80611 réponses à ce sujet

[spotlessvoid]

You trolled Mark 2 repeatedly and just trolled us again the other day and now I should just cast that aside like it didn't happen? I have no faith in your intentions

[Fixers0]

demersel wrote...

Those two are ironclad proofs and not supposition. 

Proof for what, exactly.

Modifié par Fixers0, 25 août 2012 - 09:47 .

[spotlessvoid]

Fixers0 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...


That Bioware became poor writers is also supposition. Indoctrination THEORY. Arguing that a theory is a hypothesis and therefore inherently wrong is just.....dumb

Here comes it: They are objectivly bad writers, if the endings prove one thing to me, it is the lack of knowledge the writer has one subjects such as science, physics, lore  and most important of all, but please explain to me that kinetic barriers failing to kick in isn't proof of lack of knowledge of the lore on the writers part. 

Hilarious! Your suppositions are facts! 

[demersel]

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Those two are ironclad proofs and not supposition. 

Proof for what, exactly.

Proofs that there is much more to the endings and the story of the game, then when you take it just on face value. 

[Fixers0]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Hilarious! Your suppositions are facts! 

I was going to say ''Shut op troll'' but me ask you this. If scenes in a story screw up pre-established lore or contradict  the basic laws of pyshics or include writing fallacies like contrivance, plot holes and retcons, then how isn't it objectively bad writing?

Modifié par Fixers0, 25 août 2012 - 09:56 .

[Fixers0]

demersel wrote...

Proofs that there is much more to the endings and the story of the game, then when you take it just on face value. 

No, the first one isn't part of the narative at all, and second one proves nothing, why did the hire Mark meer to alsovoice eclips mercs.

Modifié par Fixers0, 25 août 2012 - 09:57 .

[byne]

Fixers0 wrote...

I was going to say ''Shut op troll'' but me ask you this. If scenes in a story screw up pre-established lore or contradict  the basic laws of pyshics or include writing fallacies like contrivance, plot holes and retcons, then how isn't it objectively bad writing?

Your whole idea seems to be 'The endings are literal, and are therefore objectively bad writing.

If we assume the literal endings are true, then yeah, they're horrible writing. We dont think they're literal though, thats why we dont think they're bad writing.

[demersel]

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Proofs that there is much more to the endings and the story of the game, then when you take it just on face value. 

No, the first one isn't part of the narative at all, and second one proves nothing, why did the hire Mark meer to alsovoice eclips mercs.

Oh but it is. Sound is very much a part of the narrative. 

At any rate, what do you belive in? And let's see how you prove it. 

[Fixers0]

demersel wrote...
Oh but it is. Sound is very much a part of the narrative.

Not if it doesn't do anything but being there.

demersel wrote...
At any rate, what do you belive in? And let's see how you prove it.

I believe in nothing regarding Mass Effect 3 ending, I know they are badly writen because of many writing fallacies, among others.

Modifié par Fixers0, 25 août 2012 - 10:03 .

[plfranke]

In the Link to Anderson before Priority Tutchanka
Anderson: You were hired to kill Reapers. I hope you haven't been sidetracked by all the politics.

[demersel]

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...
Oh but it is. Sound is very much a part of the narrative.

Not if it doesn't do anything but being there.

demersel wrote...
At any rate, what do you belive in? And let's see how you prove it.

I believe in nothing regarding Mass Effect 3 ending, I know they are badly writen because of many writing fallacies, among others.

Then why are you spending your time here, of all places? This is the Indoctrination Theory discussion thread. 

[The Heretic of Time]

[quote]The Twilight God wrote...

Difference between Destroy and the other two is that the Reapers supposedly survive and repair them. Their FTL speeds are twice as fast as ours, they actually know how to repair them and they are already practically everywhere already. Each reaper is capable of doing the repairs. Every small colony, outposts, etc. is not. Without Reapers to rebuild them we first have to figure out how they work, recover/remake lost and destroyed parts, do the repairs and then FTL to the next relay. This is on top of other concerns like locating and treating survivors, securing sustainable food (especially for Turians and Quarians),  rebuilding infrastructure, securing shelter, etc. And repairing the relays will require a new subculture based on the Quarian Flotilla. Liveships will need to be built to make the long journeys between relays and for the extremely long distant primary relays the children of the repair crews will be required to learn from their parents as it may be a centuries trip. There are hard times ahead in Destroy. Bioware polished a turd and counted on people seeing what they wanted to see instead of what is actually there. 
[/quote]

Maybe you misunderstand how fiction works:

If BioWare, the creators of this fiction, says something is so, it is so. If BioWare says something isn't so, it isn't so.



BioWare said that the relays are repairable in Destroy. It is also said in-game in the EC.
BioWare also said that no one is doomed or stranded in Destroy. The galaxy has hope in the Destroy ending, that's what they said.

You don't like it? Fine. But this is the way things are, fact. Period.




[quote]


Renegade: To provide a voice for those too weak to speak for themselves. (Does that sound like a dictator?)
[/quote]

Yes. I don't want to Godwin this thread, but I know for certain that a certain little German man with a funny mustache said the exact same thing.


So yes, in Control the galaxy does live under the dictate of the reapers. The reapers hold all the power. If the Shepard-Catalyst wishes to use the reapers to oppress or destroy the galaxy, he could very well do so.

Just saying that you're a protector and a guardian doesn't make it so. Renegade Shepard might say that stuff, but he says it in a way that it makes me think he's a very strict and oppressive dictator.


[quote]


This isn't abut what we like or prefer. This is about taking the in-game evidence and formulating a logic conclusion. All events dictate that Control and Synthesis cannot end in the way the player hopes.
[/quote]

The word of god says otherwise. The fact that you personally believe that Controle and Synthesis cannot end in the way they player hopes, regardless of what the EC shows us, is just your personal belief.



[quote]

Whoopty-do. A man commits suicide because the "Reaper Commander" told him it was a good idea. One man's life is nowhere near an entire species of sentients, along with a personal friend, being snuffed out along with the Reapers. And the somewhat betrayl of another friend's sacrifice. Not to mention the addtional unknown collatoral with people who depend on synthetic technology to live.
[/quote]

First of all: I did not have to sacrifice the geth in my game when I chose Destroy in my 2nd playthrough. The geth were already destroyed on rannoch. So in my case it was either sacrificing Shepard or sacrificing EDI.

Everything else you just said is just your own speculation.



[quote]



And rather or not Shepard ultimately lives or dies is a matter of headcanon. One can say he lives in Control as well. As a player I get no payoff for Destroy so he is dead for all practical intents and purposes. The breath scene offers no perks of any kind. Regardless of ending, Shepard's story comes to a scretching halt in the docking chamber. Furthermore, due to this ambiguouity Shepard actually more easily survives in Control than in Destroy. He actually narrates Control. 
[/quote]

Again, just your speculation.


And Shepard is not alive in Control. He does not narrate Control. His A.I. copy which functions as the new Catalyst does.



[quote]


[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

NO, 1 and 2 AREN'T bull****, that's just YOUR personal interpretation of it.

And NO, they aren't thematically and narratively presented as indoctrinated endings. That's just YOUR interpretation of it.[/quote]

Yes. They ARE bull****. It's simply your personal DESIRE that they not be.
[/quote]

It's not my desire whatsoever. I acknowledge that ME3 is badly written, including all 4 of the endings. It's just the way you present the 3 original endings are just your own personal interpretation of the 3 endings.

What do you is basically create a straw man. You misrepresent Control, Synthesis and Destroy, in other words, you create a straw man, in order to beat that staw men down.


[quote] 


Peace of mind that the galaxy has just went to hell? Oookay...
[/quote]

No, peace of mind that these crappy endings aren't the true endings at all. That's the peace of mind the IT offers you. It allows you to be optimistic and believe that there might actually become a new, true, better ending, despite the fact that Chris Priestly repeatedly said there won't be any new, extra, or addition to the ending of ME3.



[quote]


I'm waiting for your rivetting rebuttal of my thesis. I can't wait for you to demonstrate how I'm not basing my conclusion on in-game events and that I'm pulling my conclusion out of my backside.
[/quote]

I already did that. What you do is merely speculating. You're trying to force your own speculations as facts on everyone else. You're ramming down your own opinion down our throats. You hold no facts, you hold no evidence, all you hold is speculation and personal interpretations.




[quote]


[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The ITers can't accept that ME3's story is crap.[/quote]
^ 
Blind faith at it's best.
[/quote]

Prove me wrong.




[quote]


You're entire premise is that Mass Effect 3 is bad writting because you think it's bad writting. You fail to make the distinction between "bad writting" and "a sto you dislike"
[/quote]

Nope, that is not my premise at all. Nice straw man though.



[quote]

You dictate absolutes despite your ignorance of Bioware's intent or future plans. So now you know the truth. Not based on evidence, but merely because you say so. classic blind faith. 
[/quote]

No, because Chris Priestly said so, several times!

[Fixers0]

demersel wrote...

Then why are you spending your time here, of all places? This is the Indoctrination Theory discussion thread. 

Because i want to be a good politician and test my debating skills.

[byne]

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Then why are you spending your time here, of all places? This is the Indoctrination Theory discussion thread. 

Because i want to be a good politician and test my debating skills.

But if you wanted to be a poltician you'd just insist you were right, and everyone else was National Socialists.

You wouldnt waste time with debates.

[Fixers0]

byne wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Then why are you spending your time here, of all places? This is the Indoctrination Theory discussion thread. 

Because i want to be a good politician and test my debating skills.

But if you wanted to be a poltician you'd just insist you were right, and everyone else was National Socialists.

You wouldnt waste time with debates.

I was joking.

[spotlessvoid]

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Twilight God dealt directly with your proposition that "ME3 story is crap" - clearly not a straw man

[The Heretic of Time]

paxxton wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

I did not care about the Catalyst's form. Well, I did think it was stupid thatt he Catalyst looked like the vent kid, another cheap attempt from BioWare to appear "smart" and "deep", but it didn't change my motivations or way of thinking at all.

I knew from the point where I first played ME2 that I wanted to join the side of The Illusive Man and help him in his quest to gian power for humanity. Sadly, ME3 never allowed me to side with TIM because BioWare thought it was necessary to turn Cerberus into 2-dimensional villains that serve as the main cannon fodder for the majority of the game. I did not get the chance to express my agreement with TIM's philosophies. Choosing the Control ending was the closest thing I could get.

The Catalyst's form is a clear sign that there's something happening behind the scenes. It cannot be a coincidence that he looks like that one specific child. If you say that he has to take some form to show himself to Shepard, I ask why can't he look like a random human?

Because that would not have the same emotional impact at the Catalyst looking like the vent kid. The design of the Catalyst is just BioWare trying to be "deep" and "smart". At least, that's what I think.

The thing I dislike about Cerberus is that they would use Reaper tech against other races to make humanity the dominant species in the Galaxy. Other than that and their inhumane methods, I agree that understanding Reaper tech and defeating them with their own weapon is better than just sending them to hell.

Well I'm glad that you at least agree that understanding reaper tech and defeating them with their own weapons is better than just sending them to hell (if that's even possible without using their own tech against them).


Regardless of what you think about Cerberus, I think you'll agree that after the reaper wars, we should study their technology so we can improve ours. Whether your choose Destroy and study their corpses, choose Control and study living reapers, or choose Synthetis and share the reaper's memory with yours, is up to you.

[demersel]

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Then why are you spending your time here, of all places? This is the Indoctrination Theory discussion thread. 

Because i want to be a good politician and test my debating skills.

Ok. You s#ck at it. GTFO. 

[byne]

Fixers0 wrote...

byne wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Then why are you spending your time here, of all places? This is the Indoctrination Theory discussion thread. 

Because i want to be a good politician and test my debating skills.

But if you wanted to be a poltician you'd just insist you were right, and everyone else was National Socialists.

You wouldnt waste time with debates.

I was joking.

I realized that. I was joking too, clearly.

[Fixers0]

Ok. You s#ck at it. GTFO. 

Well, yes in most political debates it's of course about not-telling the truth, but beceause i'm a good human i decided to tell the truth.

Modifié par Fixers0, 25 août 2012 - 10:22 .

[The Twilight God]

demersel wrote...

Why should i prove anything to you? Or to anyone? I can share my interpretetion events, that happened in ME3 and their presentation.

 
Alright. But it sounded to me like you were addressing my rebuttal to the viability of the Dream Theory. My objections still remain unchallenged then.

Your fabrication of lore does not constitute an interpretation. You can't interpret something from thin air. What you have done is fabricate a scenario without any supporting evidence, not interpreted what was presented.

demersel wrote...

While doing so, i can provide you with some key points, and explain why and how i came to the conclusions I did.

 
You did not explain how you came to the conclusions you made.

demersel wrote...

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.

No need to get snippy. I thought we were having a discussion. Might I say, if you can't handle criticism of your beliefs then why discuss them? I'm in disagreement with you. That doesn't mean I'm picking on you.

demersel wrote...

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. 

"Ironclade proof" or not, there is no such thng as a discussion in which one person says something and the other simple listens, but doesn't involve themselves in discourse. I don't know what it is that I posted that offended you, but it was not my intent to offend.

However, if anyone puts forth any theory and I find there are irreconcilable holes, I'm going to point those holes out. If I were to argue against you by stating that a person cannot struggle against indoctrination in their sleep I would not be offended if someone pointed out that my assertion isn't based on in-game lore or data. That's how a theory progresses. The important matter is can a theory be adapted to fill the holes. If so, it evolves. If not, it dies. Not everything is valid simply because someone chooses to believe in it.   

[demersel]

Fixers0 wrote...

Well, yes in most political debates it's of course about not-telling the truth, but beceause i'm a good human i decided to tell the truth.

Yes, that was very nice and considerate of you. You restored my faith in human race and internet community.
GTFO. 

[Fixers0]

demersel wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Well, yes in most political debates it's of course about not-telling the truth, but beceause i'm a good human i decided to tell the truth.

Yes, that was very nice and considerate of you. You restored my faith in human race and internet community.
GTFO. 

No, the Real reason i'm here is probably closest to what smudboy anwserd when squee asked him why  he bothers himself at all with the Mass effect games:  ''by laughing at them, and the fans, that's kind of entertaining, but thanks for asking''

[The Heretic of Time]

This is perhaps not my place to say this, but calm down demersel. You, paxxton and I were having such a nice conversation for the first time in like... forever. Don't let Fixers0 ruin this. If you don't like him, just ignore him. That's what I'd do.

Just my 2 cents.

[demersel]

The Twilight God wrote...

Ok. Let's start from the top. 
What was our original point of disagreement? 

Let's have a constructive discussion.  

Modifié par demersel, 25 août 2012 - 10:33 .