1388 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

I'm so damn sick of arguing about this crap. Why the hell can I not have an ending that doesn't drag things into this abyss for my damn space adventure? Why is that, huh?

If you're so sick of arguing, why are you always here arguing?

[clennon8]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

You know what else is annoying?  People who dismiss things without understanding them, then cry when their blanket statements are pointed out as incorrect because of their ignorance.

That's you, in case I was being too subtle.

You know what else is annoying? People who yell that "it is 2 deep 4 u" and "lolz u dont understand it" as soon as people dare to disagree with the IT, then cry when their Wild Mass Guessing theory is called out for what it is. What is even worse is that these people put themselves on a pedestal and think of themselves as such smart and intellectual people because they believe in a conspiracy theory, based on a video-game series no less.  Then they claim anyone who doesn't buy their theory is ignorant, dumb and short-sighted. That is to be expexted though, because that's common behavior for any type of conspiracy theorist. Us non-believers are always the blind and ignorant onces. 


I'm talking about you by the way, in case I was being too subtle.

At the very least, IT is a "valid interpretation of the ending," according to Bioware.  I happen to think it's the only interpretation of the ending that doesn't amount to a mind-boggling narrative collapse.  The thing I don't get about some of you folk is that what you're defending is something that can only be described as a godawful failure of storytelling.

Also, yes, we're talking about a videogame series, so the term "conspiracy theory" really doesn't have any place here.  That's more of a "real world" concept.

[Bill Casey]

Madecologist wrote...

(outside of IT, assuming everything I say doesn't involve IT), you have to believe the choices are real to make any of them. You can disbelieve and disagree with the Catalyst (I personally think it's bat sh** insane), heck you can even distrust it. But to believe that the endings (any endings) will happen as told without hindsight (or a belief in IT) one has to believe it speaks the truth about the choices. Otherwise you are stuck in a oh f*** moment.

Apology accepted and thank you for correcting your statement...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 décembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[The Heretic of Time]

clennon8 wrote...

Also, yes, we're talking about a videogame series, so the term "conspiracy theory" really doesn't have any place here.  That's more of a "real world" concept.

And  how exactly is the theory that the writers of Mass Effect are trying to play tricks on us, that they released an incomplete and rather mediocre ending, only to eventually release a DLC that reveals the almighty plottwist that is the IT, not part of the real world?

[The Heretic of Time]

Madecologist wrote...

Yet you Rifneno, feels compelled to insult me directly...

Don't be bothered by it. It's just a sign of weakness and/or a lack of intellect and/or social skills.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 22 décembre 2012 - 10:35 .

[clennon8]

First of all, the plot twist-revealing DLC that you're referring to isn't really part of the theory. Or at the very least it's an optional piece of the theory. Some IT'ists believe such a DLC will happen, some don't.

Second, if you think speculating about the intent of the writers in a game ending where they were specifically going for "Lots of speculation for everyone!" amounts to conspiracy theorizing, then we are ALL conspiracy theorists. So welcome to the club.

[Bill Casey]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Also, yes, we're talking about a videogame series, so the term "conspiracy theory" really doesn't have any place here.  That's more of a "real world" concept.

And  how exactly is the theory that the writers of Mass Effect are trying to play tricks on us, that they released an incomplete and rather mediocre ending, only to eventually release a DLC that reveals the almighty plottwist that is the IT, not part of the real world?

IT is essentially the same thing Spec Ops the Line did, but with the author refusing to confirm or deny it, opting instead for speculation and ambiguity...

www.ign.com/articles/2012/07/20/the-story-secrets-of-spec-ops-the-line

That said, Williams notes one last, vital visual trick. "Any time the game is doing a normal transition, it'll fade to black. Any time Walker is hallucinating, or lying to himself, in a kind of delusional fashion, the game will fade to white," he says. "The entire epilogue sequence where Walker goes home, it fades to white. Even if you are not reading that Walker died in the chopper crash, it is meant to be understood that Walker is hallucinating going home."

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 décembre 2012 - 10:43 .

[clennon8]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Madecologist wrote...

Yet you Rifneno, feels compelled to insult me directly...

Don't be bothered by it. It's just a sign of weakness and/or a lack of intellect and/or social skills.

Your words reek of condescension that can only be produced by immaturity and insecurity.

[The Heretic of Time]

clennon8 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Madecologist wrote...

Yet you Rifneno, feels compelled to insult me directly...

Don't be bothered by it. It's just a sign of weakness and/or a lack of intellect and/or social skills.

Your words reek of condescension that can only be produced by immaturity and insecurity.

Nope. My words reek of not taking that particular poster serious anymore because of his/her misplaced attitude.

[jtav]

If there's no DLC--no reveal--then IT joins a long and honorable tradition of fans essentially saying that "that didn't happen" when the franchise jumps the shark. But IT-ists don't say that. They say IT is objectively true and therefore fans shouldn't take a particular set of actions. IT also makes it impossible to have an argument on the merits of the endings, just as it would be impossible to debate me on Synthesis if I insisted that my headcanon of Shepard's survival was objectively true. IT is fixfic. But it isn't canon.

[The Heretic of Time]

clennon8 wrote...

First of all, the plot twist-revealing DLC that you're referring to isn't really part of the theory. Or at the very least it's an optional piece of the theory. Some IT'ists believe such a DLC will happen, some don't.

Second, if you think speculating about the intent of the writers in a game ending where they were specifically going for "Lots of speculation for everyone!" amounts to conspiracy theorizing, then we are ALL conspiracy theorists. So welcome to the club.

There is not much to speculate about. The endings are clear as day after the EC. Only before the EC did that line "lots of speculation for everyone" apply to the endings.

I take the endings for what they are. Everything beyond that is headcanon. Some people might headcanon that Shepard the Catalyst will f*ck up, but the EC epilogue slides give us no reason to believe that. Everything in the EC epilogue is fine. What happens afterwards is unknown. You can headcanon that Catalyst Shepard will screw up after the Control epilogue, that is your choice. Hell, you can even headcanon that Shepard will wake up and find out that the entire ending was all just a dream or an indoctrination attempt. If that is your headcanon, fine, that's is your choice, but again: I don't do headcanon and I couldn't care less about yours.

[UrgentArchengel]

The idea behind IT is that there is more then meets the eye when it comes to the ending. Of course IT states that Shepard fights against an Indoctrination attempt by Harby. If you think about it, this includes Leviathan, and other clues, there certainly is more going on then what you are initially shown.

[Bill Casey]

jtav wrote...

If there's no DLC--no reveal--then IT joins a long and honorable tradition of fans essentially saying that "that didn't happen" when the franchise jumps the shark. But IT-ists don't say that. They say IT is objectively true and therefore fans shouldn't take a particular set of actions. IT also makes it impossible to have an argument on the merits of the endings, just as it would be impossible to debate me on Synthesis if I insisted that my headcanon of Shepard's survival was objectively true. IT is fixfic. But it isn't canon.

I think this thread for the most part has been a solid discussion on the control ending in the face value theory...
And the ethics and practicality of absolute power, as well as enslaving or brainwashing your enemies (the reapers)...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 22 décembre 2012 - 11:10 .

[The Heretic of Time]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

 there certainly is more going on then what you are initially shown.

Certainly? Says you. I'm not convinced. Besides that, any speculation about anything beyond initially shown is headcanon by definition. And like I said, I don't do headcanon and I couldn't care less about yours (no offense).

[Steelcan]

IT makes a fine head canon, I use it in mine a little, but it is not the only answer to the endings. Its "Lots of speculation from everyone". IT will never be confirmed and it will never be fully debunked.

[The Heretic of Time]

Bill Casey wrote...

I think this thread for the most part has been a solid discussion on the control ending in the face value theory...
And the ethics and practicality of absolute power, as well as enslaving or brainwashing your enemies (the reapers)...

I disagree. All I see from the anti-Control people is tons of headcanon, while I try to discuss the Control ending solely based on the canon and what we see and know. This discussion really is going nowhere. I'd hardly call that a solid discussion.

[CosmicGnosis]

This thread has given me a lot to think about.

[clennon8]

No, Bill is right. It was a pretty solid discussion of Control ethics. And then someone mentioned IT, and people started flailing their arms and freaking out. Like always.

Modifié par clennon8, 22 décembre 2012 - 11:26 .

[The Night Mammoth]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

who should punish a crime against the society? the society itself or a higher being?

I don't see post-Control Shepard as distinct from society. Just a Spectre with a lot of firepower and a really big computer for a brain.

A Spectre with more firepower than the entirety of galactic civilization and no one to answer to. Spectres at least answer to the council under the knowledge that other spectres or governments can take them down if they go rogue, and they never have enough power to do that much damage, relatively speaking. Shepard going rogue could kill everyone, because there's no one to stop her. 

I get the analogy, but the scale is insanely skewed. 

Shepard going rogue has saved the galaxy two or three times so far. I find it difficult to see that becoming easier as a downside.

I never said it would become easier, just that the Shepalyst would be able to do whatever it wanted and no one would likely ever be able to stop it, and that whilst I understand the analogy, I think it is flawed. Like I said, Spectres are answerable to governments and other Spectres, Shelaplyst is answerable to no one but its own conscience and moral code. 

The consequences of that code or conscience compelling it to do something incredibly destructive will be far more severe than any Spectre. If something goes wrong, then it goes wrong in a big way.

That's not to say it's a likelihood, but I think it's a logical reason not to choose control. Enough of a risk for me to think twice and say no. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 22 décembre 2012 - 11:34 .

[UrgentArchengel]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

 there certainly is more going on then what you are initially shown.

Certainly? Says you. I'm not convinced. Besides that, any speculation about anything beyond initially shown is headcanon by definition. And like I said, I don't do headcanon and I couldn't care less about yours (no offense).

By there is more going on, I don't exclusively mean IT.  I've, at this point, excluded IT from my canon.  But, since your 100% no Headcannon, you should be able to see how the final decision may not be a physical encounter, considering your conversation with the Leviathan, and how the Intellegence looks like that kid.  None of that is Headcannon, unless you don't play Leviathan.  Either way, yes, IT may be valid, but it's definitely not intended.  Oh, and no offense taken.

Modifié par UrgentArchengel, 22 décembre 2012 - 11:31 .

[Steelcan]

No more IT in this thread, move it to the IT discussion

[clennon8]

Yes, yes, go back to that one and only thread where you're allowed to mention IT, IT'ists. And don't try to create any new threads to talk about any aspects of IT.

[cyrexwingblade]

The game is clear that attempts at indoctrinating Shepard are being made. The endings also make it clear (in terms of literary structure and function) that Shepard isn't indoctrinated in any of the three (four) endings.

In game terms, the black aura around Shepard during the confrontation with TIM is the most direct indication of indoctrination. The dream sequences also point to it from a subtler view. James' comments about the hum definitely indicate attempts as well. The actual endings, however, outright blow it out of the water.

Unless you are saying the endings are *lies*, there is no IT going on. And if the endings are lies, you can blow off the entire thing.

[Rifneno]

clennon8 wrote...

No, Bill is right. It was a pretty solid discussion of Control ethics. And then someone mentioned IT, and people started flailing their arms and freaking out. Like always.

Sad, no?

[Madecologist]

Actually one of my Paragon Shepards did choose Control.

As I mentioned before my Renegade Sheps have no qualms about killing EDI or the Geth, becoming the Reaper God-Emperor is tempting as all hell... but Destory is just a no-brainer for him. He doesn't consider Synthesis because it is to 'esoteric and weird' to him.

Now I had three different Paragon Shep, one of them went with the Control. Basically all three have hte same delimna, Synthesis might seem ideal but it imposes a new paradigm on all life... just like that. Heck they don't even know it is coming till you do it. That doesn't sit well with any of them. Control is less about distrusting the Catalyst and more about distrusting themselves, they don't want to take the risk of becoming the next Catalyst. While Destroy kills off EDI and the Geth... so implications... uncomfortable.

Obviously one of my Paragon Shepard decided that like he is unable to impose a new paradigm on the Galaxy, he can't commit genocide on the Geth. So he felt despite he doesn't trust himself he can only hope his ideals will survive for a long time after he makes the choice and took control.

Modifié par Madecologist, 22 décembre 2012 - 11:50 .