432 réponses à ce sujet

[Sejborg]

Point 1-13 are incorrect.

[DirtyPhoenix]

kookie28 wrote...

Dude. Let go.

[Kabooooom]

IT seems the only escape route if they really want to do a sequel.

I would go so far as to say it would have been their escape route pre-EC, in which they could have feigned brilliance. But that's not the route they took. EC was free, ME4 won't be. If they go that route, it will alienate a massive number of fans. It would be worse than day one DLC in the pissing people off department.

No it really doesn't.  That's like saying a film with a hidden meaning,
or illusory scenes, needs the makers to come out and explain the hidden
meaning, or tell everybody that certain scenes were imaginary.

Except not. This is a false equivalency - saying that there is active deception in the game, and that there are a number of things that point to that deception, is not the same thing as saying that a scene in a movie/book is illusory, metaphorical, archetypal or of deeper meaning. There are a number of thing in the Mass Effect trilogy that could be legitimately argued to contain deeper meaning. The latter is a literary discussion, the former requires evidence of deception or it is rendered completely irrelevant since the entirety of its premise rests on the presumption of deception.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 26 novembre 2012 - 06:35 .

[XxBrokenBonezxX]

Linkenski wrote...

Think about it. How could bioware continue this warstory about the reaper war? We are already at earth, and shepard lost so many friends, and i don't see how ME4 isn't going to suck if it's a continuation of ME3's story. Sorry, but this theory is BS. It won't happen and i can assure you and everyone else believing this of that.

People are thinking about it, 8 months after the game came out. You think about it, if the IT wasn't so blatantly obvious then why would so many people believe it? And don't tell me what the mods are saying, because they've been known to lie, or mislead, many times before in similar cases. 

And ME4 will suck regardless of whether they continue the Reaper War. Because unless they fix this horrific atrocity of an ending we got, any prequel, sequel, or even a midquel will just be redundant and irrelevant.

[Ithurael]

McAllyster wrote...

This theory could be true - but not because Bioware planned IT.

IT seems the only escape route if they really want to do a sequel. I've only hope - Casey and the other folks are clever people... maybe they just need time to realize the flaws of their beloved endings.

Time will tell.

I think time has told lol.

Shep isn't going to be in ME4 (believe that or not I don't care) and the endings are the endings.

Though I doubt we will ever get a post breath scene dlc (I would really REALLY like one) we can only wait until the end of the DLC cycle.

OP, I can only hope that at the end of the DLC cycle (if they do not add an IT reveal) that you move on. No sense in waiting and hoping further for ME4 to be the IT reveal.

[Davik Kang]

Kabooooom wrote...
Except not. This is a false equivalency - saying that there is active deception in the game, and that there are a number of things that point to that deception, is not the same thing as saying that a scene in a movie/book is illusory, metaphorical, archetypal or of deeper meaning. There are a number of thing in the Mass Effect trilogy that could be legitimately argued to contain deeper meaning. The latter is a literary discussion, the former requires evidence of deception or it is rendered completely irrelevant since the entirety of its premise rests on the presumption of deception.

If a game has elements that are taken at face value but actually aren't really happening, how exactly is that different from a film doing the same thing?  Why does one require evidence and the other not?  How is one simply a discussion and the other something entirely different?

Modifié par Davik Kang, 26 novembre 2012 - 06:40 .

[Heimdall]

Davik Kang wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...
Except not. This is a false equivalency - saying that there is active deception in the game, and that there are a number of things that point to that deception, is not the same thing as saying that a scene in a movie/book is illusory, metaphorical, archetypal or of deeper meaning. There are a number of thing in the Mass Effect trilogy that could be legitimately argued to contain deeper meaning. The latter is a literary discussion, the former requires evidence of deception or it is rendered completely irrelevant since the entirety of its premise rests on the presumption of deception.

If a game has elements that are taken at face value but actually aren't really happening, how exactly is that different from a film doing the same thing?  Why does one require evidence and the other not?  How is one simply a discussion and the other something entirely different?

One is a metaphysical discussion, the events taken at face value do happen but the meaning of those events is up in the air.  The other is saying that an event actually never occurred, which requires some proof.

[Heimdall]

While I haven't ruled out a complete revamp of Priority: Earth for DLC, I have to say that I think just about every one of your points is incorrect OP, along with IT theory.

I think that there WAS an indoctrination plot at one point but it got scrapped. Much of what IT theorists detect is a mix of wishful thinking and the skeletal remains of that plot.

[Ithurael]

Lord Aesir wrote...

While I haven't ruled out a complete revamp of Priority: Earth for DLC, I have to say that I think just about every one of your points is incorrect OP, along with IT theory.

I think that there WAS an indoctrination plot at one point but it got scrapped. Much of what IT theorists detect is a mix of wishful thinking and the skeletal remains of that plot.

Well, at face value, there WAS an indoctrination session of sorts between TIM and Anderson. All of that fits in well with the codex (oily shadows, reaper noises, etc) but in the end shep kills TIM. Even the soundtrack for that scene was called "Indoctrinated".

So yes, there was a scene where shepard would 'loose control' and the enemy would attempt to indoctrinate him. That scene was a the TIM/Anderson scene.

[dorktainian]

what if the leviathans projected a false image of themselves into sheps head?

If there is only the harvest, do the reapers have a festival to celebrate it?

[Davik Kang]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...
Except not. This is a false equivalency - saying that there is active deception in the game, and that there are a number of things that point to that deception, is not the same thing as saying that a scene in a movie/book is illusory, metaphorical, archetypal or of deeper meaning. There are a number of thing in the Mass Effect trilogy that could be legitimately argued to contain deeper meaning. The latter is a literary discussion, the former requires evidence of deception or it is rendered completely irrelevant since the entirety of its premise rests on the presumption of deception.

If a game has elements that are taken at face value but actually aren't really happening, how exactly is that different from a film doing the same thing?  Why does one require evidence and the other not?  How is one simply a discussion and the other something entirely different?

One is a metaphysical discussion, the events taken at face value do happen but the meaning of those events is up in the air.  The other is saying that an event actually never occurred, which requires some proof.

No, sometimes in a film something appears to happen but in fact doesn't happen, in the film universe itself.  When I say 'hidden meaning' I mean how the on-screen events capture what really happened in its place.

In Mulholland Drive, do you think everything we see on screen "does happen"?  Do we need David Lynch to come out and say "no, these things were illusory" to 'prove' what really happened?  Maybe we could just watch the film again?

[Ithurael]

Lord Aesir wrote...

One is a metaphysical discussion, the events taken at face value do happen but the meaning of those events is up in the air.  The other is saying that an event actually never occurred, which requires some proof.

Look at the new Twilight movie!

The entire final battle where everyone died was really just a hallucination of a possible future shown to the main antagonist.

I think Twilight adopted IT!

[Ithurael]

SwobyJ wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

One is a metaphysical discussion, the events taken at face value do happen but the meaning of those events is up in the air.  The other is saying that an event actually never occurred, which requires some proof.

Look at the new Twilight movie!

The entire final battle where everyone died was really just a hallucination of a possible future shown to the main antagonist.

I think Twilight adopted IT!

Does this prove TT? (Twilight Theory)

More like Twilight Indoctrination Theory

******

*giggity...

[spotlessvoid]

Oh look. Another synthesis fanatic who hates IT because it would derail their fantasy of some deranged cybernetic utopia.

[Fixers0]

Dream along.

[vonSlash]

If Bioware was a nonprofit organization making games for fun, I'd say that you're onto something. However, they're a for-profit corporation making games to enrich themselves, and therefore they want to ensure that fans keep buying their games well into the future. Pissing off a decent chunk of those fans by telling them that not only did their decision for the ending not actually happen, but that they're nothing more than indoctrinated fools for picking it won't exactly encourage those players to buy the next game (not to mention all the players who picked Destroy but didn't pick up on these clues, i.e. virtually everyone else who played the game, would be confused and disappointed when Mass Effect 4 launched), and even if Bioware was willing to risk alienating that many players, EA wouldn't let them.

TL;DR: It'd be a bad business move to try to pull a prank of this scale on on your fans if you plan on continuing to make games, and Bioware/EA isn't going to risk losing a non-negligible amount of customers just to make a joke.

[spotlessvoid]

Your decision DOES happen!!!

Shepard fails by getting indoctrinated.

And maybe they didn't expect SO many people not to get it.

[Heimdall]

Davik Kang wrote...
No, sometimes in a film something appears to happen but in fact doesn't happen, in the film universe itself.  When I say 'hidden meaning' I mean how the on-screen events capture what really happened in its place.

In Mulholland Drive, do you think everything we see on screen "does happen"?  Do we need David Lynch to come out and say "no, these things were illusory" to 'prove' what really happened?  Maybe we could just watch the film again?

That's a different subject to what I was referring to.  However in the cases you suggest such contradictions between actual events and portrayed events are blatantly shown or at least hinted at.  That is to say that there is proof of contradiction.

IT theory on the other hand tends to rely on sketchy evidence based on the underlying assumption that deception is taking place.  Many of us find this insufficient.

[Yesmar]

Wanna place a bet on that OP?
How about we come to an arrangement?