DonYourAviators wrote...
BioWare aren't that clever.
The indoctrination theory isn't that clever either. BioWare and the IT, they're both stupid.
Now why is the IT so unbelievable to some?
Débuté par
KneeTheCap
, août 08 2012 12:13
#126
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:24
The Heretic of Time
-
- Members
- 5 612 messages
The indoctrination theory isn't that clever either. BioWare and the IT, they're both stupid.
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:28
Lonsecia
-
- Members
- 560 messages
Honestly I don't much care for whether or not IT's real or not. The fact is, even if it's true, the original plot wouldn't make sense with that. In otherwords, even if IT is canon, it's only because they dropped the Dark Matter storyline and thus had to think up something. It's clumsy writing and feels tacked on.
I admire the idea of IT, but not the purported execution, because again, most of it is supposedly only hinted at in the third game. IT also seems only visible to us as players, not to Shepard. I see no way s/he could be aware enough of it to actively fight it. I say that because I assume the ending is supposed to make enough sense to Shepard, because they don't say the logical 'WTF is this!?''
Indoctrination in the game also appears more subtle, and there should have been some hints of gentle nudging towards distorting our perception of what's right and wrong; like how they pervert an ideal of TIMs and make him willing to risk all of humanity because of how manipulated he is.
The dreams are one way, I guess, but again they only work with regards to the player. We wonder why they put them in there, but I don't recall Shepard once pondering why they never had nightmares about the many number of people they've seen die in horrific ways (like in the vat at the collector base - that -would- give you nightmares) or that they've lost over the years.
Given what the ending tells us, a practical way to distort certain ideal would be in the conversation wheel, or if the nightmares had been based around the Geth in some way, with them betraying us, or trying to convince Shepard they're an enemy. It'd still be jarring, but make more sense than giving us nightmares about a boy that died because of the Reapers. If anything the dream would strengthen Shepard's resolve to defeat them: ''This is for you, Vent-Boy!''
As for why the catalyst appears as the child? It just felt even clumsier. I'm not just referring to IT with that. It simply felt stupid.
I think most of it stems from boxing themselves in with not only how powerful the Reapers were, and their sheer numbers, but also forcing so much inaction, that there had to be a killswitch to have any kind of ending.
I'm personally still trying to work out how they managed victory in their earliest cycles, given that there simply couldn't have been enough Reapers.It seems strange to me that as they got bigger, they seemed to become more vulnerable to the Galaxy races. I'd understand it if supplies were an issue, or lack of training, but in the case of the Reapers more = win, surely?
I'm still trying to work out if Sovereign knew about the beacon on Eden Prime (and the other one) why they hadn't made darn sure at the end of each cycle to find everything they could via ground troops.
Mind you, I also wonder why they don't actually 'nip it in the bud' so to speak when it comes to the issue of their supposed purpose. Surely if they are aware of species on planets that will reach the stars, the logical thing to do would be to kill them on their planet. You know, before they reach space, stumble onto Reaper Tech, and then go down the path that leads to the inevitable. Who's to say that the 'inevitable' would happen were it not for the deliberate interference of the Reapers?
In fact, the first game always felt there was an actual plan for leaving all this stuff out there for oragnics to find. Everything Sovereign said implied that. ME3 comes along and suggests that we're being culled before we reach a point where we might create synthetics that wipe us out.
All the AI that we come into contact with in the game actually use Reaper Tech, which means our most advanced synthetics are essentially only where they are because of the race that are supposedly trying to stop them. This is also weird given that the cycle's every 50,000 years, the Reapers were delayed this cycle, and again, the synthetics are nowhere near the point of wiping us out.
Even before the Reaper Tech, the Geth weren't inherently violent, so the Reapers arrival feels very miscalculated. Likewise our cycle even prohibited AI anyway. So was there really the threat there?
Anyway: Basically I think even IT is a deviation from the original story, and even going by ITers is something only hinted at in the latter half/third, yet supposedly the ending revolves around that, rather that what it should be about.
I admire the idea of IT, but not the purported execution, because again, most of it is supposedly only hinted at in the third game. IT also seems only visible to us as players, not to Shepard. I see no way s/he could be aware enough of it to actively fight it. I say that because I assume the ending is supposed to make enough sense to Shepard, because they don't say the logical 'WTF is this!?''
Indoctrination in the game also appears more subtle, and there should have been some hints of gentle nudging towards distorting our perception of what's right and wrong; like how they pervert an ideal of TIMs and make him willing to risk all of humanity because of how manipulated he is.
The dreams are one way, I guess, but again they only work with regards to the player. We wonder why they put them in there, but I don't recall Shepard once pondering why they never had nightmares about the many number of people they've seen die in horrific ways (like in the vat at the collector base - that -would- give you nightmares) or that they've lost over the years.
Given what the ending tells us, a practical way to distort certain ideal would be in the conversation wheel, or if the nightmares had been based around the Geth in some way, with them betraying us, or trying to convince Shepard they're an enemy. It'd still be jarring, but make more sense than giving us nightmares about a boy that died because of the Reapers. If anything the dream would strengthen Shepard's resolve to defeat them: ''This is for you, Vent-Boy!''
As for why the catalyst appears as the child? It just felt even clumsier. I'm not just referring to IT with that. It simply felt stupid.
I think most of it stems from boxing themselves in with not only how powerful the Reapers were, and their sheer numbers, but also forcing so much inaction, that there had to be a killswitch to have any kind of ending.
I'm personally still trying to work out how they managed victory in their earliest cycles, given that there simply couldn't have been enough Reapers.It seems strange to me that as they got bigger, they seemed to become more vulnerable to the Galaxy races. I'd understand it if supplies were an issue, or lack of training, but in the case of the Reapers more = win, surely?
I'm still trying to work out if Sovereign knew about the beacon on Eden Prime (and the other one) why they hadn't made darn sure at the end of each cycle to find everything they could via ground troops.
Mind you, I also wonder why they don't actually 'nip it in the bud' so to speak when it comes to the issue of their supposed purpose. Surely if they are aware of species on planets that will reach the stars, the logical thing to do would be to kill them on their planet. You know, before they reach space, stumble onto Reaper Tech, and then go down the path that leads to the inevitable. Who's to say that the 'inevitable' would happen were it not for the deliberate interference of the Reapers?
In fact, the first game always felt there was an actual plan for leaving all this stuff out there for oragnics to find. Everything Sovereign said implied that. ME3 comes along and suggests that we're being culled before we reach a point where we might create synthetics that wipe us out.
All the AI that we come into contact with in the game actually use Reaper Tech, which means our most advanced synthetics are essentially only where they are because of the race that are supposedly trying to stop them. This is also weird given that the cycle's every 50,000 years, the Reapers were delayed this cycle, and again, the synthetics are nowhere near the point of wiping us out.
Even before the Reaper Tech, the Geth weren't inherently violent, so the Reapers arrival feels very miscalculated. Likewise our cycle even prohibited AI anyway. So was there really the threat there?
Anyway: Basically I think even IT is a deviation from the original story, and even going by ITers is something only hinted at in the latter half/third, yet supposedly the ending revolves around that, rather that what it should be about.
#129
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:33
ZajoE38
-
- Members
- 667 messages
One of the core problems of IT is that no matter Shepard is indoctrinated or not, it would made a garbage game if suddenly a crippled tiny fleet of frigates would destroy countless army of invulnerable and lethal machines. Machines that let the organics to develop along the paths they desire so they won't develop any weapons they couldn't handle. They brought us into a trap, a chess. They defeated thousands of civilization before us. You think they didn't try to fight them? You can't fight a Reaper. Every cycle they suffer minimal loses, let's say from one to five reapers while destroying the whole galaxy fleet. They are incomprehensibly powerful.
#130
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:43
DecCylonus
-
- Members
- 269 messages
KneeTheCap wrote...
I'm quite curious about that, to be honest. If you don't believe in it, why so? Is it that hard to believe that video game writing can be that in-depth? Or do you have a another reason?
Video game industry is still young, but the writing has risen from "The princess is in another castle", is it not? Why are we still regarding books and movies for instance, as superior? Are they truly? Just look at Planescape: Torment and tell me that it's not up to par with any book?
I'm not trying to provoke anyone, nor start any fights. I'm just genuinely curious that why you think IT is impossible?
And while we're at it, please don't fight. We are all in the same boat here, as bioware fans. Try to behave as such, okay?
Your own argument can be used against the IT. The ending we have is not the typical "Ra-Ra, bad guys dead, good guys live happily ever after" Hollywood ending. Many, many sci fi books and movies end with the hero having to confront the antagonist and reason with him/ her/it, and then make a choice about the future. The entire ME series has had consistent themes of sacrifice, what actions are justifiable in the name of preventing war, and what defines life. Shepard's final choice is filled with consequences and shapes the future of his galaxy, and ties all these themes together. In short, the depth is already there. We don't need the IT to add depth to the series or the ending.
Furthermore, it seems many proponents of IT wanted an ending where the Reapers blew up and Shepard had a big party with his/her crew. When they didn't get it, they turned to IT as a way to live with the endings they got. As others have pointed out, a lot of shakey evidence is cited as proof of IT. IT just seems like a way of hating the endings, but accepting them instead of demanding that Bioware make new ones.
#131
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:45
estebanus
-
- Members
- 5 987 messages
You know I'm not an ITer, but I don't think it's stupid. The reason why so many people believe IT was probably because it fit into the game so well, and because it made sense.Heretic_Hanar wrote...
DonYourAviators wrote...
BioWare aren't that clever.
The indoctrination theory isn't that clever either. BioWare and the IT, they're both stupid.
#132
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:47
Mobius-Silent
-
- Members
- 651 messages
estebanus wrote...
Poor you. Did the ITers hurt you?Mobius-Silent wrote...
"Believe"? There is nothing there to believe, I'm having a tough enough time with "tolerate"
I just prefer to discuss the _actual_ game world, and I.T.er's frequently get in the way of that. When they stay in their own fanfic threads I'm happy to ignore them
#133
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:49
Ithurael
-
- Members
- 3 191 messages
estebanus wrote...
You know I'm not an ITer, but I don't think it's stupid. The reason why so many people believe IT was probably because it fit into the game so well, and because it made sense.
And it - most importantly of all - gave them HOPE. Hope that there was something else greater down the road. Hope that shepard would get up from the dream and battle the reapers to the death.
However, that hope was shattered with EC and Chris Priestly's comment on no more post ending DLC primarily
#134
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:54
ATiBotka
-
- Members
- 1 008 messages
DonYourAviators wrote...
BioWare aren't that clever.
BioWare aren't that stupid.
#135
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:57
estebanus
-
- Members
- 5 987 messages
Then how about you ignore them if they annoy you so much? IT isn't fan fiction. It's a literary interpretation. If you truly think it is fan fiction, then you have no idea what fan fiction actually is.Mobius-Silent wrote...
estebanus wrote...
Poor you. Did the ITers hurt you?Mobius-Silent wrote...
"Believe"? There is nothing there to believe, I'm having a tough enough time with "tolerate"
I just prefer to discuss the _actual_ game world, and I.T.er's frequently get in the way of that. When they stay in their own fanfic threads I'm happy to ignore them
And like it or not, BioWare themselves said it is a valid interpretation, which means it's not fan fiction, as decreed by the word of "god." You may think it is, but it isn't.
#136
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:58
estebanus
-
- Members
- 5 987 messages
No, they're even more stupid than that, what with the current endings and all.ATiBotka wrote...
DonYourAviators wrote...
BioWare aren't that clever.
BioWare aren't that stupid.
#137
Posté 14 août 2012 - 12:59
estebanus
-
- Members
- 5 987 messages
Not really. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many supporters, I reckon.Ithurael wrote...
estebanus wrote...
You know I'm not an ITer, but I don't think it's stupid. The reason why so many people believe IT was probably because it fit into the game so well, and because it made sense.
And it - most importantly of all - gave them HOPE. Hope that there was something else greater down the road. Hope that shepard would get up from the dream and battle the reapers to the death.
However, that hope was shattered with EC and Chris Priestly's comment on no more post ending DLC primarily
#138
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:03
ZajoE38
-
- Members
- 667 messages
I don't understand, if you don't like ME3 why don't you go play another game? You are just trolling, crying on BSN making insults to Bioware. Why don't you drop it? Bioware rejected IT and you are not going to get it. There won't be IT in ME3. You behave like children. You should drop it and pull yourself together.
#139
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:07
The Heretic of Time
-
- Members
- 5 612 messages
estebanus wrote...
Not really. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many supporters, I reckon.
What gives you the idea that there are still many IT supporters? When I look in the IT thread, I only see about a dozen people frequently posting in the IT thread, and perhaps a couple of folks who support the IT but don't post in the IT thread that often. That gives you only a hand full of IT supporters. That's not exactly what I'd call "many".
#140
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:10
The Heretic of Time
-
- Members
- 5 612 messages
ZajoE38 wrote...
I don't understand, if you don't like ME3 why don't you go play another game? You are just trolling, crying on BSN making insults to Bioware. Why don't you drop it? Bioware rejected IT and you are not going to get it. There won't be IT in ME3. You behave like children. You should drop it and pull yourself together.
The last time I checked the IT supporters actually think BioWare is brilliant. I haven't seen them insulting BioWare or ME3 at all. They're actually quite calm, well-behaved and friendly people (with the exception of a certain Thane fan who thinks he's cool).
The people who insult BioWare are the people who realize how much of a rush-job ME3 really is.
The people who realize the plot in ME3 sucks, the writing in ME3 is crap and the endings of ME3 are ridiculous, those are the people who call BioWare out on their BS, or as you'd put it: they are the ones who "insult" BioWare.
Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 août 2012 - 01:14 .
#141
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:11
The Twilight God
-
- Members
- 3 083 messages
legion999 wrote...
Some game writing can be that deep. Not from Bioware though.
Intentional or unintentional, what was written was written. It doesn't make any more or less sense because you feel the writers aren't competent enough to have pulled it off intentionally. It would be like saying a particualrly stuning car design isn't stunning at all because the designer came up with it in 2 minutes by just hitting random buttons on the 3D modeling software.
#142
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:12
ZajoE38
-
- Members
- 667 messages
IT still has large fanbase, only the most obsessed are preaching fans are trolling on BSN, others are quiet blindly believing that one day IT will come true. Than we have people who simply didn't like how ME3 finished, but don't support IT. And there are some who don't support IT neither but liked the ending.
#143
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:18
ZajoE38
-
- Members
- 667 messages
They are simply obsessed with the idea. IT is damn good story and it is very thorough. But all their effor is in vein. IT will never be implemented into ME3. It has no future. They find ways how the IT could come true, but it won't. Why don't they just make do with the game we have. To me, the IT supporters are just waisting their time. And nerves. But I agree it must be very motivating "to work on a plan". But this plan has no future :/Heretic_Hanar wrote...
The last time I checked the IT supporters actually think BioWare is brilliant. I haven't seen them insulting BioWare or ME3 at all. The people who insult BioWare are the people who realize how much of a rush-job ME3 really is.
The people who realize the plot in ME3 sucks, the writing in ME3 is crap and the endings of ME3 are ridiculous, those are the people who call BioWare out on their BS, or as you'd put it: they are the ones who "insult" BioWare.
#144
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:21
Apocaleepse360
-
- Members
- 788 messages
Two reasons.
1) The Extended Cut was supposed to clarify everything. If IT even has a possibility of being true, then EC failed right from day one.
2) Because charging loyal fans extra money for the "true" ending, whether it be a new game altogether or premium DLC is not good plot writing, it's a disgusting business strategy that should not be praised or encouraged in any way whatsoever.
1) The Extended Cut was supposed to clarify everything. If IT even has a possibility of being true, then EC failed right from day one.
2) Because charging loyal fans extra money for the "true" ending, whether it be a new game altogether or premium DLC is not good plot writing, it's a disgusting business strategy that should not be praised or encouraged in any way whatsoever.
#145
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:23
Hannah Montana
-
- Members
- 642 messages
I don't know anyone who supports IT and thinks Bioware is brilliant.
Maybe in the early days when everything was uncertain but now Bioware has shown to be just bad and they did a bad job with the trilogy.
Indoctrination is the headcanon of many of us and we do not believe Bioware to be competent enough to reach our level of thought.
Maybe in the early days when everything was uncertain but now Bioware has shown to be just bad and they did a bad job with the trilogy.
Indoctrination is the headcanon of many of us and we do not believe Bioware to be competent enough to reach our level of thought.
Modifié par Hannah Montana, 14 août 2012 - 01:23 .
#146
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:23
AxStapleton
-
- Members
- 645 messages
ZajoE38 wrote...
They are simply obsessed with the idea. IT is damn good story and it is very thorough. But all their effor is in vein. IT will never be implemented into ME3. It has no future. They find ways how the IT could come true, but it won't. Why don't they just make do with the game we have. To me, the IT supporters are just waisting their time. And nerves. But I agree it must be very motivating "to work on a plan". But this plan has no future :/Heretic_Hanar wrote...
The last time I checked the IT supporters actually think BioWare is brilliant. I haven't seen them insulting BioWare or ME3 at all. The people who insult BioWare are the people who realize how much of a rush-job ME3 really is.
The people who realize the plot in ME3 sucks, the writing in ME3 is crap and the endings of ME3 are ridiculous, those are the people who call BioWare out on their BS, or as you'd put it: they are the ones who "insult" BioWare.
Sorry, there's no secret diabolocal plan we're concocting.
Just processing the information that is there and interpretting it differently to other people. We aren't just randomly spawning ideas on the spot.
Modifié par AxStapleton, 14 août 2012 - 02:00 .
#147
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:24
Headhunter128
-
- Members
- 11 messages
I have nothing against the IT theory and it's followers, but personally I am starting to see quite a lot of similarities between the IT followers and Cerberus.
The IT theory is an attempt to control how the game ends, an attempt dominate the Bioware version of the End game because they see no other way to come to terms with it.
Ironically, if anyone was be called "indoctrinated" among Mass Effect fans, it would be the IT followers and not those that disagree with it as I have seen several IT followers suggest.
The IT theory is an attempt to control how the game ends, an attempt dominate the Bioware version of the End game because they see no other way to come to terms with it.
Ironically, if anyone was be called "indoctrinated" among Mass Effect fans, it would be the IT followers and not those that disagree with it as I have seen several IT followers suggest.
Modifié par Headhunter128, 14 août 2012 - 01:33 .
#148
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:28
Sebby
-
- Members
- 11 989 messages
ATiBotka wrote...
DonYourAviators wrote...
BioWare aren't that clever.
BioWare aren't that stupid.
Oh yeah? Let's examine some examples of BW "brilliance" shall we?
- Making the second game in the trilogy about solving nonsensical daddy issues and fighting color coded filler bad guys instead of preparing for war against the Reapers.
- The death and ressurection of the protaganist within 10 minutes of the story as a cheap excuse to fast forward two years and get him to work with Cerberus. Absolutely no themes of mortality or transhumanism(Shepard became a cyborg) are explored in what's supposed to be a "science fiction" story(more like 1930s pulp schlock).
- How about humans being slurpeed into creating a space terminator because of "genetic diversity"? And what's with the design of it anyway? If it's meant to be the core of a reaper ship then what's with the eyes,beam cannon and arms? Completely nonsensical.
- Basing the whole story of the third around a complete unknown that nobody has a clue of how it works or what it does even right up to the end. Oh and lovely how it shows up right the noses of our heroes right when the reapers are inside the gates.
- Then there's turning a small group of 150 operatives into a galactic superpower that overshadows the main antagonist simply so we can have some human enemies to pew pew at.
#149
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:31
ZajoE38
-
- Members
- 667 messages
To me ME3 is not that bad... The abstract: Reapers came and we were in desperate situation. Prothean archives on mars were "the only way to stop them". So we took our chances and bought us some time to build it while realizing that there is no way we can defeat them conventionally. We built a crucible and we had to try fire it. It was that or die. According on how well it was built, it could fire in 3 different ways (if crafted bad enough it could even backfire - red ending with low EMS). Co we either destroyed our enemy, controlled the enemy, or coexist with the enemy. The end 
The armies that Shepard gathered were not supposed to fight Reapers, but to buy a time for our desperate plan. I don't see it that bad. Bioware put it very nicely and DLC Leviathan will give us closer look into Reaper politics.
The armies that Shepard gathered were not supposed to fight Reapers, but to buy a time for our desperate plan. I don't see it that bad. Bioware put it very nicely and DLC Leviathan will give us closer look into Reaper politics.
#150
Posté 14 août 2012 - 01:41
dreamgazer
-
- Members
- 15 765 messages
Seboist wrote...
Oh yeah? Let's examine some examples of BW "brilliance" shall we?
- Making the second game in the trilogy about solving nonsensical daddy issues and fighting color coded filler bad guys instead of preparing for war against the Reapers.
- The death and ressurection of the protaganist within 10 minutes of the story as a cheap excuse to fast forward two years and get him to work with Cerberus. Absolutely no themes of mortality or transhumanism(Shepard became a cyborg) are explored in what's supposed to be a "science fiction" story(more like 1930s pulp schlock).
- How about humans being slurpeed into creating a space terminator because of "genetic diversity"? And what's with the design of it anyway? If it's meant to be the core of a reaper ship then what's with the eyes,beam cannon and arms? Completely nonsensical.
- Basing the whole story of the third around a complete unknown that nobody has a clue of how it works or what it does even right up to the end. Oh and lovely how it shows up right the noses of our heroes right when the reapers are inside the gates.
- Then there's turning a small group of 150 operatives into a galactic superpower that overshadows the main antagonist simply so we can have some human enemies to pew pew at.
Ah, the opinions of a jaded BioWare detractor, who states them as if they're facts.
Thanks for educating us lowly folks once again, Seboist, and turning a blind eye to any and all alternate viewpoints on the matter.
