80611 réponses à ce sujet

[lex0r11]

byne wrote...

Yay, thread 1990! I was born in 1990. Best year ever.

*waves awkward squad 1990 signs*

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhh.

[chevyguy87]

lex0r11 wrote...

Oh, and starting the game away from earth WHILE the invasion was happening could've been better. Sometimes witnessing a tragedy from far away is even more gut-wrenching than actually being there.

Just imagine. Shepard watching earth burn on a screen while he/she has to be on some space station because of a trial.

Yeah like the first trailor showed Earth burning while Shepard is watching from the Normandy. Damn those trailors were better then the actual game.

[byne]

lex0r11 wrote...

byne wrote...

Yay, thread 1990! I was born in 1990. Best year ever.

*waves awkward squad 1990 signs*

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhh.

I just realized I said thread instead of page. How awkward.

[lex0r11]

byne wrote...

lex0r11 wrote...

byne wrote...

Yay, thread 1990! I was born in 1990. Best year ever.

*waves awkward squad 1990 signs*

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhh.

I just realized I said thread instead of page. How awkward.

Imagine. Indoctrination Theory Mark 1990.

By then we all will be like wise indoctrination-senseis sitting in circles meditating.

Modifié par lex0r11, 23 novembre 2012 - 02:20 .

[BleedingUranium]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Just a simple brain fart I had that I wanted to share:

For Renegades it's easier to pick the Destroy endings. After all, my Renegade Shepard already destroyed the geth back on Rannoch, so the only real downside of the Destroy option in his case is just EDI. Jep. just EDI, that's all. Since Renegade Shepards usually don't accept that synthetics can be truly alive (if you pick the right Renegade dialogue options), the decision is quickly and easily made. For Renegades such as my Renegade Shepard, there isn't really any downside of the Destroy option.

So, how does that play in the indoctrination theory? Does this mean Renegades are more resistant against indoctrination attempts? 

Sabotaging the Genophage cure is Renegade, for example, but killing the Geth isn't Renegade, it's inaction. You can make peace via a Charm or Intimidate option. Just like getting everyone killed on the suicide mission isn't Renegade, it's sucking at playing properly.

[BansheeOwnage]

byne wrote...

Yay, page 1990! I was born in 1990. Best year ever.

Naw, 1995 is the best year ever.

[byne]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Just a simple brain fart I had that I wanted to share:

For Renegades it's easier to pick the Destroy endings. After all, my Renegade Shepard already destroyed the geth back on Rannoch, so the only real downside of the Destroy option in his case is just EDI. Jep. just EDI, that's all. Since Renegade Shepards usually don't accept that synthetics can be truly alive (if you pick the right Renegade dialogue options), the decision is quickly and easily made. For Renegades such as my Renegade Shepard, there isn't really any downside of the Destroy option.

So, how does that play in the indoctrination theory? Does this mean Renegades are more resistant against indoctrination attempts? 

Sabotaging the Genophage cure is Renegade, for example, but killing the Geth isn't Renegade, it's inaction. You can make peace via a Charm or Intimidate option. Just like getting everyone killed on the suicide mission isn't Renegade, it's sucking at playing properly.

Speaking as someone who makes almost exlusively paragon choices, peace via intimidate is way more awesome.

[BansheeOwnage]

lex0r11 wrote...

byne wrote...

lex0r11 wrote...

byne wrote...

Yay, thread 1990! I was born in 1990. Best year ever.

*waves awkward squad 1990 signs*

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhh.

I just realized I said thread instead of page. How awkward.

Imagine. Indoctrination Theory Mark 1990.

By then we all will be like wise indoctrination-senseis sitting in circles meditating.

LOL

@Blur that exactly. People really don't understand how just because an option is at the bottom doesn't make it bad/renegade.

[TheConstantOne]

lex0r11 wrote...

byne wrote...

Yay, thread 1990! I was born in 1990. Best year ever.

*waves awkward squad 1990 signs*

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhh.

I figured I'd make a reappearance in the thread to share in the glory as I too was born in 1990.  

[Gwyphon]

[quote]BansheeOwnage wrote...

[quote]byne wrote...

Yay, page 1990! I was born in 1990. Best year ever.[/quote]
Naw, 1995 is the best year ever. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

[BansheeOwnage]

Restrider wrote...

A point I'd like to add to the Destroy decision and the role of EDI and the Geth:
We all agree that EDI would sacrifice herself to destroy the Reapers. Legion also states that about the Geth, so does Legion Prime on Rannoch. But what most people supporting Synthesis/Control and stigmatizing Destroy with genocide do not get is the following thing - the Geth are not like an organic race. They do not have civilians or little children. At the end of ME3 they willingly enlisted in the efforts to defeat the Reapers - as a whole . You could say that all Geth are soldiers. And soldiers are sacrificed in a war to achieve certain goals - especially if that goal is the direct victory.

For instance, Admiral Hackett sacrificed the Second Fleet to save two other fleets. That's the calculus of war in action. It is ugly, but that's how wars are. The Destroy decision at the end is similar, you risk the existence of the Geth, EDI and yourself to stop the Reapers. And all three of these are - more or less - soldiers.

Very good points indeed.

Also, did you get the name "Legion Prime" from my video, or did we just have the same thought?

[Dwailing]

Well, happy Thanksgiving! I'm glad to see that we've made it to 1990. However, it is NOT the most awesome page. The most awesome page will be 1996, for it is the year I was born. And without me, I think the thread seriously might have fallen apart after PAX. Remember my awesome speech?

[ZerebusPrime]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Just a simple brain fart I had that I wanted to share:

For Renegades it's easier to pick the Destroy endings. After all, my Renegade Shepard already destroyed the geth back on Rannoch, so the only real downside of the Destroy option in his case is just EDI. Jep. just EDI, that's all. Since Renegade Shepards usually don't accept that synthetics can be truly alive (if you pick the right Renegade dialogue options), the decision is quickly and easily made. For Renegades such as my Renegade Shepard, there isn't really any downside of the Destroy option.

So, how does that play in the indoctrination theory? Does this mean Renegades are more resistant against indoctrination attempts? 

Less likely to veer off course once they set their minds to something, surely.  That comes with ruthlessness.  There is a spectrum to Renegade, however.  The power-hungry might be tempted to by Control, if they can get over the dying part.

[byne]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Also, did you get the name "Legion Prime" from my video, or did we just have the same thought?

I'm still disappoint that you can only get the geth prime on Earth if you killed the quarians.

[lex0r11]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

[...]

@Blur that exactly. People really don't understand how just because an option is at the bottom doesn't make it bad/renegade.

Renegade is not evil. Renegade is victory at all costs. The end justifies the means. Paragon is always finding another way to avoid "bad" things like collateral damage. Also self-determination for all sentient beings is pretty strong in Paragon.

[BansheeOwnage]

lex0r11 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

[...]

@Blur that exactly. People really don't understand how just because an option is at the bottom doesn't make it bad/renegade.

Renegade is not evil. Renegade is victory at all costs. The end justifies the means. Paragon is always finding another way to avoid "bad" things like collateral damage. Also self-determination for all sentient beings is pretty strong in Paragon.

I'm not saying it's evil; quite the opposite actually That's why I put the slash. I mean people think it may be bad because it's on the bottom, even though I don't.

[BansheeOwnage]

byne wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Also, did you get the name "Legion Prime" from my video, or did we just have the same thought?

I'm still disappoint that you can only get the geth prime on Earth if you killed the quarians.

Yeah, same here.

[TheConstantOne]

starlitegirlx wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

The more I have thought about the Extended Cut, the more it really does seem like BioWare may have made it to show people that everything is not as it seems with greater depth. I mean they said they had to re prioritize their DLC schedule, right? Meaning they did not originally intend to do an EC because the ending was all left open to interpretation on purpose since they would slowly finish it up throughout later released DLC's and they didn't foresee the huge backlash (although they really should have) so they had to kill off at least some of the backlash, hence the EC to quell at least some fans until the rest of the DLC is done.

Makes perfect sense to me now that I've thought about it.

The fact that they kept a lot of suspect stuff we pointed out in the original ending in is enough to warrant this kind of thought process. They really could have rectified a lot of it with the EC but they kept everything around and added another ending that pretty much hints that the Godchild may have a very sinister agenda.

Yeah, the only problems the EC fixed were the ones they didn't see coming, like the relays blowing everything up, everyone starving, fate of Normandy/squadmates, etc.

Maybe they didn't see them coming because they had expected people to figure it out and not be so locked into the strange choices and stalker child to be taken literally. Maybe they figured that instead of people being pissed about how the endings didn't cover all these other things people would be more troubled by the strangeness of the ending and the things that in general seem to bother many ITers rather than how it played out for the actual choices. Like they overestimated people's ability to see something was really wrong with the ending. It's not like we didn't have a lot of clues. The kid and the three choices, putting aside everything else, along with the magical platform that take you to the kid and the three choices, is surreal. I played it that first time and picked control and did the whole suspension of disbelief but it was strange. I truly felt like I was suddenly in a different game. I went along with it in a totally WTF?! manner and went with control because I didn't want to kill the geth, but the floating carpet ride was insane to me. The child was WRONG to me. AIs had always presented themselves as they were in the game, had they not? So this AI is a human child? The prothean ones were prothean. The creators were correct representations. But it says it is part of the citadel which was not a human creation. So I was very confused by that. Confused and troubled. Then when I had to choose, I was entirely baffled. And so were the majority of other players, but it seems they still never questioned it. They just accepted that the crucible magically created these options. Only the question begs... how does the crucible create these options? Oh, wait, the child says they exist because of the cruicible and because shepard is there. Well, now I'm just confused to all hell just like in a dream. Nothing makes sense. You just follow along with it.

I really don't think bioware expected people to take the endings as they did, but the problem became that destroy didn't really end it. You have to have a proper ending to the game. You can do a mindscrew on people, but they should be able to see it was a mindscrew and have a proper ending to the game. That's just me though. I thought it was clearly off, but played along since there wasn't a choice to not play along. But even after choosing destroy on my next run, it still didn't give me closure. It was the same with a different color and a breath scene essentially. Not a proper ending. So no wonder the majority thinks ITers are crazy. Hard to disagree when destroy doesn't change anything regarding the reapers.

In my opinion, the EC did drastically improve the quality of the endings in the sense that it amde them more cinematic.  But in terms of actual closure or consistency of the trilogy's main themes? Nope.  The best face value ending involve trusting the Reaper overlord completely...sounds like a great idea.    

They could have kept with the series' Renegade and Paragon ending overtones if they stuck with only a Control and Destroy ending.  But synthesis and Starbieber seems to create so many red flags that the eding becomes more and more ambiguous the longer you think about it.  Since an ending should make MORE sense the longer you think about it, I'd say that something is wrong with the ending.  If synthesis were removed as a choice and EDI revealed the Destroy and Control choices, they could have elaborated more cinematically on the ending and have made the choices believeable and meaningful.

The game as a whole is absolutely fantastic. 99% perfect to me.  It's just a shame that the ending turned into the mess that it is

[byne]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

lex0r11 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

[...]

@Blur that exactly. People really don't understand how just because an option is at the bottom doesn't make it bad/renegade.

Renegade is not evil. Renegade is victory at all costs. The end justifies the means. Paragon is always finding another way to avoid "bad" things like collateral damage. Also self-determination for all sentient beings is pretty strong in Paragon.

I'm not saying it's evil; quite the opposite actually That's why I put the slash. I mean people think it may be bad because it's on the bottom, even though I don't.

The most interesting thing is that, no matter what choice you make on Rannoch, you dont get paragon or renegade points, so really neither choice is paragon or renegade.

[BansheeOwnage]

Dwailing wrote...

Well, happy Thanksgiving! I'm glad to see that we've made it to 1990. However, it is NOT the most awesome page. The most awesome page will be 1996, for it is the year I was born. And without me, I think the thread seriously might have fallen apart after PAX. Remember my awesome speech?

I don't think it was this one but it's pretty cool so I'll add it.

One of the best things about IT is that we never claim to know EXACTLY what's going on (Unlike SOME Literalists. Not you, BTW.). We have our evidence, and some of us interpret it in different ways. Right now, all that we're 99% certain of is that Shepard was experiencing some kind of indoctrination attempt during the ending sequence. Maybe the whole thing was an indoctrination, for lack of a better word, "dream", and Shepard is knocked out throughout the whole thing. Maybe Shepard was "dreaming" the TIM/Anderson confrontation, and was "awake" but hallucinating during the Catalyst chamber (My view.). The thing is, we pride ourselves on IT being a true scientific theory. And theories are modified to fit evidence, not the other way around. That's why IT doesn't have a "foundation" beyond the concept of Shepard experiencing an indoctrination attempt. If we tried to make things TOO concrete, then we'd be in even worse shape than if we were forced to change with each piece of new evidence, or each piece of debunked evidence. If we tried to claim that we knew EXACTLY what was going on, and refused to change, we would start ignoring evidence (Like many Literalists.), or we would start using a catch-all excuse to explain away everything that didn't fit our preconceived notions (Again, like many Literalists.). So, simply put, our lack of a "strong foundation" is actually our strength, rather than our weakness.
- Dwailing

Btw, everyone knows 1995 is the best year.

[byne]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Well, happy Thanksgiving! I'm glad to see that we've made it to 1990. However, it is NOT the most awesome page. The most awesome page will be 1996, for it is the year I was born. And without me, I think the thread seriously might have fallen apart after PAX. Remember my awesome speech?

I don't think it was this one but it's pretty cool so I'll add it.

*snip*

Btw, everyone knows 1995 is the best year.

You should put your document of awesome stuff up on pastebin or something sometime.

[BansheeOwnage]

byne wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

lex0r11 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

[...]

@Blur that exactly. People really don't understand how just because an option is at the bottom doesn't make it bad/renegade.

Renegade is not evil. Renegade is victory at all costs. The end justifies the means. Paragon is always finding another way to avoid "bad" things like collateral damage. Also self-determination for all sentient beings is pretty strong in Paragon.

I'm not saying it's evil; quite the opposite actually That's why I put the slash. I mean people think it may be bad because it's on the bottom, even though I don't.

The most interesting thing is that, no matter what choice you make on Rannoch, you dont get paragon or renegade points, so really neither choice is paragon or renegade.

Hmm. Proves my point I guess.

@Constant You raise a good point. There are any number of ways the could have kept the existing ending and made it way better. The fact that they didn't, and didn't again in the EC makes no sense unless IT.

[TJBartlemus]

Dwailing wrote...

Well, happy Thanksgiving! I'm glad to see that we've made it to 1990. However, it is NOT the most awesome page. The most awesome page will be 1996, for it is the year I was born. And without me, I think the thread seriously might have fallen apart after PAX. Remember my awesome speech?

Happy Thanksgiving!

[BansheeOwnage]

byne wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Well, happy Thanksgiving! I'm glad to see that we've made it to 1990. However, it is NOT the most awesome page. The most awesome page will be 1996, for it is the year I was born. And without me, I think the thread seriously might have fallen apart after PAX. Remember my awesome speech?

I don't think it was this one but it's pretty cool so I'll add it.

*snip*

Btw, everyone knows 1995 is the best year.

You should put your document of awesome stuff up on pastebin or something sometime.

You know, I should. What about one of those google docs that everyone can see? (I don't actually know much about these things.)

32184 words and counting! And that's without my Rio analysis or Great Wall of Text™ (Which I should make a thread for.) Keep up the good work people!