77 réponses à ce sujet

[clennon8]

@jtav:  If you're right and it really is just the worst writing I've ever seen (at least in relation to my expectations) then the whole damn franchise deserves to burn to the ground, garnering absolutely no more attention.

However, the EC epilogues certainly do not debunk IT. They're narrated almost entirely in the future tense.  We will do this, we will do that, blah blah blah.

The EC had one purpose.  To mollify a vitriolic, outraged fanbase so that Bioware could proceed with their planned DLC cycle.  As for what's to come, I don't know.

Modifié par clennon8, 16 novembre 2012 - 07:11 .

[griot13]

I don't think Shepard going to magically wake up like the IT suggest, But I do think something is funny/Indoctrinated...
Point-1 Why is the Catalyst in the form of the little boy?
Point-2 Why and how is Shepard alive?
Point-3 They aren't really going to end the Mass Effect Trilogy on a picture montage with EC are they?

[BatmanTurian]

Seifer006 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Seifer006 wrote...

Yate wrote...

sure it was a cool idea at the time, but it's been confirmed false and the endings were fixed

shut up about it now

good question. I think the IT thread is Mark'd 3 now.................wtf???<_<

*sigh*

watever

I know. Heaven forbid people discuss things you disagree with. It's awful. <_<

right

Just sayin', some ask why people are discussing the story on a story discussion board. The name of the board answers your question.

[BatmanTurian]

griot13 wrote...

I don't think Shepard going to magically wake up like the IT suggest, But I do think something is funny/Indoctrinated...
Point-1 Why is the Catalyst in the form of the little boy?
Point-2 Why and how is Shepard alive?
Point-3 They aren't really going to end the Mass Effect Trilogy on a picture montage with EC are they?

Oooo careful. That's dangerous thinkin' on BSN. Better to put your head in the sand and ignore that stuff apparently.

[Yesmar]

griot13 wrote...

I don't think Shepard going to magically wake up like the IT suggest, But I do think something is funny/Indoctrinated...
Point-1 Why is the Catalyst in the form of the little boy?
Point-2 Why and how is Shepard alive?
Point-3 They aren't really going to end the Mass Effect Trilogy on a picture montage with EC are they?

1) Shepard see's little boys in his dreams
2 )Magic
3) Well they tried it without a picture montage first.

[clennon8]

As for this fabled "wake up" DLC. That isn't really part of IT. Some IT'ists think it will happen. Some don't. Some don't even think there's anything to "wake up" from, i.e. Deception Theory.

[Applepie_Svk]

Yesmar wrote...

griot13 wrote...

I don't think Shepard going to magically wake up like the IT suggest, But I do think something is funny/Indoctrinated...
Point-1 Why is the Catalyst in the form of the little boy?
Point-2 Why and how is Shepard alive?
Point-3 They aren't really going to end the Mass Effect Trilogy on a picture montage with EC are they?

1) Shepard see's little boys in his dreams
2 )Magic
3) Well they tried it without a picture montage first.

1.

... We´ll find anoter way, Shepard...

[BatmanTurian]

clennon8 wrote...

As for this fabled "wake up" DLC. That isn't really part of IT. Some IT'ists think it will happen. Some don't. Some don't even think there's anything to "wake up" from, i.e. Deception Theory.

Yes. IT is not a monolith. In fact, several different parts of the competing theories could be collectively correct .

[griot13]

Yesmar wrote...

griot13 wrote...

I don't think Shepard going to magically wake up like the IT suggest, But I do think something is funny/Indoctrinated...
Point-1 Why is the Catalyst in the form of the little boy?
Point-2 Why and how is Shepard alive?
Point-3 They aren't really going to end the Mass Effect Trilogy on a picture montage with EC are they?

1) Shepard see's little boys in his dreams
2 )Magic
3) Well they tried it without a picture montage first.

Darn how did I forget about the Space Magic and Shepard's fetish with little boys....Lol 

[Eryri]

jtav wrote...

The EC epilogues do debunk IT. They're third-person omniscient, for lack of a better term, addressed to the player.

I don't mean to be confrontational, but I do disagree with this. Neither Edi nor Hackett are "omniscient" narrators, and I don't believe that the AI copy of Shepard would be either. They are all characters within the setting, expressing their hopes and plans for the future - which could be argued are Shepard's hopes for the future, since they largely show a peaceful or even utopian galaxy

So you would have to believe BW would spend precious resources in order to fool the fanbase at a time when they were desperately trying to recapture fan goodwill.

You've just answered your own question. The EC reclaimed enough goodwill from the fanbase to enable Bioware to sell Leviathan, and perhaps Omega. I doubt a bunch of static slides really cost EA a lot of overtime pay to produce.

And then release the real ending at a point when 90% of players no longer care.

Arrival came out over a year after ME2. Don't underestimate the loyalty of ME's fanbase. Many people would be more likely to be interested in DLC after having a break from the franchise, when they're less bored with the gameplay and feel like picking up an ME game again for a while. And, like Arrival, it would whet our appetites for the next game in the series, which is already being planned.

Simple bad writing is far more likeky given how terrible the writing in the game is generally.

Then I'm forced to ask why you are still here in the story forum if you think that ME3 can be written off as shoddy storytelling and is best forgotten? Again my apologies if this seems confrontational, it's not intended to be. I'm merely curious why some people object so strongly to an interpretation of a game.

Modifié par Eryri, 16 novembre 2012 - 07:34 .

[jtav]

1. Because Shepard's mind interprets him in that form, as with Leviathan.
2. The same way the ME2 squad is immune to vacuum.
3. Yep.

And IT requires some sort of reveal. Shifting into fanfic writer mode, it's the sort of thing I would use to start an AU. "What you thought you saw isn't what happened." Without a followup "here's what did" the story is incomplete. Truthfully, I could use Shepard hitting his head after the beam nearly hits him in the prologue to dismiss the whole game as a dream. I would be *delighted* to do that. ME3 offends both my artistic and moral sensibilities frequently. Favorite characters are dead or mangled. Priority: Earth is crap. I'd love to wipe the whole thing away, but it leaves me short a conclusion.

[clennon8]

Literalists object to IT'ists stating their interpretation "as fact." It causes cognitive dissonance when they state their own interpretations as fact.

[clennon8]

So... IT requires some kind of reveal. What is IT without a reveal? Bad writing? Which kinds of "bad writing" are we allowed to accuse Bioware of?

[BatmanTurian]

clennon8 wrote...

Literalists object to IT'ists stating their interpretation "as fact." It causes cognitive dissonance when they state their own interpretations as fact.

Exactly.

[jtav]

clennon8 wrote...

So... IT requires some kind of reveal. What is IT without a reveal? Bad writing? Which kinds of "bad writing" are we allowed to accuse Bioware of?

Needlessly complex bad writing that contradicts several things found in the script.

And a literalist doesn't say Destroy and Refuse lead to villain victories. That is what's so offensive about IT. It seeks to ruin other's games.

[BatmanTurian]

jtav wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

So... IT requires some kind of reveal. What is IT without a reveal? Bad writing? Which kinds of "bad writing" are we allowed to accuse Bioware of?

Needlessly complex bad writing that contradicts several things found in the script.

And a literalist doesn't say Destroy and Refuse lead to villain victories. That is what's so offensive about IT. It seeks to ruin other's games.

It only ruins your game if you already have doubt and you actually believe Bioware is going to implement it, which again shows how insecure and paranoid you are.

[griot13]

jtav wrote...

1. Because Shepard's mind interprets him in that form, as with Leviathan.
2. The same way the ME2 squad is immune to vacuum.
3. Yep.

And IT requires some sort of reveal. Shifting into fanfic writer mode, it's the sort of thing I would use to start an AU. "What you thought you saw isn't what happened." Without a followup "here's what did" the story is incomplete. Truthfully, I could use Shepard hitting his head after the beam nearly hits him in the prologue to dismiss the whole game as a dream. I would be *delighted* to do that. ME3 offends both my artistic and moral sensibilities frequently. Favorite characters are dead or mangled. Priority: Earth is crap. I'd love to wipe the whole thing away, but it leaves me short a conclusion.

1. That dosen't make since, and using that logic that proves Shepards Indoctrinated because the Leviathans were controlling Shepard and using familiar faces to talk to him..
2. Uh what about the gaint explosion?
3. Yep

What I want is bioware to just come out and explain the endings, instead of leaving us a cliff hangar.. Talking about Interpert..WTF

[clennon8]

jtav wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

So... IT requires some kind of reveal. What is IT without a reveal? Bad writing? Which kinds of "bad writing" are we allowed to accuse Bioware of?

Needlessly complex bad writing that contradicts several things found in the script.

And a literalist doesn't say Destroy and Refuse lead to villain victories. That is what's so offensive about IT. It seeks to ruin other's games.

So only interpretations that allow every choice to be a winning choice are allowed to be discussed?  I'm having a hard time keeping up with all your rules. 

[LucasShark]

"A good lie is easier to buy than the truth"

[M Hedonist]

Yate wrote...

shut up about it now

Yate, as always, brings fresh and interesting arguments to the debate. Bravo! *claps slowly*

[GreyLycanTrope]

jtav wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

So... IT requires some kind of reveal. What is IT without a reveal? Bad writing? Which kinds of "bad writing" are we allowed to accuse Bioware of?

Needlessly complex bad writing that contradicts several things found in the script.

And a literalist doesn't say Destroy and Refuse lead to villain victories. That is what's so offensive about IT. It seeks to ruin other's games.

I say all endings support the villian's ideology in some way, so I guess it depends on what you mean by victory.

[KingZayd]

jtav wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

So... IT requires some kind of reveal. What is IT without a reveal? Bad writing? Which kinds of "bad writing" are we allowed to accuse Bioware of?

Needlessly complex bad writing that contradicts several things found in the script.

And a literalist doesn't say Destroy and Refuse lead to villain victories. That is what's so offensive about IT. It seeks to ruin other's games.

Even when I believed in a form of IT, (I don't now, I just think really bad writing) I never believed that of the choices (Refuse didn't exist) led to villain victories. Shepard is NOT the only competent person in the galaxy.

[BatmanTurian]

Greylycantrope wrote...

jtav wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

So... IT requires some kind of reveal. What is IT without a reveal? Bad writing? Which kinds of "bad writing" are we allowed to accuse Bioware of?

Needlessly complex bad writing that contradicts several things found in the script.

And a literalist doesn't say Destroy and Refuse lead to villain victories. That is what's so offensive about IT. It seeks to ruin other's games.

I say all endings support the villian's ideology in some way, so I guess it depends on what you mean by victory.

You make an interesting point.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 16 novembre 2012 - 07:50 .

[Ithurael]

IT is a valid way to interpret the endings OP.

Just deal with in a move on. Or you can get to actually LEARN about the theories (yes theories as there are different variants) and what they entail. Some say shep will wake up, others say shep is already awake, some say the starkid is just a projection trying to trick you, etc

Some interpretations leave the central conflict unresolved, others follow through with the endings completely.

Regardless though, all interpretations of the endings (IT or Literal) all end at the breath scene.

If you cannot respect another person's opinion to let them believe what they want then I would suggest leaving...

[Sonashi]

jtav wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

So... IT requires some kind of reveal. What is IT without a reveal? Bad writing? Which kinds of "bad writing" are we allowed to accuse Bioware of?

Needlessly complex bad writing that contradicts several things found in the script.

And a literalist doesn't say Destroy and Refuse lead to villain victories. That is what's so offensive about IT. It seeks to ruin other's games.

Would it ruin the game for you? You could still ignore it, pretend that it never existed. Hey, it would be like any other dlc so what's the problem? Nobody would force you to accept it. I don't understand why people pick on ITers so much.