80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Andromidius]

demersel wrote...

Ok, who's Lorik Qui'in?

A Turian businessman on Noveria.

[Eryri]

demersel wrote...

Ok, who's Lorik Qui'in?

According to the wiki, he's also voiced by Peter Jessop.

[paxxton]

Eryri wrote...

demersel wrote...

Ok, who's Lorik Qui'in?

According to the wiki, he's also voiced by Peter Jessop.

So he's also voiced the Presidium's Gardener.

Modifié par paxxton, 26 décembre 2012 - 03:43 .

[Dysjong]

Finally!!! I have been going through all the IT content Byne have linked in this thread.

It's good, many comes with some good explanations and some observation, while others have some pointless ideas.

My conclusion, is that IT is plausible for me.

The main reason for it, is that as players have a tendency to overanalyze things, that leads to some wrong reasons. Sometimes, things are really simple and the straight answer is the answer, instead of overanalyzing which had lead to many PC deaths. I know that all to well from my experience in table top rpg.

IT is fine and i could imagine that it could work out as a plot point in ME4.

If it turns out, that IT is correct, then i will come back in this thread and admit that i was wrong.

For now, i will stand by the endings as they are and support all of them, while i will acknowledge the fan made contents.

[demersel]

Also, about indoctrination and how it works, and how to beat it - there is another great Doctor Who episode - The Asylum of Daleks

[CoolioThane]

Ok, you do that Dysjong

[lex0r11]

Dysjong wrote...

Finally!!! I have been going through all the IT content Byne have linked in this thread.

It's good, many comes with some good explanations and some observation, while others have some pointless ideas.

My conclusion, is that IT is plausible for me.

The main reason for it, is that as players have a tendency to overanalyze things, that leads to some wrong reasons. Sometimes, things are really simple and the straight answer is the answer, instead of overanalyzing which had lead to many PC deaths. I know that all to well from my experience in table top rpg.

IT is fine and i could imagine that it could work out as a plot point in ME4.

If it turns out, that IT is correct, then i will come back in this thread and admit that i was wrong.

For now, i will stand by the endings as they are and support all of them, while i will acknowledge the fan made contents.

Thank you for your input on this and for taking your time to read through the material.

You are most welcome here.

[estebanus]

Dysjong wrote...

Finally!!! I have been going through all the IT content Byne have linked in this thread.

It's good, many comes with some good explanations and some observation, while others have some pointless ideas.

My conclusion, is that IT is plausible for me.

The main reason for it, is that as players have a tendency to overanalyze things, that leads to some wrong reasons. Sometimes, things are really simple and the straight answer is the answer, instead of overanalyzing which had lead to many PC deaths. I know that all to well from my experience in table top rpg.

IT is fine and i could imagine that it could work out as a plot point in ME4.

If it turns out, that IT is correct, then i will come back in this thread and admit that i was wrong.

For now, i will stand by the endings as they are and support all of them, while i will acknowledge the fan made contents.

Pretty much my stance as well. Good thing somebody else took his time to actually do research about the IT before making a decision.

[Andromidius]

Dysjong wrote...

Finally!!! I have been going through all the IT content Byne have linked in this thread.

It's good, many comes with some good explanations and some observation, while others have some pointless ideas.

My conclusion, is that IT is plausible for me.

The main reason for it, is that as players have a tendency to overanalyze things, that leads to some wrong reasons. Sometimes, things are really simple and the straight answer is the answer, instead of overanalyzing which had lead to many PC deaths. I know that all to well from my experience in table top rpg.

IT is fine and i could imagine that it could work out as a plot point in ME4.

If it turns out, that IT is correct, then i will come back in this thread and admit that i was wrong.

For now, i will stand by the endings as they are and support all of them, while i will acknowledge the fan made contents.

I'm confused.  You say its plausible, but then you stick with the current endings anyway?

IT explains nearly everything, ties up all loose ends, explains all inconsistancies, is in keeping with all the lore, is in keeping with Bioware's previous MO, is thematically in keeping with how the Reapers operate...

I still can't understand why anyone can't see it as being the only real explaination for things.  The only thing I'm unsure about is whether Bioware will leave it open ended forever, or will do a 'reveal' of some find.  Its 100% clear Shepard's Indoctrination was completely planned and masterfully set up so the majority of the audience would fall for it.

[paxxton]

Happy Easter! Let the Bunny bring you a lot of cool gifts.

Modifié par paxxton, 26 décembre 2012 - 03:55 .

[Xilizhra]

IT explains nearly everything, ties up all loose ends, explains all inconsistancies, is in keeping with all the lore, is in keeping with Bioware's previous MO, is thematically in keeping with how the Reapers operate...

It really doesn't; not only that, it creates more plot holes itself, arguably more than it solves. Additionally, it's not in keeping with how Bioware manages their big choices; even if the result is unsatisfactorily shallow, Bioware never has a major decision like this wind up dooming the PC, and under any pro-casual leadership, would be even less likely to do that. The only ME choice I can think of that kills you outright, you have to deliberately seek out death to reach.

Certainly you can say that, in your opinion, IT solves everything, but it's by no means objective fact, as evidenced by the sizeable majority of players who don't follow it.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 26 décembre 2012 - 03:57 .

[Norlond]

paxxton wrote...

Happy Easter!

[Xilizhra]

Ashep123 wrote...

One last time,
What does Shepard see in his dream after the kids burns (that the audience does not see) before he wakes up?

Er, nothing? I think that's the point.

[lex0r11]

Andromidius wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Finally!!! I have been going through all the IT content Byne have linked in this thread.

It's good, many comes with some good explanations and some observation, while others have some pointless ideas.

My conclusion, is that IT is plausible for me.

The main reason for it, is that as players have a tendency to overanalyze things, that leads to some wrong reasons. Sometimes, things are really simple and the straight answer is the answer, instead of overanalyzing which had lead to many PC deaths. I know that all to well from my experience in table top rpg.

IT is fine and i could imagine that it could work out as a plot point in ME4.

If it turns out, that IT is correct, then i will come back in this thread and admit that i was wrong.

For now, i will stand by the endings as they are and support all of them, while i will acknowledge the fan made contents.

I'm confused.  You say its plausible, but then you stick with the current endings anyway?

IT explains nearly everything, ties up all loose ends, explains all inconsistancies, is in keeping with all the lore, is in keeping with Bioware's previous MO, is thematically in keeping with how the Reapers operate...

I still can't understand why anyone can't see it as being the only real explaination for things.  The only thing I'm unsure about is whether Bioware will leave it open ended forever, or will do a 'reveal' of some find.  Its 100% clear Shepard's Indoctrination was completely planned and masterfully set up so the majority of the audience would fall for it.

He stated his position and it's fine. No need to force it on people. I would hate it to hear from someone else that this or that is the only possible explanation. People will read it as a direct insult and it is, in its essence, offensive. We need to be carefull how to lable things.

As of now, this is not the only explanation for things. This is still a theory without proof to become an actual fact.

Modifié par lex0r11, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:10 .

[Dysjong]

Andromidius wrote...

Dysjong wrote...

Finally!!! I have been going through all the IT content Byne have linked in this thread.

It's good, many comes with some good explanations and some observation, while others have some pointless ideas.

My conclusion, is that IT is plausible for me.

The main reason for it, is that as players have a tendency to overanalyze things, that leads to some wrong reasons. Sometimes, things are really simple and the straight answer is the answer, instead of overanalyzing which had lead to many PC deaths. I know that all to well from my experience in table top rpg.

IT is fine and i could imagine that it could work out as a plot point in ME4.

If it turns out, that IT is correct, then i will come back in this thread and admit that i was wrong.

For now, i will stand by the endings as they are and support all of them, while i will acknowledge the fan made contents.

I'm confused.  You say its plausible, but then you stick with the current endings anyway?

IT explains nearly everything, ties up all loose ends, explains all inconsistancies, is in keeping with all the lore, is in keeping with Bioware's previous MO, is thematically in keeping with how the Reapers operate...

I still can't understand why anyone can't see it as being the only real explaination for things.  The only thing I'm unsure about is whether Bioware will leave it open ended forever, or will do a 'reveal' of some find.  Its 100% clear Shepard's Indoctrination was completely planned and masterfully set up so the majority of the audience would fall for it.

[GethPrimeMKII]

Xilizhra wrote...

IT explains nearly everything, ties up all loose ends, explains all inconsistancies, is in keeping with all the lore, is in keeping with Bioware's previous MO, is thematically in keeping with how the Reapers operate...

It really doesn't; not only that, it creates more plot holes itself, arguably more than it solves. Additionally, it's not in keeping with how Bioware manages their big choices; even if the result is unsatisfactorily shallow, Bioware never has a major decision like this wind up dooming the PC, and under any pro-casual leadership, would be even less likely to do that. The only ME choice I can think of that kills you outright, you have to deliberately seek out death to reach.

Certainly you can say that, in your opinion, IT solves everything, but it's by no means objective fact, as evidenced by the sizeable majority of players who don't follow it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I'll leave this here. Take a look when you have the time. Btw what aspects of the ending do you think the theory does a poor job of explaining?

Modifié par GethPrimeMKII, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:05 .

[Xilizhra]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I'll leave this here. Take a look when you have the time.

This would apply if Bioware had explicitly canonized IT and people were still denying it. This has not, however, happened.

[demersel]

From Asylum of the Daleks:
"
- So tell me, what's gonna happen to me? And don't lie, cause i know when you're lying to me and i will definitly fall on you.
- The air all around is full of micro-machines, robots the size of molecules, nanogenes. Now that you're unprotected, you're being.... re-written.
- So what happens? I get one of those things sticking out of my head?
- Physical changes come later.
- What comes first, how does it start?
- With your mind. Your feelings, your memories and i'm sorry, but it's started already.
- How do you know??
- Becuase we've had this conversation four times.
- Ok. Scared now.
- Hang on to scared. Scared isn't Dalek."

[GethPrimeMKII]

So what do you think the theory can't explain about the ending? And no, that link implies that your previous arguement that IT is a bust must be right because supposedly a mojority don't get it.

Modifié par GethPrimeMKII, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:08 .

[paxxton]

@demersel: Is that the episode with Mark Meer starring as the Doctor?

[estebanus]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

So what do you think the theory can't explain about the ending?

For god's sake, just leave him alone! He wrote his opinion, stop pestering him about it. 

EDIT: Never mind. You weren't referring to him.

Modifié par estebanus, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:09 .

[Xilizhra]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

So what do you think the theory can't explain about the ending?

Why didn't Harbinger just vaporize Shepard instead of engaging in a convoluted indoctrination battle?
Which version of IT are we even following? How long has the hallucination been going on?
Why have TIM show up for a final confrontation if he was never there at all? And if that part wasn't a hallucination (and there seems to be no agreement on this), then are the dreamlike qualities of the Citadel still representative of something real?
No one has ever survived or escaped from such vivid indotrination as would induce outright visual and auditory hallucinations; how is Shepard supposed to do either?
If the idea was to capture Shepard, then shouldn't Shepard be aboard Harbinger right now and being constantly bombarded with further indoctrination signals?  Again, there's no reason at all to just have Shepard lie there if it was somehow important to actually capture her (which I don't think it would be to begin with; Harbinger is happy in ME2 to just kill Shepard and steal the body).

And no, that link implies that your previous arguement that IT is a bust
must be right because supposedly a mojority don't get it.

It's more to do with Bioware not implementing IT for the sake of a tiny minority.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 26 décembre 2012 - 04:11 .

[estebanus]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

IT explains nearly everything, ties up all loose ends, explains all inconsistancies, is in keeping with all the lore, is in keeping with Bioware's previous MO, is thematically in keeping with how the Reapers operate...

It really doesn't; not only that, it creates more plot holes itself, arguably more than it solves. Additionally, it's not in keeping with how Bioware manages their big choices; even if the result is unsatisfactorily shallow, Bioware never has a major decision like this wind up dooming the PC, and under any pro-casual leadership, would be even less likely to do that. The only ME choice I can think of that kills you outright, you have to deliberately seek out death to reach.

Certainly you can say that, in your opinion, IT solves everything, but it's by no means objective fact, as evidenced by the sizeable majority of players who don't follow it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I'll leave this here. Take a look when you have the time. Btw what aspects of the ending do you think the theory does a poor job of explaining?

The IT being true is not a fact. It is only a fact if it has been proven right, and the only way that being true is by BioWare confirming it.