80611 réponses à ce sujet

[jgibson14352]

 just thought id repost this in light of the recent dev comments.

it doesnt really invalidate anything, but does show youd need a lethal amount of salt if youre going to heed what the devs are saying.
and for the record, its only the community team at bioware thats saying anything about the endings, so if were going to ignore and deny their comments referring to the endings, then we need to do that to all their comments, such as Priestly saying that IT is a valid interpretation of the endings. as in we cant be hypcritical here, its very much all or nothing in this situation. if Priestly were to come in here right as i post this and say IT is correct, by our own logic we have to toss that into the "community team only knows as much as we do" pile.

which we cant say. Priestly has been mentioning for a while now that hes already played leviathan. (granted, from what ive heard he hasnt seen the cutscenes) and hes still giving IT negative answers.

so in short, i have literally no idea what to think. its so blatantly obvious that at some point in development of ME3 they intended for Shepard to be undergoing indoctrination, but whether or not they intend to pick it up after the EC is absolutely beyond me. ive decided that the only thing ill allow to speak for BioWare is their actions alone, so Leviathan better drop some serious hints.
if that new area on the citadel drops hints to the decision chamber being real, or if the dlc in general says the starbrat is real and control and synthesis are possible, i sh*t you not im smashing my ME collection.

Modifié par jgibson14352, 21 août 2012 - 03:54 .

[spotlessvoid]

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence.

I understand the intention behind your comment, but all comments do not have to be examined in the same light. The primary reason for taking these comments with a grain of salt is because of their often contradictory and vague nature. The fact that they are community managers and not actual developers is secondary.

Most importantly, IT would not be revealed via tweet, press conference, etc. It would
be an in game reveal. As such, comments negative of IT, unless explicitly clear in negating it (there are none), can be as easily viewed as deflective instead of confirmational

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 21 août 2012 - 04:08 .

[desert_beagle]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Desert Beagle....Starchild makes no attempt to explain what the psychological effects of this physiological change actually are.

Smoking Otter...exactly

That is what I meant when I referenced the Starchild.  He said all life would be this new syntheticly modded hybrid whatever, and insinuates but does not directly state that everyone's mind will be in harmony.  The case in point being the realities that have been mentioned, the only thing it would solve instead of organics being destroyed by synthetics and vice versa is that it would be hybrids destroying hybrids.

[jgibson14352]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence.

I understand the intention behind your comment, but all comments do not have to be examined in the same light. The primary reason for taking these comments with a grain of salt is because of their often contradictory and vague nature. The fact that they are community managers and not actual developers is secondary.

Most importantly, IT would not be revealed via tweet, press conference, etc. It would be an in game reveal. As such, comments negative of IT, unless explicitly clear in negating it (there are none), can be as easily viewed as deflective as conformational

then we must have differentiating opinions on what exactly constitutes IT. some people think that even without any form of definitive answer from bioware, that IT is still valid as headcanon. ill go on record as saying headcanon is total bull. if there is not bioware endorsed canon acknowledging that Shepard was undergoing indoctrination, then it didnt happen. because they never said it did. if i dont get in game closure, then i didnt get closure. period. thus any statement saying there will be no further closure is IT negative not only in my view but for several others.

i could go find the fancy latin term if you want, but choosing to accept certain statements over others despite them being quite contrary is being selective. i cant say im going to follow this law but not this one because the latter is something i dont want to do. they are both the law and therefore must be obeyed. (though this particular situation regarding Priestly's comments is the opposite, it must be disregarded in popular opinion)

them being community is secondary, yes, but the fact that the community team is alone in this is rather odd. any comments from the writers or designers are very deflective (after the EC i got a chance to ask Jos Hendriks and the only answer he gave was that he couldnt give one), yet anything from the Community team is negative (in an additional closure stance).

Modifié par jgibson14352, 21 août 2012 - 05:00 .

[masster blaster]

So we are back to making long post awsome. Well I want to know is what does TIM mean he can us the Crucibles to Control the Reapers.

This is when TIM is talking to Shepard, and Anderson, yetthis could be nothing than a erroe, or maybe Omega is the first Crucible, that the Leviathans created to stop the Conflict in the past, but failed do to the Catalyst/ Harbinger's sick twissted solution.

[FellishBeast]

Rosewind wrote...

smokingotter1 wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

A breath scene after Control, Synthesis, or Refuse would be direct contradictions of what is seen in the literal version, hence why it's only seen with Destroy.  

Not to mention it will be a huge give away.......

Although a breath scene with Shepard opening his indoctrinated eyes would be kind of cool game over.

And people will be like "RAWR!!! What happens next!!"

I would get goosebumps and goosepumped.

[masster blaster]

Also I like to point out, if IT is ever proven wrong, that. Synthesis , and Control are the worst things that Bioware came up with. I mean when you have to make the choice, to cure the genoghape, or not. Synthesis just fixes everything. Mordin dying was pointles if Synthesis fixes the genophage, and Wrex dying because his people were going to die. Thanks to Shepard was pointles. Thane dying for his dissus was pointles because Synthesis fixes that to. So if Thane were to have lived, then Thane could live out his life in Synthesis.

Now in Control Thanes death was in vain because Shepard didn't kill the Reapers like Thane tried to tell him, and Thane died for Shepard, so that Shepard can go stop the Reapers. Hell everyone that has meet our Shepard's were willing to fight, sacrifice, and die just to stop the Reapers, and I mean death when they say stop the Reapers.

I am just sayong everything, that we have done, and the chocies we have made to stop, and kill the Reapers, were in vain. You can argue with me, but it's the truth.

[Hrothdane]

jgibson14352 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence.

I understand the intention behind your comment, but all comments do not have to be examined in the same light. The primary reason for taking these comments with a grain of salt is because of their often contradictory and vague nature. The fact that they are community managers and not actual developers is secondary.

Most importantly, IT would not be revealed via tweet, press conference, etc. It would be an in game reveal. As such, comments negative of IT, unless explicitly clear in negating it (there are none), can be as easily viewed as deflective as conformational

then we must have differentiating opinions on what exactly constitutes IT. some people think that even without any form of definitive answer from bioware, that IT is still valid as headcanon. ill go on record as saying headcanon is total bull. if there is not bioware endorsed canon acknowledging that Shepard was undergoing indoctrination, then it didnt happen. because they never said it did. if i dont get in game closure, then i didnt get closure. period. thus any statement saying there will be no further closure is IT negative not only in my view but for several others.

i could go find the fancy latin term if you want, but choosing to accept certain statements over others despite them being quite contrary is being selective. i cant say im going to follow this law but not this one because the latter is something i dont want to do. they are both the law and therefore must be obeyed. (though this particular situation regarding Priestly's comments is the opposite, it must be disregarded in popular opinion)

them being community is secondary, yes, but the fact that the community team is alone in this is rather odd. any comments from the writers or designers are very deflective (after the EC i got a chance to ask Jos Hendrikson and the only answer he gave was that he couldnt give one), yet anything from the Community team is negative (in an additional closure stance).

I'm of the opinion that any ending changes would be strictly kept on a need-to-know basis within the company to prevent leaks. On highly collaborative productions like movies, television and video games, the production staff has to take relatively extreme measures to prevent leaks. For example, the producers on The Simpsons went as far as to animate and record voice acting for fake endings to the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" two-parter.

The community manages interact with the fans the most often and on the most informal basis, so they would be the most likely to make a mistake and let something slip. Giving them a "no new ending content" party line keeps people from asking too many questions. The only negative of taking such a stance is that it undermines the credibility of the community managers when (and I do still believe when) we get new content. That situation would be mitigated by the fact people don't fully trust Bioware's public statements now. Anybody that abandoned Mass Effect after hearing the "no new ending content" line would still run back into Bioware's arms.

[spotlessvoid]

Jgibson...
I'm with you on IT requiring additional content to be viewed as real. The fact that the narrative consequences remain unresolved under ITs position regarding what occurs at the end is reason alone.

What I was saying to you was that all Bioware comments, unless explicitly confirming or denying IT as intentional, do not have to be equally dismissed. Yes, everything they say must be taken with a grain of salt, but this is because they have been documented as contradictory, not so much because they aren't developers (which is still a relevant point) As such, each comment should be analyzed individually and respective to the whole. Being selective based on conformational bias is as equally wrong as being uniformly dismissive

[spotlessvoid]

Desert Beagle...


You are correct, as is smoking otter, that conflict would remain. I still think that, beyond that, what actually specifically happens in synthesis regarding the chemical emotional processes that differentiates organics and synthetics is at the heart of assessing the relative morality of the decision I could theoretically be accepting of becoming cybernetic, but would not be willing to lose my emotional responses. Just like synthetics would likely be unwilling to be forced into having emotions. I wouldn't know. What I can tell you is that synthesis remains unacceptably vague, making it impossible to even properly debate it, rendering it inherently unpalatable, even under the assumption that Starchild is telling the truth.

[desert_beagle]

 I will say that we know for a fact that the Reapers don't want to be controlled by any other force but themselves.  Sanctuary on Horizon proves that.  TIM may have been indoctrinated, but he got too close to allowing other humans the ability to actually control the Reapers.
That is why the Reapers attacked Sanctuary.  
The conversation with Starbrat should have gone like this:
Starbrat: Wake up!

Shepard: Who the heck are you?!

Starbrat: I'm the Catalyst.

Shepard: Really?  Well then lets light this mother and burn them Reaper suckas!

Starbrat: I can't do that.

Shepard: Why the heck not?!  It's your job!  Hey wait you kind of look like that kid I saw get wasted on earth.  I've also seen you in my dreams.  Wait a minute, I'm not bleeding profusely from an abdominal arterial wound any more.  How did I even get here?

Starbrat:  There is no time to explain.  The Reapers are my solution.

Shepard: Solution to what?

Starbrat: Chaos.  Synthetics will always destroy organic life.  I created the cycle to stop that from happening.

Shepard: The Reapers look pretty synthetic to me and they seem to be doing a whole lot of wiping out all organic life in the galaxy right now, so I'm calling the BS card on ya there buddy.

Starbrat:  Fine.  The crucible changed me, and the fact that you are standing here shows my solution will no longer work anymore.

Shepard:  Wait, wait, wait...hold on.  Where did you say you were from again?

Starbrat: I was created to study the relationship between organic and synthetic life.

Shepard:  So you are an AI.  What happened to your creators?

Starbrat: They became the first true Reaper.  They were unwilling.

Shepard:  Oh wait.  I get it now.  You are synthetic.

Starbrat: Yes

Shepard:  You were created to study the relationship between synthetic and organic life, and you came to the conclusion that synthetics will always destroy organics.

Starbrat: Yes

Shepard: So to stop that, you, a synthetic, killed off all of your organic creators somehow in order to prove your theory correct?

Starbrat: No....Yes...wait..um...

Shepard:  You rebelled against your organic creators because you concluded that eventually they would have no use for you so out of a desperate act of self preservation you destroyed them first, and have done so for millions of years to prevent any other form of organic life from destroying you, is that it?

Starbrat:  Do you want to control us?

Shepard:  Your guy Harbinger just blew me halfway to Hades and now you're asking me if I want to control you?  Why didn't you just give The Illusive Man control?  This would have ended much quicker.

Starbrat: Umm...

Shepard: Could it be that you don't want to be controlled and you're just trying to fool me into sticking my fingers in that light socket over there?

Starbrat: Well you could jump into this beam in the middle and merge all organic and synthetic life into a new life form.

Shepard: Kind of like when a Reaper melts down organic components into a paste and uses them to build a new Reaper?

Starbrat: Uhh..well..we...my logic is undeniable.

Shepard:  Where's the f******* kill switch?

Modifié par desert_beagle, 21 août 2012 - 05:06 .

[jgibson14352]

Hrothdane wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument in which a proposition is purported to be disproved by reduction to absurdity in reasoning or consequence.

I understand the intention behind your comment, but all comments do not have to be examined in the same light. The primary reason for taking these comments with a grain of salt is because of their often contradictory and vague nature. The fact that they are community managers and not actual developers is secondary.

Most importantly, IT would not be revealed via tweet, press conference, etc. It would be an in game reveal. As such, comments negative of IT, unless explicitly clear in negating it (there are none), can be as easily viewed as deflective as conformational

then we must have differentiating opinions on what exactly constitutes IT. some people think that even without any form of definitive answer from bioware, that IT is still valid as headcanon. ill go on record as saying headcanon is total bull. if there is not bioware endorsed canon acknowledging that Shepard was undergoing indoctrination, then it didnt happen. because they never said it did. if i dont get in game closure, then i didnt get closure. period. thus any statement saying there will be no further closure is IT negative not only in my view but for several others.

i could go find the fancy latin term if you want, but choosing to accept certain statements over others despite them being quite contrary is being selective. i cant say im going to follow this law but not this one because the latter is something i dont want to do. they are both the law and therefore must be obeyed. (though this particular situation regarding Priestly's comments is the opposite, it must be disregarded in popular opinion)

them being community is secondary, yes, but the fact that the community team is alone in this is rather odd. any comments from the writers or designers are very deflective (after the EC i got a chance to ask Jos Hendriks and the only answer he gave was that he couldnt give one), yet anything from the Community team is negative (in an additional closure stance).

I'm of the opinion that any ending changes would be strictly kept on a need-to-know basis within the company to prevent leaks. On highly collaborative productions like movies, television and video games, the production staff has to take relatively extreme measures to prevent leaks. For example, the producers on The Simpsons went as far as to animate and record voice acting for fake endings to the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" two-parter.

The community manages interact with the fans the most often and on the most informal basis, so they would be the most likely to make a mistake and let something slip. Giving them a "no new ending content" party line keeps people from asking too many questions. The only negative of taking such a stance is that it undermines the credibility of the community managers when (and I do still believe when) we get new content. That situation would be mitigated by the fact people don't fully trust Bioware's public statements now. Anybody that abandoned Mass Effect after hearing the "no new ending content" line would still run back into Bioware's arms.

i believe just about all of that too, (interesting point on the Simpsons) but why would the community team actively say no? they could just as easily been told to just not say anything, much like my example with mr. hendriks (misspelled his name at first). they could give the same ambiguous "cant say" answers for years with the same result among the faithful like us, and less of the hardcore fans just giving up and leaving (which has happened with alot of hardcore ME fans i know). my point being it would be a safer PR move for the heads of the operation to tell the managers to just give ambiguous answers. im not saying its one thing over another, im just wondering.

trust me, believing that bioware is organized like Cerberus with a few central figures knowing everything, with smaller cells knowing only pieces is too good to pass up, but that only reinforces my earlier point that if weve decided that the community team is isolated into one of these cells (so to speak) then we cant trust anything they say regarding the IT. period.

[jgibson14352]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Jgibson...
I'm with you on IT requiring additional content to be viewed as real. The fact that the narrative consequences remain unresolved under ITs position regarding what occurs at the end is reason alone.

What I was saying to you was that all Bioware comments, unless explicitly confirming or denying IT as intentional, do not have to be equally dismissed. Yes, everything they say must be taken with a grain of salt, but this is because they have been documented as contradictory, not so much because they aren't developers (which is still a relevant point) As such, each comment should be analyzed individually and respective to the whole. Being selective based on conformational bias is as equally wrong as being uniformly dismissive

i never said that either. i was explicitly referring to the community managers (i.e. merizan, priestly, ackland) in regards to IT.
i merely posted that link to strengthen the fact that even devs contradict themselves too often to trust everything they say. this should go double for community managers who have no obvious role in game development.

Modifié par jgibson14352, 21 août 2012 - 04:59 .

[spotlessvoid]

"Can't say" actually says a lot.
It implies that either Bioware is too cowardly to admit it isn't true (doubtful, they don't strike me as being that cold) or that they don't want to ruin the surprise, meaning there is a surprise which is heavily indicative of IT.

Or they can be vague and wishy washy,leaving everyone speculating as to their intentions.

Additionally, they want to keep the "indoctrinated" portion of their player base as in the dark and unsuspecting of what is about to hit them

[Hrothdane]

jgibson14352 wrote...
i believe just about all of that too, (interesting point on the Simpsons) but why would the community team actively say no? they could just as easily been told to just not say anything, much like my example with mr. hendriks (misspelled his name at first). they could give the same ambiguous "cant say" answers for years with the same result among the faithful like us, and less of the hardcore fans just giving up and leaving (which has happened with alot of hardcore ME fans i know). my point being it would be a safer PR move for the heads of the operation to tell the managers to just give ambiguous answers. im not saying its one thing over another, im just wondering.

trust me, believing that bioware is organized like Cerberus with a few central figures knowing everything, with smaller cells knowing only pieces is too good to pass up, but that only reinforces my earlier point that if weve decided that the community team is isolated into one of these cells (so to speak) then we cant trust anything they say regarding the IT. period.

Think of it like if you were on trial, and you decide to plead the fifth when you testify. As far as the jury is concerned, you might as well have pled guilty because why wouldn't an innocent person deny the charges?

If the community managers merely refuse to confirm or deny anything, the fans will take it as a confirm anyways. Then, the fans will suddenly have expectations again. Every thread will be full of fans speculating on what this implied new content would be. Bioware has already learned that high fan expectations can backfire HARD.

Also, I don't take anything ANYONE says as truth blindly. Testimony is the least reliable form of evidence for a reason.

Modifié par Hrothdane, 21 août 2012 - 05:14 .

[spotlessvoid]

Jgibson:
That comment applies equally if we are exclusively referring to community manager comments. You don't know for sure what they do and don't know regarding game development. They are very likely operating on fairly strict instructions. Therefore, their is value in trying to glean information in the subtleties of their phrasing responses because they can be unintentionally revealing of the underlying thought processes. Meaning, sometimes, intent can be inferred. "IT remains a valid interpretation" holds more weight than "Shepard is on the moon" or Mars or whatever that crazy thing Jessica said ...

[jgibson14352]

spotlessvoid wrote...

"Can't say" actually says a lot.
It implies that either Bioware is too cowardly to admit it isn't true (doubtful, they don't strike me as being that cold) or that they don't want to ruin the surprise, meaning there is a surprise which is heavily indicative of IT.

Or they can be vague and wishy washy,leaving everyone speculating as to their intentions.

Additionally, they want to keep the "indoctrinated" portion of their player base as in the dark and unsuspecting of what is about to hit them

then explain this. based on both of our interpretations of what constitutes IT, how do you go about rationalizing it other than "the managers are out of the loop"? and if they are out of the loop, then we logically cant accept anything they say regarding our interpretation of IT. at all.

as per your other comments, "no comment" is just that, no comment. if i take a hard test and before my teacher posts the grades i ask him if i passed and he says "cant say", i dont go around screaming "i passed! i had to! he didnt say!"


that third option is just that. a third option that prevents the committal stance of the other two. it doesnt mean one or the other. if i plead the fifth it is because i dont wish to answer, there can be any number of reasons behind it. 

Modifié par jgibson14352, 21 août 2012 - 05:23 .

[spotlessvoid]

Btw...hilarious and oh so true Desert Beagle

[desert_beagle]

Hrothdane wrote...

Think of it like if you were on trial, and you decide to plead the fifth when you testify. As far as the jury is concerned, you might as well have pled guilty because why wouldn't an innocent person deny the charges?

If the community managers merely refuse to confirm or deny anything, the fans will take it as a confirm anyways. Then, the fans will suddenly have expectations again. Every thread will be full of fans speculating on what this implied new content would be. Bioware has already learned that high fan expectations can backfire HARD.

Also, I don't take anything ANYONE says as truth blindly. Testimony is the least reliable form of evidence for a reason.

I will say that all of the speculation puts the devs into a catch 22.  At this point, there really is no way to please everyone.  History has also shown with game developers that when they promise certain things to the fans more often than not they do backfire hard.  ME3 is a prime example with all of the developer quotes about it bringing a satisfying end to the trilogy.

We in this forum know that is simply not the case.  I'm not sure if my perspective is unique, but I never played any of these games until last month.  Literally.  I picked up ME1 and 2 because of all the fuss surrounding ME3 and I'm a stickler for starting something at the very beginning.

I played through all three, one right after the other importing the same character each time, and it felt like one huge game that fell on its face in the last act.  All of the history, lore, characters, races, technology, everything is rendered completely moot in the end if it is in fact real.

On the other hand if IT is true, which I believe it is, I still feel cheated because ME3 was sold as the end of the trilogy and Shepard's story arc.  If IT is true then it is not the end of Shepard's story or the series and therefore we paid full price for half a game, and then if you want the rest well you'll just have to wait and see, and pay more for it. It is a clever mechanic, but at the same time it feels like a bad marketing scheme.  It just feels unethical.

Modifié par desert_beagle, 21 août 2012 - 05:32 .

[spotlessvoid]

I was gone for a whole month during which that apparently occurred. I also seemed to have missed the ensuing discussion on it. Hmmmmm....

My point stands that everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but some comments hold a lot more weight than others. If there is no future IT DLC, then they should just come out and say THAT. I need to think that one over, thanks for brining it to my attention

[spotlessvoid]

spotlessvoid wrote...

I was gone for a whole month during which that apparently occurred. I also seemed to have missed the ensuing discussion on it. Hmmmmm....

My point stands that everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but some comments hold a lot more weight than others. If there is no future IT DLC, then they should just come out and say THAT. I need to think that one over, thanks for brining it to my attention

By the way, the protection the 5th amendment offers only applies to self incriminating answers. It is not a tool to be used in avoiding answering any question, and is such is presumptively viewed as having something incriminating to hide

[Hrothdane]

That "there will certainly be elements that will effect the ending" line intrigues me, especially considering the previous paragraph's "we do not plan to...give more closure to, adding or subtracting to or from the endings." Seems a little contradictory to me.

Modifié par Hrothdane, 21 août 2012 - 05:50 .

[spotlessvoid]

Hdane

He said do not plan

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 21 août 2012 - 05:44 .

[jgibson14352]

spotlessvoid wrote...

I was gone for a whole month during which that apparently occurred. I also seemed to have missed the ensuing discussion on it. Hmmmmm....

My point stands that everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but some comments hold a lot more weight than others. If there is no future IT DLC, then they should just come out and say THAT. I need to think that one over, thanks for brining it to my attention

heres another. but keep in mind that again, Ackland is a community manager. when i first saw that, i lost hope completely. i figured that since threads like these were still going it must not be common knowledge, and when i found this thread i posted it and was met with immediate "this means nothing" comments, and after some heated discussion, where i admittedly may have seemed like a bit of a troll, Andromidius posted that link there on the top of the page.

it seems like were on the same page but reading the senteces a little differently. both those comments flat out say there will be NO more dlc regarding the endings. after both these comments, everybody on this thread insisted that we cant trust the devs, yet it seemed like we would pounce on any comment remotely supporting IT. im saying that at least with the community team, we cant selectively decide which comments we want to believe and which ones we dont. if one is true, then all are true. after the reactions from people on this thread and the link way above, im saying that im putting all my faith in BioWares actions, not words. ALL of my hopes are now soley pinned on Leviathan. this is my last ditch hope that ME is the truely amazing series that i fell in love with and spent hundreds of dollars on. 

Modifié par jgibson14352, 21 août 2012 - 05:47 .

[Hrothdane]

spotlessvoid wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

I was gone for a whole month during which that apparently occurred. I also seemed to have missed the ensuing discussion on it. Hmmmmm....

My point stands that everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but some comments hold a lot more weight than others. If there is no future IT DLC, then they should just come out and say THAT. I need to think that one over, thanks for brining it to my attention

By the way, the protection the 5th amendment offers only applies to self incriminating answers. It is not a tool to be used in avoiding answering any question, and is such is presumptively viewed as having something incriminating to hide

It offers protection from ANY self-incrimination, even crimes that the defendant is not currently charged with and thus irrelevant to the jury. 

While that specific example may not be perfect, the point stands that refusing to confirm or deny something creates an assumption of confirmation. Silence is often considered implied consent.