, since Shepard could have brought along any squadmate to the meeting with Star-Child. So, it may well be an "isolation attempt", but for the purpose of "ending the story arc" that would have been a mighty puzzle for the devs, no?

Oh certainly. I just prefer to try to analyze things from an in-universe perspective before I start speculating on the author(s) intentions and constraints. Especially when you consider how many "cooks are in the kitchen" here, author intent becomes a **** to pin down.

[Cecilia L]

Handing out "IT for beginners"-pamphlets might only increase the frequency of people comparing IT believers to mad religious fanatics. Still, maybe it would be good if everyone could agree on a couple of main arguments for IT that are good to start with when explaining what IT is?

Preferably some of the first solid ones and not me hallucinating husk eyes when Shepard awakes on the citadel (which I probably am just because I want to see it, it isn't that clear anyway).

[DoomsdayDevice]

Yeah, I've suggested an IT FAQ in the past, but we never got around to it.

I think we could make some kind of list of points that briefly explains the general idea of IT;

- from a story point of view
- and by 'circumstancial' evidence

It shouldn't be too hard.

[The Hollow]

Hey all, I'm new to the forum and I certainly didn't read through 155 pages of comments, so apologies if I'm restating someone else's thoughts, but I just wanted to throw my two cents into the fray.

I firmly believe that the IT is (or at least was - explained below) the intended truth. From all the documentaries/reviews and provided evidence, I can't see it any other way, it makes too much (brilliant) sense and proves consistent with Bioware's stellar writing throughout the series.

That said, I fear that the fan outcry and resulting ec dlc MAY have opened the door for EA/Bioware to move away from an ultimate IT revelation for the sad reason that a lot of people don't get it.. and instead needed the EC to to further explain what probably wasn't even happening in the game's reality (IT's assumed dream sequence).

From what I've been reading across various forums, many in the community are accepting the EC as reality and confirmation that the IT no longer holds water. I think it still does for the various reasons already discussed, but I fear the developers may cave to the apparent widespread acceptance of the EC's content as canon, and as a result continue the story based on fan appeasement.

For all the talk Bioware has raised about artistic integrity, I'd like to think they would hold strong and follow through with their original intentions despite what sort of reaction the community would have. But then again, the EC showed me they felt a need to spoon feed a more explicit explanation of the ending due to the backlash.

All in all, I'm just hoping whatever Bioware initially had intended hasn't been derailed and spoiled as a result of the outcry. I hope whatever Mike Gamble was alluding to with his March 8th tweet, "Seriously, if you people knew all the stuff we are planning...you'd, we'll - hold onto your copy of me3 forever.." is still in the plans, because I'm confident it would have been/will be more great ME content.

Thoughts?

[Iconoclaste]

byne wrote...

@Iconoclaste, I agree with some of your points about IT supporters sometimes being too quick to jump on people and declare them trolls, as well as sometimes acting too certain IT is true, but really, from what I saw, you were acting pretty troll like, responding to pretty much every post with 'How does x relate to IT?', seemingly just to get a reaction out of people.

Maybe Chris Priestley has a better view on that : if people get off topic, there will be sanctions. Why do you think he would do that? Does he have to explain everything in detail? If what I just wrote in my "wall of text" makes any sense, then maybe you can guess why off-topicness is annoying to readers : it's public debate, yet you only wish to be among yourselves?

I don't come here without a purpose or a relevant question, and of course I will not "dive in the pool" if the water stinks. Estebanus and BansheeOwnage, for this time, acted like "guardians" against an "invader", yet I only asked how Leviathan's voice could relate in any way to IT. After things cooled down a bit, my question was asked by one of these two, because no answer had been provided, the "troops" too busy to fight the "invader". Do you understand now what I just wrote in my long post, relating to the "different treatment" offered to "visitors" and to "supporters"? How can you expect me to not return fire?

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 04 août 2012 - 03:58 .

[byne]

The Hollow wrote...

Hey all, I'm new to the forum and I certainly didn't read through 155 pages of comments, so apologies if I'm restating someone else's thoughts, but I just wanted to throw my two cents into the fray.

I firmly believe that the IT is (or at least was - explained below) the intended truth. From all the documentaries/reviews and provided evidence, I can't see it any other way, it makes too much (brilliant) sense and proves consistent with Bioware's stellar writing throughout the series.

That said, I fear that the fan outcry and resulting ec dlc MAY have opened the door for EA/Bioware to move away from an ultimate IT revelation for the sad reason that a lot of people don't get it.. and instead needed the EC to to further explain what probably wasn't even happening in the game's reality (IT's assumed dream sequence).

From what I've been reading across various forums, many in the community are accepting the EC as reality and confirmation that the IT no longer holds water. I think it still does for the various reasons already discussed, but I fear the developers may cave to the apparent widespread acceptance of the EC's content as canon, and as a result continue the story based on fan appeasement.

For all the talk Bioware has raised about artistic integrity, I'd like to think they would hold strong and follow through with their original intentions despite what sort of reaction the community would have. But then again, the EC showed me they felt a need to spoon feed a more explicit explanation of the ending due to the backlash.

All in all, I'm just hoping whatever Bioware initially had intended hasn't been derailed and spoiled as a result of the outcry. I hope whatever Mike Gamble was alluding to with his March 8th tweet, "Seriously, if you people knew all the stuff we are planning...you'd, we'll - hold onto your copy of me3 forever.." is still in the plans, because I'm confident it would have been/will be more great ME content.

Thoughts?

I agree, mostly. I dont really think the EC would have turned them off from doing whatever their plans are though/

[byne]

Iconoclaste wrote...

byne wrote...

@Iconoclaste, I agree with some of your points about IT supporters sometimes being too quick to jump on people and declare them trolls, as well as sometimes acting too certain IT is true, but really, from what I saw, you were acting pretty troll like, responding to pretty much every post with 'How does x relate to IT?', seemingly just to get a reaction out of people.

Maybe Chris Priestley has a better view on that : if people get off topic, there will be sanctions. Why do you think he would do that? Does he have to explain everything in detail? If what I just wrote in my "wall of text" makes any sense, then maybe you can guess why off-topicness is annoying to readers : it's public debate, yet you only wish to be among yourselves?

I don't come here without a purpose or a relevant question, and of course I will not "dive in the pool" if the water stinks. Estebanus and BansheeOwnage, for this time, acted like "guardians" against an "invader", yet I only asked how Leviathan's voice could related in any way to IT. After things cooled down a bit, my question was asked by one of these two, because no answer had been provided, the "troops" too busy to fight the "invader". Do you understand now what I just wrote in my long post, relating to the "different treatment" offered to "visitors" and to "supporters"? How can you expect me to not return fire?

Well, its hard to judge tone over the internet. They could have just thought you were being a troll and not legitimately asking a question.

Like I said, I came in like halfway, so i cant really say one way or another.

Anyhow, I'm headed to sleep. Nice talking with you. You seem to be much more reasonable than I originally gave you credit for.

Heres hoping you keep it up.

[Jadebaby]

YAY! IT thread got it's BioWare tag back!!! XD

Sorry, not trying to further derail the topic. It's actually very involved in the topic because I 'speculated' that BioWare would find some way to stamp the IT thread again to give it validity, IT FTW!

[Cecilia L]

Cake for Hollow!
I feel the same way.

Modifié par Cecilia L, 04 août 2012 - 04:07 .

[Simon_Says]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

A brief summary dealing with just the thematic elements would suffice.  In my experience, some of the curious are put off by all the "OMG!1!1 Anderson looked this way at the camera, what does it mean?!?" type talk WITHOUT knowing the thematic context. I think that's where the kneejerk wingnut labeling comes from. It's a lack of understanding of context as to why all of those minute details are being sifted through. Give them a foundation and let them go from there, as it were. I think that would help a great deal.

I actually once tried to make a brief summary along such lines. I tried to go back to it and expand upon it but it kept balooning into huge disertations about the justifications and evidence and possibilities and further questions raised and generally, was a pain in the ass.

I do agree that we need a concise summary of what IT is about and why we support it. I just don't know how we can do it when there's so much ground to cover and most of it should be obvious to people who played the series.

[Gwyphon]

@Iconoclaste: You have to understand that we get a LOT of trolls in here and it puts us on edge and will generally make us hostile to people not known. It's of course a negative thing but if we're too open the trolls get fed.

And on the Leviathan's voice, I find it interesting that they almost directly inferred that it's a reaper, making me think that discovering that he is infact a reaper is not that major in the list of things learned/discovered in this DLC. I'm getting quite excited for this dlc which probably won't be healthy for me in the long run...

[ShepnTali]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

YAY! IT thread got it's BioWare tag back!!! XD

Sorry, not trying to further derail the topic. It's actually very involved in the topic because I 'speculated' that BioWare would find some way to stamp the IT thread again to give it validity, IT FTW!

I think the puzzle theory is IT friendly in it's potential.

[Hrothdane]

Simon_Says wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

A brief summary dealing with just the thematic elements would suffice.  In my experience, some of the curious are put off by all the "OMG!1!1 Anderson looked this way at the camera, what does it mean?!?" type talk WITHOUT knowing the thematic context. I think that's where the kneejerk wingnut labeling comes from. It's a lack of understanding of context as to why all of those minute details are being sifted through. Give them a foundation and let them go from there, as it were. I think that would help a great deal.

I actually once tried to make a brief summary along such lines. I tried to go back to it and expand upon it but it kept balooning into huge disertations about the justifications and evidence and possibilities and further questions raised and generally, was a pain in the ass.

I do agree that we need a concise summary of what IT is about and why we support it. I just don't know how we can do it when there's so much ground to cover and most of it should be obvious to people who played the series.

In fact, that cornucopia of evidence is why I imagine most of us are here in the first place. We could try prioritizing evidence in order of strength and/or organizing it by type (ex. Circumstantial, Thematic, Logical Inconsistency, Plot Hole, etc...).

[Iconoclaste]

byne wrote...

Well, its hard to judge tone over the internet. They could have just thought you were being a troll and not legitimately asking a question.

Like I said, I came in like halfway, so i cant really say one way or another.

Anyhow, I'm headed to sleep. Nice talking with you. You seem to be much more reasonable than I originally gave you credit for.

Heres hoping you keep it up.

Some here remember me from the 1st IT thread, and from the 2nd also. Some are plainly looking for a little "fight" because they think I'm easy to discourage or even to have upset, but like you wrote "tone" is difficult to assess on a forum, and I'm not impressed easily. In fact, I can turn around pretty quickly, and make fun of these situations. But the fact is that legitimate questions and subjects are the material of discussions, not people. When a debater starts to relate to the "author" of a question, he is clearly not "debating". Opinions can be torn apart, shredded to pieces, no one will get hurt if it is done properly. But if the way to dismiss proper argument is to simply try to affect the "debater", than there is a clear lack of understanding of public debate. I do not expect 15 year old guys to debate like seasoned forumers, but the rules are simple : attack the arguments, try to invalidate relations between sets of facts, but never, NEVER criticize the person behind the thinking. We are all simply putting pawns on a board, and there is no reason to insult the persons behind the pawn-arguments.

Trolls will be Trolls, there's not much to be done against them except... doing nothing! Do not feed them.

Good nite Byne. People here respect you, I think you can get a hold on the thread's mood easily.