1238 réponses à ce sujet

[The Twilight God]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

All of the OPs arguements are "X is lying"

Whether it's "The Catalyst is lying" or "Bioware is lying" or even "Henry Lawson is lying" in order to take the easy way out.

Good thing the OP proves that the Catalyst and Henry Lawson are lying and doesn't just disagree "just because" like his detractors.

I don't recall the OP ever saying Bioware is lying. I do recall his opposition stating Bioware's wrtting sucks and "their 'true' inent is...".

[Lord Goose]

I don't recall the OP ever saying Bioware is lying. I do recall
his opposition stating Bioware's wrtting sucks and "their
'true' inent is...".

Mike Gamble (or someone else from Bioware) stated what Destroy is not a best choice, and what Kasumi will unite with Keiji if greybox is spared after Synthesis, since relation between synthetics and organics will be fundamentally changed.

If Synthesis is a lie, when he lied.

[Lord Goose]

Found it. It was said by Chris Priestly.

"I honestly didn't know the answer to this one, so I asked Patrick Weekes, the man who wrote Kasumi in Mass Effect 3 and this is what he said: "In Synthesis, the improved communication/relationship between synthetics and organics is enough for Keiji's greybox memories to be reconstructed. This would let Kasumi reunite with her lover (at least mentally and emotionally). Whether it really is Keiji, based on his memories, or justa very good AI reconstruction of him, is up to the player to determine -- that type of question is one of the core questions of Synthesis.""

So at very least that particular slide was not illussion. Althought it could have been simply reconstruction of real Keiji, it still was enough for Kasumi.

[Factor P]

The Twilight God wrote...Rather or not people like it isn't relevent. I don't like it either, but that is what was written. Handwaving the plot, story and evidence away because I want to believe that suiciding myself because a Reaper said so supposedly leads to nothing but good is absurd.

And I agree with you. Whether or not people like an ending is irrelevant to how it is written. I was simply pointing out why there may be so much resistance to "IT" - it states that not only are Control, Synthesis and (possibly) Refuse the wrong choices, but (surprise!) Shepard (and likely the player) are also indoctrinated, and that only Destroy supporters actually "win." Some interpretations of "IT" even state that everything after the Harbinger beam was an illusion. If "IT" was centered around Synthesis, it may have a lot less resistance. In any case, I think your logical interpretation of the ending with supporting evidence is the best I've read so far in terms of incorporating indoctrination, even though I don't agree with all of your points.

Don't get me wrong: Control and Refuse ARE in the Reapers favor. In Control the Reapers likely get their human
Shepard-Reaper, and in Refuse the cycle continues. I'm just not convinced Shepard is indoctrinated in Control and Refuse. In Control, there are too many missing facts about HOW Reapers are constructed and WHO the "Child" is (which I hope might be clarified in future DLC) that is vital to understanding exactly what is happening if Shepard chooses Control. Shepard might be indoctrinated in Control. Then again he might not. There just isn't enough in-game information right now to know for certain. And is it really so unbelievable that a Paragon Shepard whose ideal has been to spare enemies and sacrifice no innocents if another alternative is available might willingly choose Control? This might even be a plausible willing choice for a Renegade Shepard who didn't destroy the Collector base in ME2.

As for Refuse, we see Liara's archive activate and the Stargazer from the next cycle talking about the archive. Shepard certainly gave up for his cycle in Refuse, but he didn't necessarily have to be indoctrinated to do this. And the next cycle wins. This may be interpreted as a victory for some players even though it is an absolute failure for the current cycle. Additionally, if Shepard and the player were indoctrinated in Refuse, why even bother to show Liara's archive and the Stargazer but no happy ending like Synthesis? Seems to me that Synthesis and Refuse are the exact same ending (the cycle continues) but in Refuse the player sees the reality of Shepard's failure (not indoctrinated), while in Synthesis Shepard commits suicide after both he and the player are successfully indoctrinated, resulting in a "perfect" happy ending.

Modifié par Factor P, 08 août 2012 - 02:01 .

[The Twilight God]

Lord Goose wrote...

I don't recall the OP ever saying Bioware is lying. I do recall
his opposition stating Bioware's wrtting sucks and "their
'true' inent is...".

Mike Gamble (or someone else from Bioware) stated what Destroy is not a best choice, and what Kasumi will unite with Keiji if greybox is spared after Synthesis, since relation between synthetics and organics will be fundamentally changed.

If Synthesis is a lie, when he lied.

Great. Mike Gamble can go get that put into the game as an in-game cutscene happening in real-time and not included in a slide narrated  in the "what if". Otherwise, Mike Gambles's opinion on the subject is no more valid than mine or yours. Apparently, a lot of Bioware employees are saying a lot of conflicting stuff.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 08 août 2012 - 03:05 .

[The Twilight God]

Lord Goose wrote...

Also, about Grunt. Krogan are long-lived species and we do not know how much time it took to rebuild relays. Catalyst states that survivors should have a little difficulties to do it, so it is not completely implausible.

We don't know how they work. There is a matter of researching it on worlds with no proper infrastructure. but lets say it's as easy as putting th epieces together and welding. Then even once you figure out how to fix one you have to FTL to the next. That's gonna take some time. An entirely new culture will have to emerge where special repair fleets with liveships like the quarians take these long journies from relay to relay over the course of decades or centuries. For the secondary relays the crews will have to teach their children because they'll probably be dead or infirmed before they reach the destination.

About your pros and cons.

- If the reapers helping is a plus, it can't then be a plus if they are dead in Destroy. All the reaper everywhere fixing relays is a major plus.
- Shepard living on past that day is headcanon in any ending. miraculously rescued, creation of cylon avatar body or being immaculately birthed by a woman in Utah and growing to adulthood in a month with full memories. Take your pick.
- Shepard's death is cancelled out as it's shared by all endings. No player gains anything from Destroy to make up for the sacrifices. Shep's story ends the same as everyone elses with no reunion, blue children or any of that stuff.
- Not concerned with you personal morals. The "ethics violations" are your own personal qualm. It's subjective.
- also, the next cycle would have survived if our cycle survived. Their sole survival at our expense is not as good as ALL of us surviviing. 

My changes:

Refuse.
- EVERYONE DIED
(it only has the one con really, but it's a BIG one)

Synthesis.
+ Synthetics survived.
+ Where is no more difference between synthetics and organics. Just life.
+ Everyone organics a "super-organic" and possibly reaching immortal.
+ The combined cultural knowledge the tech of the reapers
+ Reapers are used for good.

Control.
+Synthetics survived.
+Reapers are used for good.
+ Citadel intact. minor amount of lives saved compared to the whole galaxy's loses, but something

Destroy.
- Synthetics died.
- Minor technological damage.
- cut off from each other for the forseeable future
- no non-tiring, non-sleeping, super strong robots to speed up rebuolding efforts

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The Twilight God wrote...

Destroy.
- Synthetics died.
- Minor technological damage.
- cut off from each other for the forseeable future
- no non-tiring, non-sleeping, super strong robots to speed up rebuolding efforts

Ah yes, no non-tiring, non-sleeping, super strong robots to speed up rebuilding efforts. We've dismissed that claim. The Quarians can rebuild them, and have learned their lesson on how to shackle them.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 08 août 2012 - 03:29 .

[Lord Goose]

Otherwise, Mike Gambles's opinion on the subject is no more valid than mine or yours. Apparently, a lot of Bioware employees are saying a lot of conflicting stuff.

I disagree with you. Mike Gamble, Patrick Weekes and Chris Priestly, are people who worked on the game, and, thus, have much more insight into story than you. Also, what information is not contradicting anything and it was done on the official Q&A session from Bioware.

Where are many examples when signficant information comes out in that format. For example, "Dumbledore is gay", "Medic is not former German officer of World War II" etc.

We don't know how they work. There is a matter of researching it on worlds with no proper infrastructure. but lets say it's as easy as putting th epieces together and welding. Then even once you figure out how to fix one you have to FTL to the next. That's gonna take some time. An entirely new culture will have to emerge where special repair fleets with liveships like the quarians take these long journies from relay to relay over the course of decades or centuries. For the secondary relays the crews will have to teach their children because they'll probably be dead or infirmed before they reach the destination.

Your personal opinion.
For all we know, Relays could be rebuilt in matter of weeks. Where is no data that says otherwise.
Also, even if it would take, 50 years for Krogan it is not much time.

- If the reapers helping is a plus, it can't then be a plus if they are dead in Destroy. All the reaper everywhere fixing relays is a major plus.

If Reapers are alive where is a chance what new Control Entity may snap (potential risk). If Reapers are dead it is not possible. Also, Renegade Control Entity is on the way to create dystopia, given it's fascistic slogans.

- Shepard living on past that day is headcanon in any ending. .

As I said "where is a tiny chance what Shepard surivives in Destroy ending". Not "Shepard definitely lives". Control and Synthesis are "certain death", but Destroy is "chances of survival are slim".

- Not concerned with you personal morals. The "ethics violations" are your own personal qualm. It's subjective.

It's not just an ethical violation. It is forceful "surgery" on the galaxy scale. Any kind of Shepard has two reactions on it: Shepard is either unsure ("I... don't... know") or openly hostile ("You asking me to change everything... everyone... I can't make such decision, and I won't").

- also, the next cycle would have survived if our cycle survived. Their sole survival at our expense is not as good as ALL of us surviviing.

Well, in that case "Shepard refused to work with Catalyst" is a plus.

+ Citadel intact. minor amount of lives saved compared to the whole galaxy's loses, but something

You can't say that those people died in Destroy. Where is no information about that.

Modifié par Lord Goose, 08 août 2012 - 10:27 .

[Helios969]

Good job, OP. I think if BW is smart, at some point down the road they should reveal IDT as truth (whether intended or not.) I've always said IDT is as valid as the literal endings interpretation. I think most would like the saga to continue...or at the very least end with something more "conventional." If BW's objective (and EA's) is to make money, then it only makes sense to continue. At this point I don't really know if I will download and play Leviathan since I wonder what's the point? I'm sure many others would echo that sentiment. I'm sure for a good percentage the ending makes any pre-ending dlc pointless and will refuse to play...and that just doesn't make good business sense.

[OdanUrr]

The Twilight God wrote...

Destroy: The Goal of Galaxy

We get it, you chose Destroy.

[dorktainian]

nowt wrong with Destroy. better than the alternatives.

[The Heretic of Time]

There already is a thread for this. One silly indoctrination theory thread is more than enough.

Please take this to the IT thread OP, that's where this belongs.


As to answer the question: No, I'm not indoctrinated by the Indoctrination Theory, are you?

[The Heretic of Time]

D24O wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Yes I'm indoctrinated.

This proves IT.

Yeah how could we be so stupid not to realize how obviously true the IT is? This totally proves it. I'm convinced!

[The Twilight God]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Destroy.
- Synthetics died.
- Minor technological damage.
- cut off from each other for the forseeable future
- no non-tiring, non-sleeping, super strong robots to speed up rebuolding efforts

Ah yes, no non-tiring, non-sleeping, super strong robots to speed up rebuilding efforts. We've dismissed that claim. The Quarians can rebuild them, and have learned their lesson on how to shackle them.

I'm more referring the the giant lumbering kind of robots with hordes of husk variants.

[clennon8]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

There already is a thread for this. One silly indoctrination theory thread is more than enough.

Please take this to the IT thread OP, that's where this belongs.


As to answer the question: No, I'm not indoctrinated by the Indoctrination Theory, are you?

This level of "I'm rubber you're glue" discourse isn't really worth responding to (I don't know why TTG wasted so much time repeatedly responding to HYR's blathering for example) but I'm going to make this short response anyway.

This no-nonsense version of IT is distinct enough, and the author has put enough work into writing the thesis, that I think this thread deserves a life of its own.  The main IT thread has "hallucination" right in the title, and tends to revolve around finding evidence to support that notion.  This version posits that everything is "real," at least up until the point where the RGB choice is made.

Modifié par clennon8, 09 août 2012 - 07:53 .

[megamacka]

Why can't people just accept that we interpret the ending differently? Deal with it.... I think it was Mike Gamble whom said in the EC panel that they didn't want to affect how people interpret the ending by confirming anything. As far as I know ( and care ), whatever you or me myself believe = canon. Because this is MY Shepard and my story. Even if Bioware did come out and say '' IT is wrong, there is no truth to it at all '' I wouldn't care. Because this is how I choose to interpret the ending and it makes the ending a lot better to me than what we've got pre EC.

Pre EC I was hugely disappointed but after the EC with the new dialogue, the goodbye and extra cutscenes I also started questioning the star child ( I had abandoned the game pre EC ) and now I find myself with a much deeper and enjoyable ending overeall and replaying the game is now fun and not a hassle.

No point in calling others stupid / tarded for not interpreting the ending the same way. I chose to go with Tali as a LI, some people think that's stupid and like Liara or ash better. I chose to save the council, someone else didn't. Whatever.... Whatever you choose is canon for you. The OP is spreading his way of seeing things.

  Same thing with the choices for those whom does not believe that some kind of indocrtination is going on. Some people choose Synthesis, some Control and others Destroy. I myself find Synthesis unethical, removing emotions etc that which makes us organic. And control unsure, just because he keeps his memories doesn't mean that he wont come back later and begin the cycle anew. So I chose Destroy... My choice, the galaxy deserves a chance .

  It's all space magic anyways!

Modifié par megamacka, 08 août 2012 - 04:56 .

[clennon8]

megamacka wrote...

Why can't people just accept that we interpret the ending differently? Deal with it.... I think it was Mike Gamble whom said in the EC panel that they didn't want to affect how people interpret the ending by confirming anything. As far as I know ( and care ), whatever you or me myself believe = canon. Because this is MY Shepard and my story. Even if Bioware did come out and say '' IT is wrong, there is no truth to it at all '' I wouldn't care. Because this is how I choose to interpret the ending and it makes the ending a lot better to me than what we've got pre EC.

Pre EC I was hugely disappointed but after the EC with the new dialogue, the goodbye and extra cutscenes I also started questioning the star child ( I had abandoned the game pre EC ) and now I find myself with a much deeper and enjoyable ending overeall and replaying the game is now fun and not a hassle.

No point in calling others stupid / tarded for not interpreting the ending the same way. I chose to go with Tali as a LI, some people think that's stupid and like Liara or ash better. I chose to save the council, someone else didn't. Whatever.... Whatever you choose is canon for you. The OP is spreading his way of seeing things.

Agreed.  Live and let live.  I don't see IT'ists going into other threads and trying to sh*t on other people or their ideas the way anti-IT troglodytes do when they come into threads like this one.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

clennon8 wrote...

Agreed.  Live and let live.  I don't see IT'ists going into other threads and trying to sh*t on other people or their ideas the way anti-IT troglodytes do when they come into threads like this one.

You'd be surprised at how much they do. No side is completely innocent.

However, this is a discussion board. If you don't want people to post disagreement comments in your thread, then don't create a thread in a DISCUSSION Board in the first place.

[megamacka]

clennon8 wrote...

megamacka wrote...

Why can't people just accept that we interpret the ending differently? Deal with it.... I think it was Mike Gamble whom said in the EC panel that they didn't want to affect how people interpret the ending by confirming anything. As far as I know ( and care ), whatever you or me myself believe = canon. Because this is MY Shepard and my story. Even if Bioware did come out and say '' IT is wrong, there is no truth to it at all '' I wouldn't care. Because this is how I choose to interpret the ending and it makes the ending a lot better to me than what we've got pre EC.

Pre EC I was hugely disappointed but after the EC with the new dialogue, the goodbye and extra cutscenes I also started questioning the star child ( I had abandoned the game pre EC ) and now I find myself with a much deeper and enjoyable ending overeall and replaying the game is now fun and not a hassle.

No point in calling others stupid / tarded for not interpreting the ending the same way. I chose to go with Tali as a LI, some people think that's stupid and like Liara or ash better. I chose to save the council, someone else didn't. Whatever.... Whatever you choose is canon for you. The OP is spreading his way of seeing things.

Agreed.  Live and let live.  I don't see IT'ists going into other threads and trying to sh*t on other people or their ideas the way anti-IT troglodytes do when they come into threads like this one.

Nothing has been confirmed yet anyways. So people whom feel like they need to fight each other over how to interpret the ending is fighting in the dark. And even if Bioware did decide to come forth and confirm anything, which I do not believe that they will since it would ruin it for a lot of people no matter what they confirm. I wont see it any differently.

[megamacka]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Agreed.  Live and let live.  I don't see IT'ists going into other threads and trying to sh*t on other people or their ideas the way anti-IT troglodytes do when they come into threads like this one.

You'd be surprised at how much they do. No side is completely innocent.

However, this is a discussion board. If you don't want people to post disagreement comments in your thread, then don't create a thread in a DISCUSSION Board in the first place.

There is a difference between disagreeing and claiming that the other side is stupid or tarded. This goes for both sides, no side is ever completely innocent. And just because the other side is acting silly does not give a free pass or an excuse to do the same.

 Note. That this isn't directed to you, I have not been reading all of the comments but I have seen some pretty unneccessary ones from both sides.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Like I said, no side is completely innocent. But clennon8 seriously, anti-IT troglodytes? Was that supposed to inuslt anti-IT'ists or something? Because that was lame.

[clennon8]

The fact is that pretty much any time you mention IT, a bunch of people immediately show up to point at you and laugh like you're a fat kid wearing his underwear on the outside. So I'm not really buying this "both sides are equally to blame" business.

Anyway, yeah, disagreeing is fine. Being a d-bag isn't.

Modifié par clennon8, 08 août 2012 - 05:21 .

[clennon8]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Like I said, no side is completely innocent. But clennon8 seriously, anti-IT troglodytes? Was that supposed to inuslt anti-IT'ists or something? Because that was lame.

There are perfectly reasonable anti-ITists.  Then there are troglodytes.  Which one do you think you are?

[megamacka]

There is some leaked script on the Leviathan, wont link here since it contains spoilers. Google: '' Catalyst after leviathan social bioware '' and it should be the first one if anyone wants to have a read.

   Again though, the text involves spoilers. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS. There, now no one can blame me if they read it.

Modifié par megamacka, 08 août 2012 - 05:31 .