80611 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

[quote]paxxton wrote...

There is evidence which can be interpreted in accordance with ME lore to support IT. Do you honestly think that such an obvious thing as Reaper Indoctrination wouldn't be used by BioWare as the icing on the cake of the series?
[/quote]

There are many things BioWare could, perhaps should have done in ME3, but didn't. For example, they didn't use Harbinger, the main antagonist in ME2, in any significant way in ME3. Wasted potential is you ask me.

BioWare should have tried something with indoctrination. The iPad app and even the collector's edition artbook (Art of The Mass Effect Universe) do say that BioWare did indeed try to implement indoctrination into ME3, but they failed to do so, so they didn't do it. That's what the iPad app and the artbook says. Take that as you will.


[quote]

Also, have you seen this ?[/quote]
[/quote]

Yes, I have seen it on the day of release actually (trust me, I've seen most of the IT videos). It's a fine piece of work from a production perspective, but I disagree with the presentation. Like so many IT videos, it tries ot shove down the IT down our throads, disguised in such a way that it appears as if the video merely tries to make us think, but what the true goal of the video obviously is, is to make us think the IT is true.

I would love to see a more objective IT video that shows both sides in an unbiased way: the literal intepretation and the IT intepration. Then us, the viewers, can truly make up our own mind about it.

I did saw one IT video that although quite long, did do a decent job at presenting both sides rather objectively. The entire video was still clearly biased towards IT though. I can't remember which video it was.

[paxxton]

The division between ITists and Literalists stems from the fact that most of the series happens in the real world of Mass Effect Universe whereas the ending is thought to take place in the realm of the mind. For some this transition is simply unacceptable.

[The Heretic of Time]

paxxton wrote...

The division between ITists and Literalists stems from the fact that most of the series happens in the real world of Mass Effect Universe whereas the ending is thought to take place in the realm of the mind. For some this transition is simply unacceptable.

No, the true division between ITists and literalists stems from the fact that the entire trilogy so far was always taken on face-value. Not a single thing in Mass Effect 1 and 2 required us to look for a deeper meaning or an alternative interpretation. The presentation of Mass Effect was always straight forward and to the point. Now all of the sudden, the ending of Mass Effect 3 is supposed to be a big deep philosophical mindtwist? I don't buy it. That's not what the Mass Effect series is like at all.

And if the endings of ME3 were the only crappy thing I would be more inclined to believe in the IT. But as it is, there are many more things of ME3 that I think are just rushed and fumbled. It's not just the ending of ME3 I have a problem with. If it was then I would be an IT supporter as well.

[demersel]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The division between ITists and Literalists stems from the fact that most of the series happens in the real world of Mass Effect Universe whereas the ending is thought to take place in the realm of the mind. For some this transition is simply unacceptable.

No, the true division between ITists and literalists stems from the fact that the entire trilogy so far was always taken on face-value. Not a single thing in Mass Effect 1 and 2 required us to look for a deeper meaning or an alternative interpretation. The presentation of Mass Effect was always straight forward and to the point. Now all of the sudden, the ending of Mass Effect 3 is supposed to be a big deep philosophical mindtwist? I don't buy it. That's not what the Mass Effect series is like at all.

And if the endings of ME3 were the only crappy thing I would be more inclined to believe in the IT. But as it is, there are many more things of ME3 that I think are just rushed and fumbled. It's not just the ending of ME3 I have a problem with. If it was then I would be an IT supporter as well.

But what if not only the ending but the whole ME3? 

[The Heretic of Time]

demersel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

No, the true division between ITists and literalists stems from the fact that the entire trilogy so far was always taken on face-value. Not a single thing in Mass Effect 1 and 2 required us to look for a deeper meaning or an alternative interpretation. The presentation of Mass Effect was always straight forward and to the point. Now all of the sudden, the ending of Mass Effect 3 is supposed to be a big deep philosophical mindtwist? I don't buy it. That's not what the Mass Effect series is like at all.

And if the endings of ME3 were the only crappy thing I would be more inclined to believe in the IT. But as it is, there are many more things of ME3 that I think are just rushed and fumbled. It's not just the ending of ME3 I have a problem with. If it was then I would be an IT supporter as well.

But what if not only the ending but the whole ME3? 

What do you mean? Could you please explain the context of your question? I don't think I understand your question right now.

[paxxton]

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

[quote]paxxton wrote...

There is evidence which can be interpreted in accordance with ME lore to support IT. Do you honestly think that such an obvious thing as Reaper Indoctrination wouldn't be used by BioWare as the icing on the cake of the series?
[/quote]

There are many things BioWare could, perhaps should have done in ME3, but didn't. For example, they didn't use Harbinger, the main antagonist in ME2, in any significant way in ME3. Wasted potential is you ask me.

BioWare should have tried something with indoctrination. The iPad app and even the collector's edition artbook (Art of The Mass Effect Universe) do say that BioWare did indeed try to implement indoctrination into ME3, but they failed to do so, so they didn't do it. That's what the iPad app and the artbook says. Take that as you will.


[quote]

Also, have you seen this ?[/quote]
[/quote]

Yes, I have seen it on the day of release actually (trust me, I've seen most of the IT videos). It's a fine piece of work from a production perspective, but I disagree with the presentation. Like so many IT videos, it tries ot shove down the IT down our throads, disguised in such a way that it appears as if the video merely tries to make us think, but what the true goal of the video obviously is, is to make us think the IT is true.

I would love to see a more objective IT video that shows both sides in an unbiased way: the literal intepretation and the IT intepration. Then us, the viewers, can truly make up our own mind about it.

I did saw one IT video that although quite long, did do a decent job at presenting both sides rather objectively. The entire video was still clearly biased towards IT though. I can't remember which video it was.

[/quote]
Well, it is up to the viewer to decide if the interpretations shown in that video make sense. For me they are plausible. Of course, every fact can be interpreted differently by different people. But here we also have the context (ME lore, the Codex) for interpreting the story. It constraints the number of possible interpretations.

[Norlond]

Neil Armstrong is dead

[The Heretic of Time]

paxxton wrote...

Well, it is up to the viewer to decide if the interpretations shown in that video make sense. For me they are plausible. Of course, every fact can be interpreted differently by different people. But here we also have the context (ME lore, the Codex) for interpreting the story. It constraints the number of possible interpretations.

That I agree with. I just think the whole premise of "choose wisely" is rather arrogant. Maybe that's just me, but that's how I feel it. As if me deciding to accept the endings for what they are and choosing Control for my main Shepard because I prefered Control is not wise. Why would someone who believes in the IT and therefor always chooses Destroy be anymore wise than people who don't believe in IT and just pick the ending they prefer?

You see, my problem with IT is that I got this feeling that most ITers think of themselves as better, smarter or wiser people than us lowly "literalists" who accept the endings at face value.

Maybe that's just me and my problem, but that's how I feel it. I guess that's the reason why I might have come off as rather rude in previous occasions. I was annoyed and irritated by the IT and the attitude of some ITers. The whole IT turned into an elitist group with people who think they have seen the light and us "literalists" haven't. No offense, hat's how I see it, or saw it.


So yeah, sorry for that. Sorry for the previous occasions when I was either rude or trolling. I hope that now you understand why I acted that way. That of course does not justify my past behavior, but at least you might understand it a little more now.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 25 août 2012 - 08:37 .

[paxxton]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The division between ITists and Literalists stems from the fact that most of the series happens in the real world of Mass Effect Universe whereas the ending is thought to take place in the realm of the mind. For some this transition is simply unacceptable.

No, the true division between ITists and literalists stems from the fact that the entire trilogy so far was always taken on face-value. Not a single thing in Mass Effect 1 and 2 required us to look for a deeper meaning or an alternative interpretation. The presentation of Mass Effect was always straight forward and to the point. Now all of the sudden, the ending of Mass Effect 3 is supposed to be a big deep philosophical mindtwist? I don't buy it. That's not what the Mass Effect series is like at all.

And if the endings of ME3 were the only crappy thing I would be more inclined to believe in the IT. But as it is, there are many more things of ME3 that I think are just rushed and fumbled. It's not just the ending of ME3 I have a problem with. If it was then I would be an IT supporter as well.

So just take a leap of faith and become an ITist right now.

Seriously, there are many moments in ME3 where the game seems surreal and scary. The dreams are probably the most visible aspect of this. Surely you agree that adding the dreams made the game more emotional. At first they seem out of place but then you somehow start to see that there's more than meets the eye, precisely because they are so unusual (as if Shepard was transported to an alternate reality). Thew dreams take place in the realm of the mind.

[The Heretic of Time]

paxxton wrote...

Seriously, there are many moments in ME3 where the game seems surreal and scary. The dreams are probably the most visible aspect of this. Surely you agree that adding the dreams made the game more emotional. At first they seem out of place but then you somehow start to see that there's more than meets the eye, precisely because they are so unusual (as if Shepard was transported to an alternate reality). Thew dreams take place in the realm of the mind.

I actualy thought the dreams were a stupid attempt at trying to make me care about the vent kid.

I did not care about the vent kid. I did not feel emotionally moved by the nightmares. I did not find the nightmares appropiate for my (at least 90%) renegade Shepard at all. 

When you see the nightmares, you see a subtile hint at indoctrination. When I see the nightmares, I see BioWare desperatly shoving their concept of "omg Shepard is a human with emotions and feelings after all" in my face.

The nightmares were a forced attempt at making me, feel emotionally moved. I was not emotionally moved, nor was I convinced that my Shepard was actually emotionally moved.


It's all about suspense of disbelief. Suspense of disbelief is personal and different for everyone. For me, the nightmares broke my suspense of disbelief.

[demersel]

The Twilight God wrote...

demersel wrote...

Don't you ever consider a possibility, that it is Harbinger that is infusing dream/hallucination on shepard? And by breaking free you severy hurt him? (even kill him possibly?) And that is why he can't finish shepard right away? 

I've considered many possibilities. But simply because I can fabricate a scenario doesn't mean that scenario can be justified within the game lore.

There is no evidence that a failed indoctrination attempt can kill or daze a reaper nor that indoctrination can be outright beaten. There is evidence it can be countered (Shiala and the Zhu's Hope colonists) or ignored (Rachni Queen), but there is no precedence for indoctrination being literally conquered in one's sleep. Your idea requires the blind acceptance of fabricated lore.

My theory is scientific and observative. You're theory requires blind faith.

demersel wrote...

Also you get the breath scene only in high EMS destroy. That suggests that it has something to do with how much forces and war assets you have. THe easiest explanation - in high ems destroy you've got enough forces to keep harbinger busy or even take him out entirely, while you're unconcious. That makes sense if you consider low ems scenario - your army is too weak to give a fight, you've broken free from the dream, good for you, no harbinger just shoots you for real. The end. )

Once again, you apply a "what if" band-aid. I can only formulate a theory based on what is presented, what I can observe. Fabricating supporting scenarios does not make for a strong case.

Why should i prove anything to you? Or to anyone? I can share my interpretetion events, that happened in ME3 and their presentation. While doing so, i can provide you with some key points, and explain why and how i came to the conclusions I did. That's called discussing. This is the place for it. - Mass Effect 3 Story and Compaing Discussion (Spoilers Allowed) section. If you don't belive me - it's right there, on top of the page. 
We're not in court. This isn't some peer-review, or editorial. Nor isn't this an exam, or a thesis defence. You aren't any sort of authority, not an appointed representative of some community etc. I don't know you, and you don't know me. And most importantly - I don't care what you think, and don't need to make you think the way i do. 
All we can do - is share opinions in a polite and friendly manner. There cannot be any type of ironclad proof here. If that's what you're interested in - you sholud leave this forum, and wait for some kind of public announcment, or a press release regarding new content. If indoctrination theory is officially confirmed - i bet it's going to be huge news, and you'll hear about it, even if all you do is sit on your couch. 

[Dwailing]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Seriously, there are many moments in ME3 where the game seems surreal and scary. The dreams are probably the most visible aspect of this. Surely you agree that adding the dreams made the game more emotional. At first they seem out of place but then you somehow start to see that there's more than meets the eye, precisely because they are so unusual (as if Shepard was transported to an alternate reality). Thew dreams take place in the realm of the mind.

I actualy thought the dreams were a stupid attempt at trying to make me care about the vent kid.

I did not care about the vent kid. I did not feel emotionally moved by the nightmares. I did not find the nightmares appropiate for my (at least 90%) renegade Shepard at all. 

When you see the nightmares, you see a subtile hint at indoctrination. When I see the nightmares, I see BioWare desperatly shoving their concept of "omg Shepard is a human with emotions and feelings after all" in my face.

The nightmares were a forced attempt at making me, feel emotionally moved. I was not emotionally moved, nor was I convinced that my Shepard was actually emotionally moved.


It's all about suspense of disbelief. Suspense of disbelief is personal and different for everyone. For me, the nightmares broke my suspense of disbelief.

Well, the nightmares could be an attempt to "humanize" Shepard... or they could be an attempt to show the Reapers slowly breaking down Shepard's defenses.  Or they could be something completely different.  Lots of speculation for everyone!

[plfranke]

Bioware knows that a lot of the people that play these games will play them multiple times. The dreams may have made the game more emotional the first playthrough but they become a huge annoyance on future ones.

[lex0r11]

Norlond wrote...

Neil Armstrong is dead

[demersel]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What do you mean? Could you please explain the context of your question? I don't think I understand your question right now.

What I mean is, what if Mass Effect 3 is different form ME1 and ME2 in a sense, that since it's main theme is expieriencing the process of indoctrination first hand - it isn't supposed to be taken at face value right from the start, and given that privious titles were, this should come as a surprise to the player. 

[The Heretic of Time]

demersel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What do you mean? Could you please explain the context of your question? I don't think I understand your question right now.

What I mean is, what if Mass Effect 3 is different form ME1 and ME2 in a sense, that since it's main theme is expieriencing the process of indoctrination first hand - it isn't supposed to be taken at face value right from the start, and given that privious titles were, this should come as a surprise to the player. 

This is the very reason why I DON'T believe in the IT.

If the IT is true than that would make ME3 thematically totally different from ME2 and ME3. Normally you don't change the theme of your series in the last part of the trilogy, or worse: the ending of your trilogy. To do that is just, ironically, bad writing.

Besides, if the endings made any sense, none of you would ever have come up with the IT. It is because of the endings that you folks started searching for clues to make sense of the nonsensical endings. That's how eventually you guys came up with the IT. True or not?

[demersel]

The Twilight God wrote...

My theory is scientific and observative. 

So what's your theory, again? 

[demersel]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

demersel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What do you mean? Could you please explain the context of your question? I don't think I understand your question right now.

What I mean is, what if Mass Effect 3 is different form ME1 and ME2 in a sense, that since it's main theme is expieriencing the process of indoctrination first hand - it isn't supposed to be taken at face value right from the start, and given that privious titles were, this should come as a surprise to the player. 

This is the very reason why I DON'T believe in the IT.

If the IT is true than that would make ME3 thematically totally different from ME2 and ME3. Normally you don't change the theme of your series in the last part of the trilogy, or worse: the ending of your trilogy. To do that is just, ironically, bad writing.

Besides, if the endings made any sense, none of you would ever have come up with the IT. It is because of the endings that you folks started searching for clues to make sense of the nonsensical endings. That's how eventually you guys came up with the IT. True or not?

Not true. It's because there is a breath scene after destroy, where shepard takes a breath, when he should be dead. Also.  ME1 - 100% - good writing, ME2 - 100% good writing, ME3 - 90% of the game excelent writing - and then suddenly 10% - bad writing? Not possible. 

[plfranke]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

demersel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What do you mean? Could you please explain the context of your question? I don't think I understand your question right now.

What I mean is, what if Mass Effect 3 is different form ME1 and ME2 in a sense, that since it's main theme is expieriencing the process of indoctrination first hand - it isn't supposed to be taken at face value right from the start, and given that privious titles were, this should come as a surprise to the player. 

This is the very reason why I DON'T believe in the IT.

If the IT is true than that would make ME3 thematically totally different from ME2 and ME3. Normally you don't change the theme of your series in the last part of the trilogy, or worse: the ending of your trilogy. To do that is just, ironically, bad writing.

Besides, if the endings made any sense, none of you would ever have come up with the IT. It is because of the endings that you folks started searching for clues to make sense of the nonsensical endings. That's how eventually you guys came up with the IT. True or not?

The endings as they stand make Me3 thematically fit with me1 and me2?

[Dwailing]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

demersel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What do you mean? Could you please explain the context of your question? I don't think I understand your question right now.

What I mean is, what if Mass Effect 3 is different form ME1 and ME2 in a sense, that since it's main theme is expieriencing the process of indoctrination first hand - it isn't supposed to be taken at face value right from the start, and given that privious titles were, this should come as a surprise to the player. 

This is the very reason why I DON'T believe in the IT.

If the IT is true than that would make ME3 thematically totally different from ME2 and ME3. Normally you don't change the theme of your series in the last part of the trilogy, or worse: the ending of your trilogy. To do that is just, ironically, bad writing.

Besides, if the endings made any sense, none of you would ever have come up with the IT. It is because of the endings that you folks started searching for clues to make sense of the nonsensical endings. That's how eventually you guys came up with the IT. True or not?

Admittedly, it IS true that the original searches for evidence were performed due to how completely insane the original endings were.  However, if you ask me, even WITH the EC, the endings are STILL insane.  Not completely insane, but insane none the less.  And since we're on the topic of themes, the endings, both pre- and post-EC were/are completely thematically revolting.  They go against everything we've seen so far.  For one thing, Destroy and Rejection (The first the thing we've been trying to pull off since day one and the second an expresion of free will and self determination.) are both portrayed in a less positive light than either Control or Synthesis (The first something that we've been shown before now to be impossible while the second is just... no.).  And then there's Star-Brat himself.  One major themes of Mass Effect has always been that organic and synthetic life is not all that different.  Psych!  Synthetics will ALWAYS rebel and destroy organics, even though in the two main examples that people will probably think of, either the ORGANICS attacked first (In the case of the quarians and the geth.), or the Reapers interfered (In the case of the zha'til.).  But no, I'm supposed to just accept that the Star-Brat is telling the truth and believe that synthetics and organics will ALWAYS be in conflict, despite everything I've seen to the contrary. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Dwailing, 25 août 2012 - 09:15 .

[I_eat_unicorns]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

demersel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What do you mean? Could you please explain the context of your question? I don't think I understand your question right now.

What I mean is, what if Mass Effect 3 is different form ME1 and ME2 in a sense, that since it's main theme is expieriencing the process of indoctrination first hand - it isn't supposed to be taken at face value right from the start, and given that privious titles were, this should come as a surprise to the player. 

This is the very reason why I DON'T believe in the IT.

If the IT is true than that would make ME3 thematically totally different from ME2 and ME3. Normally you don't change the theme of your series in the last part of the trilogy, or worse: the ending of your trilogy. To do that is just, ironically, bad writing.

Besides, if the endings made any sense, none of you would ever have come up with the IT. It is because of the endings that you folks started searching for clues to make sense of the nonsensical endings. That's how eventually you guys came up with the IT. True or not?

This. This this this. I seriously doubt people wanted the IT to be the ending to the trilogy before they experienced the original endings. In fact, the IT is a horrible ending to the trilogy. It renders all player choices from the previous games as uselss and makes the ending choices a "roulette" type of thing, which goes against player choice that mass effect so heavily encourages. 

[The Heretic of Time]

demersel wrote...

ME1 - 100% - good writing, ME2 - 100% good writing, ME3 - 90% of the game excelent writing - and then suddenly 10% - bad writing? Not possible. 

You assume ME1 and ME2 are 100% writing and that ME3 is 90% good writing. That is a false assumption.

I've been repeatedly saying that there is more wrong with ME3 than simply just the final 10 minutes of the game. There are so many things in ME3 that rub me the wrong way. And not just me, but the majority of BSN.

It's not possible to put this in numbers, but if I have to, I'd say: ME1 - 90% good writing, ME2 - 60% good writing, ME3, 20% good writing.

[The Heretic of Time]

plfranke wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

demersel wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

What do you mean? Could you please explain the context of your question? I don't think I understand your question right now.

What I mean is, what if Mass Effect 3 is different form ME1 and ME2 in a sense, that since it's main theme is expieriencing the process of indoctrination first hand - it isn't supposed to be taken at face value right from the start, and given that privious titles were, this should come as a surprise to the player. 

This is the very reason why I DON'T believe in the IT.

If the IT is true than that would make ME3 thematically totally different from ME2 and ME3. Normally you don't change the theme of your series in the last part of the trilogy, or worse: the ending of your trilogy. To do that is just, ironically, bad writing.

Besides, if the endings made any sense, none of you would ever have come up with the IT. It is because of the endings that you folks started searching for clues to make sense of the nonsensical endings. That's how eventually you guys came up with the IT. True or not?

The endings as they stand make Me3 thematically fit with me1 and me2?

No, but at least the other 90% of ME3 is thematically consistent with ME1 and ME2. That does not mean the other 90% of ME3 is well written though. This is a false assumption that many seem to make.

I think the majority of ME3 is horribly written. But at least this mess is thematically consistent with ME1 and ME2 up until Priority: Earth.

[Dwailing]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

demersel wrote...

ME1 - 100% - good writing, ME2 - 100% good writing, ME3 - 90% of the game excelent writing - and then suddenly 10% - bad writing? Not possible. 

You assume ME1 and ME2 are 100% writing and that ME3 is 90% good writing. That is a false assumption.

I've been repeatedly saying that there is more wrong with ME3 than simply just the final 10 minutes of the game. There are so many things in ME3 that rub me the wrong way. And not just me, but the majority of BSN.

It's not possible to put this in numbers, but if I have to, I'd say: ME1 - 90% good writing, ME2 - 60% good writing, ME3, 20% good writing.

ME3=20% good writing?  What?   I don't even...  Also, ME2=60% good writing?  This just...   And another thing, ME1=90% good writing?  I can't process these things.   These words do not compute.  I cannot process these concepts and remain sane.  

[spotlessvoid]

Heretic Hanar....your total lack of self awareness is simply astounding. You also have no idea what you are talking about.

Your position essentially is this: Bioware sucks.

We disagree. I have yet to see you make any sort of coherent argument against IT, besides your usual assortment of platitudes and logical fallacies.

Your pathetic troll attempt the other day, followed by your expletive filled tirade against us, made what was already obvious perfectly clear.

You're a troll. Grow up and go away