1238 réponses à ce sujet

[megamacka]

The only post DLC I need is a happy reunion DLC!
My '' life '' ain't complete without it ^^

[megamacka]

.


Keeping my post on hold :innocent:. Want to see the arguements unfold whilst listening to cry me a river.
 
gather around everyone! it's about to commence!

Modifié par megamacka, 18 août 2012 - 01:34 .

[The Twilight God]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Well, I'll just say this.

I don't think the OP is inherently wrong. However, I also don't agree with it due to a difference of opinions. What I'm simply asking from the OP is to not treat his interpretation as intellectually superior to all other interpretations; it is just as valid as some other interpretations. Your theory may work for you, but not for other people. You should not consider other people as intellectually inferior just because they don't agree with you.

If that were truly the case we wouldn't be having this conversation. You would have read it, made the decision accept or ignore and left it at that. It seems very obvious to me that my thesis disturbs you. It has had an impact on you, for good or bad, and you desperately don't want to accept it emotionally, although intellectually you find it difficult to ignore. You seem to need me to acknowledge something and make it all better so that you can get on with the rest of your life. But you will never get it from me. 

My advice. Don't worry about what I think about my thesis vs. someone elses. It's like asking Richard Dawkins and the Pope to view each others ideologies as equally valid. I believe mine is the best there is and I challenege anyone to point out any flaws or show me exactly where I've made gross leaps of logic.

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Your interpretation requires a headcanon plot device that is the "Crucible Suppression Device." Nothing inherently wrong with that, since all endings require a headcanon plot device, especially Synthesis. I even made a thread about it. All I'm asking is for the OP to stop trying to invalidate different interpretations by using evidence that isn't absolute, i.e. Catalyst's capabilities, motivations, and so forth. Even with the EC, the Catalyst performs so many contradictory actions that at this point, without further DLC, it isn't possible to identify the Catalyst's goals and motivations.

Why would I stop pointing out flaws in other theories? If it has glaring flaws it is not valid. You seem to want to believe that anythig anyone can imagine is inherently valid simply for the fact that they choose to believe it. This type of mentality cannot be further from the truth..

I've laid out my line of reasoning in a numbered format for easy reference. If you wish to call the suppression effect headcanon then show me exactly how my logical deduction is flawed. If you are unable to do this you have no justification to call it headcanon. As far as you are concerned it's science. It's like staying gravity is headcanon because the creative intelligence of the universe doesn't literally speak to you and say in plain english, "gravity is real". Evaporation does not occur unless the universe literally tells you in words, "evaporation is occuring". This is an absurd way of viewing the world.

By your reasoning there could be no such thing as objective reality. No matter what we witness we can never infer anything from it. Every ideology in existence, regardless of contradictions, are all equally true. There can be no sciences or genuine knowlegde in such a world. Look, I understand that you don't like the idea that Control and Synthesis are indoctrinated endings. I get that and it's fine. Bioware left the endings in a state of mediocrity so that everyone could continue to believe whatever they wished. So by all means, believe whatever your heart desires and don't concern youself with what I believe.

Figuratively speaking, I can assure you you will never convince me that the rainbows are a convenant between God and man to never flood the Earth again; just as I could never convince you that a rainbow is caused by light being refracted while entering droplets of water, then reflected inside on the back of the droplet and refracted again when leaving it.

[megamacka]

The Twilight God wrote...

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Well, I'll just say this.

I don't think the OP is inherently wrong. However, I also don't agree with it due to a difference of opinions. What I'm simply asking from the OP is to not treat his interpretation as intellectually superior to all other interpretations; it is just as valid as some other interpretations. Your theory may work for you, but not for other people. You should not consider other people as intellectually inferior just because they don't agree with you.

If that were truly the case we wouldn't be having this conversation. You would have read it, made the decision accept or ignore and left it at that. It seems very obvious to me that my thesis disturbs you. It has had an impact on you, for good or bad, and you desperately don't want to accept it emotionally, although intellectually you find it difficult to ignore. You seem to need me to acknowledge something and make it all better so that you can get on with the rest of your life. But you will never get it from me. 

My advice. Don't worry about what I think about my thesis vs. someone elses. It's like asking Richard Dawkins and the Pope to view each others ideologies as equally valid. I believe mine is the best there is and I challenege anyone to point out any flaws or show me exactly where I've made gross leaps of logic.

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

Your interpretation requires a headcanon plot device that is the "Crucible Suppression Device." Nothing inherently wrong with that, since all endings require a headcanon plot device, especially Synthesis. I even made a thread about it. All I'm asking is for the OP to stop trying to invalidate different interpretations by using evidence that isn't absolute, i.e. Catalyst's capabilities, motivations, and so forth. Even with the EC, the Catalyst performs so many contradictory actions that at this point, without further DLC, it isn't possible to identify the Catalyst's goals and motivations.

Why would I stop pointing out flaws in other theories? If it has glaring flaws it is not valid. You seem to want to believe that anythig anyone can imagine is inherently valid simply for the fact that they choose to believe it. This type of mentality cannot be further from the truth..

I've laid out my line of reasoning in a numbered format for easy reference. If you wish to call the suppression effect headcanon then show me exactly how my logical deduction is flawed. If you are unable to do this you have no justification to call it headcanon. As far as you are concerned it's science. It's like staying gravity is headcanon because the creative intelligence of the universe doesn't literally speak to you and say in plain english, "gravity is real". Evaporation does not occur unless the universe literally tells you in words, "evaporation is occuring". This is an absurd way of viewing the world.

By your reasoning there could be no such thing as objective reality. No matter what we witness we can never infer anything from it. Every ideology in existence, regardless of contradictions, are all equally true. There can be no sciences or genuine knowlegde in such a world. Look, I understand that you don't like the idea that Control and Synthesis are indoctrinated endings. I get that and it's fine. Bioware left the endings in a state of mediocrity so that everyone could continue to believe whatever they wished. So by all means, believe whatever your heart desires and don't concern youself with what I believe.

Figuratively speaking, I can assure you you will never convince me that the rainbows are a convenant between God and man to never flood the Earth again; just as I could never convince you that a rainbow is caused by light being refracted while entering droplets of water, then reflected inside on the back of the droplet and refracted again when leaving it.

Thank you the twilight god. 
Now I don't have to repost my twelve pages long post of doom 

Modifié par megamacka, 18 août 2012 - 05:08 .

[RadicalDisconnect]

I'm not disturbed by your interpretation, nor am I "desperately trying don't want to accept it emotionally." It has compelling evidence in its own right, but it's not airtight. No interpretation is since the endings are deliberately open-ended. I'd appreciate it if you don't jump to conclusions.

It's fine to point out flaws in other theories, but you shouldn't use limited and open-ended evidence to invalidate other opinions. In some cases, absolute claims need absolute evidence. The evidence you're using is nowhere near as concrete as gravity, air, or some other observed scientific phenomenons. It is far more vague, and because it is a fictional fantasy setting, the in-game reasoning behind what see in game is ultimately up to the author's intent. Bioware isn't giving us the luxury of closure, and is deliberately letting us use the evidence however we please. Thus, your evidence can be used in many other ways to suit other interpretations.

There is compelling evidence to suggest that control and synthesis aren't indoctrinated endings. There also is compelling evidence that those are indoctrinated endings. It is up to the player to form an interpretation that consolidates the opposing evidence.

Also, this is not as cut and clear as your science and religion analogy is trying to make out.

Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 18 août 2012 - 07:09 .

[megamacka]

[Ranger Jack Walker]

^Are you trying to be funny?

Modifié par Ranger Jack Walker, 18 août 2012 - 08:58 .

[megamacka]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

^Are you trying to be funny?

No.

I simply stated that I did not read it since I expected a '' OP is a douche and forcing everyone to believe in his thesis and his making up headcanon devices QQ '' response.












Sour puss <3

Modifié par megamacka, 18 août 2012 - 09:12 .

[The Twilight God]

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

I'm not disturbed by your interpretation, nor am I "desperately trying don't want to accept it emotionally." It has compelling evidence in its own right, but it's not airtight. No interpretation is since the endings are deliberately open-ended. I'd appreciate it if you don't jump to conclusions.

So where is the air leaking from?

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

It's fine to point out flaws in other theories, but you shouldn't use limited and open-ended evidence to invalidate other opinions. In some cases, absolute claims need absolute evidence. The evidence you're using is nowhere near as concrete as gravity, air, or some other observed scientific phenomenons.

 
I disagree with you. 

As no one seems able to formulate any kind of rebuttal, everyone else must disagree with you too. As you are unable to formulate any kind of rebuttal you must disagre with yourself. Gravity is not fully understood today. We know that something is pulling stuff together, but we don't exactly how or why. But who would have the balls to call it headcanon? Who would have the balls to claim all observations are invalid and that it might be "something else"? And then have no clue what this "something else" might be. Just as long as it isn't gravity. 

This is your problem. You assert that there could be "something else", not because the evidence is shoddy and there is any other rational explaination, but because you don't like what's in front of you and you wish it wasn't so. 

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

It is far more vague, and because it is a fictional fantasy setting, the in-game reasoning behind what see in game is ultimately up to the author's intent. Bioware isn't giving us the luxury of closure, and is deliberately letting us use the evidence however we please. Thus, your evidence can be used in many other ways to suit other interpretations.

And I will tear those "interpretations" a new hole. I'm not saying anything outside my thesis is automatically wrong. For instance, it isn't 100% clear whether or not Anderson and TIM were actually their with Shepard on the Citadel or a hallucination representing Shepard's own internal turmoil brought on by indoctrination. I don't personally believe this, but I can't disprove it.  I have arguments for it and against it. All of which is circumstantial.

However, if you are going to state that the suppress effect is circumstantial you MUST provide an alternative. By definition circumstantial evidence denotes that more than one explanation is possible. Unless you ellaborate on these other possibilities you have no justification to call it circumstantial.

RadicalDisconnect wrote...

There is compelling evidence to suggest that control and synthesis aren't indoctrinated endings. There also is compelling evidence that those are indoctrinated endings. It is up to the player to form an interpretation that consolidates the opposing evidence.

Also, this is not as cut and clear as your science and religion analogy is trying to make out.

There is no solid evidence whatsoever to suggest that they aren't indoctrinated endings.

Even if everything in the endings was true, indoctrination still takes place. Therefore, the Reapers would actually be good guys afterall. But Shepard trusting the Reapers can only be explained by indoctrination. There is no possible explaination outside of that. Ask Ranger Jack. He'll tell you. As soon as we pressed him on providing a rational explaination he bolted from the thread never to be heard from again. As many others before him.

Perhaps you don't believe logic and reason have a place in gaming discussion. That's fine. But if you feel that way this thread is not for you.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 18 août 2012 - 09:50 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

megamacka wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

^Are you trying to be funny?

No.

I simply stated that I did not read it since I expected a '' OP is a douche and forcing everyone to believe in his thesis and his making up headcanon devices QQ '' response.









Sour puss <3

Well read it then.

Looks like Radical's plea to end the mudslinging fell on deaf ears.
And you guys accuse me of being a troll. I find that hilarious.

And OP, I'm still here.

And like I predicted, you used my absense as 'evidence' of me giving up.

I've made my views on your theory clear enough. The thing is, the Catalyst (or the Reapers) don't do much to stop Shepard once he starts walking towards Destroy when logically, they should be doing whatever it takes at that point coupled with everyone who supports your theory's casual dismissal of the EC slides when Bioware states that they did happen I find your theory is not nearly as airtight as you claim. However, it is your theory and you're free to keep believing it. But know that is not fact.

And no, saying that Bioware lied before so they're lying about everything now is, like I said, a cop out and a convienient way to dismiss any contradictions.

I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't presume things like me 'giving up'. I felt I had made my thoughts abundantly clear and didn't want to force them on anyone. You go ahead and keep believing in your theory.

[Vlk3]

@The Twillight God, that was very interesting read and I agree with you at most of the points.
I'm a supporter of destroy ending and believe it's the only reasonable solution.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Again, it's not about trust, Even Destroy is trusting the catalyst on some level to do what he says it will do. To work by shooting the pipe.

[Mello]

megamacka wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

^Are you trying to be funny?

No.

I simply stated that I did not read it since I expected a '' OP is a douche and forcing everyone to believe in his thesis and his making up headcanon devices QQ '' response.











Sour puss <3

I found it type funny 

[megamacka]

iPoohCupCakes wrote...

megamacka wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

^Are you trying to be funny?

No.

I simply stated that I did not read it since I expected a '' OP is a douche and forcing everyone to believe in his thesis and his making up headcanon devices QQ '' response.











Sour puss <3

I found it type funny 

I like cup cakes.

[Fat Head]

 

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...  

I felt I had made my thoughts abundantly clear and didn't want to force them on anyone. 

 

2 posts later.....

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Again, it's not about trust, Even Destroy is trusting the catalyst on some level to do what he says it will do. To work by shooting the pipe.

[The Twilight God]

Disagree with my thesis? Fine. Give me one good reason why Shepard would trust the Reapers. Just one reason. Just one teenie tiny itsy bitsy teenie weenie lil reason.

*room in absolute silence*

*cough*

Should we order pizza while we wait?

*akward silence*

I'll that as a "yes". I think we'll be here for awhile.

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

*cricket noises*

*eats pizza*

I guess we'll be sleeping here tonight. Glad I brought my sleeping bag.

*yawn* Good morning everyone. Seems like -Whoa! Ranger Jack has come up with one teenie tiny itsy bitsy teenie weenie lil reason to trust the Reapers!!!

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

Your theory still fails to answer why the Starchild would tell you how to destroy him.

Oh... more of this. You had me all excited there thinking you might actually have posted something intelligent.

Oh, yeah, and to your coment: See first post. All answered in thesis since day one.

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I've made my views on your theory clear enough.

*Gasp!* W-w-what!! Who!?!?

I fell asleep there waiting for you to explain why Shepard would trust the Reapers. How long has it been? You finally come up with something?

Oh, of course not.  Your lack of rebuttal and inability to show me the errors in my deductive process make it quite clear you see nothing wrong with my theory.

So are you giving up on that silly idea that an non-indoctrinated Shepard would trust the Reapers?

Modifié par The Twilight God, 19 août 2012 - 03:22 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Perhaps you should stop with the attitude. Your attitude is typical of internet griefers. Just a helpful suggestion. And until then, I'm done.

Now watch as you use this as 'evidence' of me giving up. Again.

Modifié par Ranger Jack Walker, 19 août 2012 - 09:38 .

[megamacka]

The reason for his attitude is because of the frustration of asking the same question a billion times and not receiving an answer. You keep bashing his thesis yet you fail to even answer a simple question yourself. Oh dear, I become more and more frustrated myself.... So much.... FRUSTRATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Modifié par megamacka, 19 août 2012 - 12:25 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Why does this thread still exist? You ITers already have your own thread. Why don't you post this there? After all this is just a repetition of everything I've already seen and read in the IT thread(s).

[megamacka]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Why does this thread still exist? You ITers already have your own thread. Why don't you post this there? After all this is just a repetition of everything I've already seen and read in the IT thread(s).

Doesn't the '' original ITers'' so to speak believe that the whole thing is an illusion?  After shep gets hit by harbringer that is? This thesis is different.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The existence of a CSD is inferred, not proved. Inferred from the fact that activating Destroy requires shooting a pipe. It's supposed to be symbolic. Why else would grabbing two rods activate control? Wouldn't something like the machine we see in the Geth Consensus mission make more sense? Same with Destroy where a button would make more sense. But Bioware went for the symbolism route. The fact that they failed is a different matter altogether.

And yes, this theory is different from IT but it is the same in purpose. That purpose is making Destroy seem like the only option where you win. That itself isn't inherently a bad thing. IT was very compelling before the EC to me but not because it presented good points but it genuinely seemed like something Bioware might just do. However, after EC it's clear that the endings we got were what they intended at face value.

But let's leave IT out of this since this is a different theory.

Modifié par Ranger Jack Walker, 19 août 2012 - 12:37 .

[megamacka]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The existence of a CSD is inferred, not proved. Inferred from the fact that activating Destroy requires shooting a pipe. It's supposed to be symbolic. Why else would grabbing two rods activate control? Wouldn't something like the machine we see in the Geth Consensus mission make more sense? Same with Destroy where a button would make more sense. But Bioware went for the symbolism route. The fact that they failed is a different matter altogether.

And yes, this theory is different from IT but it is the same in purpose. That purpose is making Destroy seem like the only option where you win. That itself isn't inherently a bad thing. IT was very compelling before the EC to me but not because it presented good points but it genuinely seemed like something Bioware might just do. However, after EC it's clear that the endings we got were what they intended at face value.

But let's leave IT out of this since this is a different theory.

His already said that synthesis/ control is not necessarily '' bad ''. It's just about interpretation and morals. It is quite clear that synthesis is a goal of the reapers it is even said ingame. There is no good/ bad in this game, the reapers are machines. They have been '' programmed '' so to speak for a goal, they themselves do not view themselves as evil and they do not strive to make the galaxy a ****ty place. They just do what they are programmed to do. Whatever or not you agree with the starbrat reaper that synthesis is good is up to you. But this thesis plays on the theory that indoctrination is occuring to influence you to make '' the right choice '' according to the reapers.
  
   If you have read the leaked original ending then you will see that Bioware almost wanted to make the reapers '' the saviours ''. 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

The thing is indoctrination achieves nothing. If it's indoctrination of the 'player' it makes no sense for BW to do that as it achieves no purpose and is just a grand waste of time.

If it's indoctrination of Shepard then it's the instant form of indoctrination as the slower (and better ) form takes years to do. The instant version also very quickly degrades the victims mind so it makes no sense for the reapers to indoctrinate shepard inly for him/her to quicky become a husk-like being.

[CoolioThane]

This is IT by the way.

[megamacka]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

The thing is indoctrination achieves nothing. If it's indoctrination of the 'player' it makes no sense for BW to do that as it achieves no purpose and is just a grand waste of time.

If it's indoctrination of Shepard then it's the instant form of indoctrination as the slower (and better ) form takes years to do. The instant version also very quickly degrades the victims mind so it makes no sense for the reapers to indoctrinate shepard inly for him/her to quicky become a husk-like being.

Shepard has been exposed to reaper influenced beings and artifacts for A LONG LONG time. Much longer and more frequently than anyone else. Mike Gamble already said that they don't want to confirm anything because they don't want to affect how people interpret the ending. I don't think how it could be made more clear than that? Bioware WANTS us to have different interpretations. They want us to believe in what we want to believe. 

  If you want to believe that control / synthesis or even destroy goes along the exact picture that the starbrat paints it out to be then fine, Bioware made sure that you can do just that. But if you want to believe in something else, a struggle against both yourself and the influence of the reapers then they made sure to put that in aswell. The voices in your head, the reflection of the floor even. Flying platforms lololo, the way that the starbrat speaks. The way that he makes synthesis / control seem like a better option ( especially synthesis since it's his goal ). If you want to believe in him that's fine. But some of us choose to question his. It's all about choice. I for one belive that the writers are not complete and utter idiots. They aimed for different interpretations but they did not get the reaction that they was aiming for by the fan base.

 Instead they got complaints and they decide to give us the EC. Which was supposed to make things more clear for both sides of the party, I guess that didn't work out either... huh.......
To me it's just so blatantly obvious that it was their intention to give us the means to make the ending however we wanted and I think it's genius. Even if it wasn't their intention, then happy coincidence. They were lucky.

 But to come here '' on a thread about control /synthesis as indoctrination influenced choices NOT NECESSAIRLY WRONG OR BAD CHOICES CAPS LOCK ''  and bash the OP and then not answering simple question and failing to read his post before pointing out things that his already answered in his post......  yeah... His not the one trying to force anything upon others....

Modifié par megamacka, 19 août 2012 - 01:09 .