739 réponses à ce sujet

[ElSuperGecko]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Sure it does. Ambiguity isn't a cover for STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN.  STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN STRAWMAN.

Sorry Dean, I missed most of that.  Too much hay in the way.  Have you never heard of the phrase debate the post, not the poster"?

[Deathsaurer]

There is nothing in the narrative that says Shepard can't be indoctrinated Dean. Does that automatically equal the endings being an illusion? No... and there are variations of IT that account for that possibility. Is there the possibility that it is an illusion? Abso-freaking-lutely! Both the derelict Reaper and Leviathan show this is a possibility. Does this mean I like and/or follow IT? Nope. Does that mean I can't be respectful of people that do? I can't imagine any reason that would be the case.

Sure I think some of it probably goes too far. That happens with everything. Doesn't mean insulting and mocking is the way to go.

[Dean_the_Young]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Sure it does. Ambiguity isn't a cover for STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN.  STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN STRAWMAN.

Sorry Dean, I missed most of that.  Too much hay in the way.  Have you never heard of the phrase debate the post, not the poster"?

Certainly. Hence why I didn't assign him a position. I made a point that the narrative tool of ambiguity is only applicable to the context of the ambiguity, not all-encompassing.

Might want to pull your head out of whatever your munching on, cause it certainly ain't hay.

[OdanUrr]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ambiguity isn't a cover for all-encompassing insanity. The speculation space provided is within the scope of the narrative and context of the potential canon states- it isn't a justification for out-of-scope absurd for the endings, any more than it was for any of the other ambiguous choices in the series.

^ This.

[Deathsaurer]

I personally think watching someone elses insanity can be entertaining. So long as they aren't trying to force me to believe it.

[Dean_the_Young]

StreetMagic wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

That doesn't fly when the catch phrase for the endings is speculation for everyone.

Exactly. I may not like some theories, but other players shouldn't be forced to "obey" other players in this matter. It seems like people want IT'ers to literally get on their knees and start sucking dicks. It isn't cool, when we're all peers here and in the same boat.

That's, uh, an interesting analogy. A bit missing the point, but interesting.

Personally I suspect most people's views towards IT'ers are 'just accept that it's not real, and have fun knowing that rather than insisting that it is.' How that's comparable to wanting crazy fellatio, no idea.

It is like fellatio. You seem to want to control and dictate a lot of roleplaying possibilties for people, in every thread I've seen you in at least. Which isn't much, but you did it to me the other day when discussing "romance" in the games, and I've seen you do it with what origin/psyche profiles fit best for "Spectres". The way you engage people always revolves around what you think is right for everyone.

You're probably confusing me for someone else- I express my views on the relative merit of various positions and frequently challenge other people's justifications, but that's because I find challenging people's arguments to be the fun of a forum. I've never demanded that all people must agree with me or they suck/are immorral/idiots, nor have I ever advocated that narrative choices I dislike be removed from the medium or factions I dislike be barred from future games.

If you find unapologetic personal opinion and a tendency towards contrarianism to be a desire to 'control and dictate'... well, I can't help you. I can suggest you read more of my posts and opinions, and ask questions when you don't understand a position of mine, but the rest is on you.

[CronoDragoon]

I find IT enjoyable in the same way I find "Room 237" or 30-minute documentaries about ghosts showing up in pictures enjoyable.

But there's one significant difference between Room 237-type interpretations and IT, which is that BioWare has already acknowledged that it had planned an indoctrination segment in ME3 and scrapped it. There, in writing, should be the demise of IT as a "valid" theory. It was not intended in the final product. Now did Kubrick ever "intend" the crazy Shining interpretations? I really doubt it, but that's different from knowing the answer is no.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 05 décembre 2013 - 05:53 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Deathsaurer wrote...

There is nothing in the narrative that says Shepard can't be indoctrinated Dean. Does that automatically equal the endings being an illusion? No... and there are variations of IT that account for that possibility. Is there the possibility that it is an illusion? Abso-freaking-lutely! Both the derelict Reaper and Leviathan show this is a possibility. Does this mean I like and/or follow IT? Nope. Does that mean I can't be respectful of people that do? I can't imagine any reason that would be the case.

The fact that there is a potential in the lore to be indoctrinated or suffer hallucinations doesn't relate to whether the narrative actually included those ideas. It didn't- that's really as simple as it gets. The writers didn't include the dream sequences as hallucinations or evidence of indoctrination, but a representation of Shepard's stress and guilt. Shepard's hazy and uneven perspective after Harbinger's laser is a representation of how hurt and exhausted he/she is, not under foreign influence. The Catalyst isn't lying about what the Crucible does. These are all things with the mundane explanation brought up not only in game, but also addressed on the metalevel by the devs at various points.

The mainstay IT theories, and most of their offspring, are attempts to tell a different story than what was being told. That's perfectly fine- I do it myself, including an excellent Shepard-was-always-a-Cerberus-agent playthrough that was a lot of fun. The key is to not confuse your substitution for the story with the story itself.

Sure I think some of it probably goes too far. That happens with everything. Doesn't mean insulting and mocking is the way to go.

When people go too far and start conflating their own headcanon with canon despite months of attempted reason, mockery is an excellent way to bring them down to earth. It's non-violent, an excellent way to communicate their absurdity, and a wonderful test of their own resolve and ability in their position.

[ElSuperGecko]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Certainly. Hence why I didn't assign him a position. I made a point that the narrative tool of ambiguity is only applicable to the context of the ambiguity, not all-encompassing.

No, you attempted to make a point by arbitrarily attacking the position of an entire group of individual posters who prefer to speculate and discuss the story in-depth rather than simply take it at face value, based solely on your own (distorted) perception of that position and attributing it to the group as a whole.

That's not "unapologetic and contrarian", that's fallacious and contrived.

[Dean_the_Young]

StreetMagic wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

That doesn't fly when the catch phrase for the endings is speculation for everyone.

Sure it does. Ambiguity isn't a cover for all-encompassing insanity. The speculation space provided is within the scope of the narrative and context of the potential canon states- it isn't a justification for out-of-scope absurd for the endings, any more than it was for any of the other ambiguous choices in the series.


People who cling to the idea that speculation for everyone means every speculation is fair game are the same sort of silly people who insist that because it's 'their Shepard' that means the game is obligated to give them whatever dialogue they want and react as they wanted the story to go... even though the franchise and CRPGs as a medium never have. It's willfull denial and absurdity.

I'm not silly. I don't even believe in IT. Or anything else, necessarily. I'm an outsider to this whole argument. I don't know what to think of the endings myself.. until I see the next game. I just take the "speculations" idea at face value. I didn't say it. Mac did. You don't need to psychoanalyze me and make it any more than that.

I didn't say you were silly, or that you believe in IT, or anything else. None of what you quoted was using you as a reference at all.

Your belief that you were being psychoanalyzed in a post that made no argument based on or about you is silly, or at least self-centric, but it was really just a post addressing your misuse of a quote.

[Deathsaurer]

Mockery doesn't prove you right, it just makes you look like an ass. I simply do not approve of such behavior and see no value in exacerbating the toxic nature of this forum.

[Dean_the_Young]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Certainly. Hence why I didn't assign him a position. I made a point that the narrative tool of ambiguity is only applicable to the context of the ambiguity, not all-encompassing.

No, you attempted to make a point by arbitrarily attacking the position of an entire group of individual posters who prefer to speculate and discuss the story in-depth rather than simply take it at face value, based solely on your own (distorted) perception of that position and attributing it to the group as a whole.

That's not "unapologetic and contrarian", that's fallacious and contrived.

It would be fallacious and contrived if I ws making the argument you claim I was making... but I wasn't.

The first paragraph addressed that 'speculation for everyone' is not a cover-all for all speculation, and using it as such ignores the scope and context that the intended speculation is for. No one or group was cited, because no group was needed to be- the argument rested on how a quote could be misapplied. The second paragraph did make reference to another group in the context of making an analogy of unreasonable exageration from context between the first group (those who use 'speculation' as a cover-all) and another established group (those who claim the 'your Shepard' implied things that were never implied). Both are examples of the mis-use of developer comments to justify positions the developers were not justifying.

[Dean_the_Young]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Mockery doesn't prove you right, it just makes you look like an ass. I simply do not approve of such behavior and see no value in exacerbating the toxic nature of this forum.

I'm not using mockery to prove myself right, and I really don't care if you see me as an ass or not. You've done nothing to earn the sort of respect that would lead me to defer to your preferences or seek your approval, and I'm not exactly convinced by your perspective either. So... disagree to disagree?

[Shepard108278]

I don't believe in the IT and believe that the ending especially after EC is fine but there are alot out there that believe I don't know why as I think it an MEHEM are stupid and I would love if the denied it but it would be a disaster for the fanbase however if ME4 or whatever it will be called takes place after ME 3 they will have to deny it. Because for one IT is fan speculation only the ending clearly shows it isn't true and B they have to make something cannon in that case including an ending. Which is why IMO it should be a prequel.

[ElSuperGecko]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
It would be fallacious and contrived if I ws making the argument you claim I was making... but I wasn't.

Fair enough.  I apologize.  However, it is a good example of how use of imflammatory and provocative use of language can lead to misunderstandings and a toxic atmosphere on the board, as Deathsaurar rightly pointed out.

So let's move on:

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The fact that there is a potential in the lore to be indoctrinated or suffer hallucinations doesn't relate to whether the narrative actually included those ideas.

No, it doesn't - but it allows us scope and context to pursue those ideas, especially in a story which is deliberately left open to interpretation.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
. It didn't- that's really as simple as it gets.

Fact or opinion?

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The writers didn't include the dream sequences as hallucinations or evidence of indoctrination, but a representation of Shepard's stress and guilt.

Fact or interpretation?

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Shepard's hazy and uneven perspective after Harbinger's laser is a representation of how hurt and exhausted he/she is, not under foreign influence.

Fact or interpretation?

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Catalyst isn't lying about what the Crucible does.

Fact or opinion?  And also irrelevant - we have gained enough perspective on the Catalyst through it's own prior actions and the fact that it is following it's own agenda to pause for fhought when considering it's words, regardless of whether we believe it is lying to us or not.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
These are all things with the mundane explanation brought up not only in game, but also addressed on the metalevel by the devs at various points.

It's one thing to present a statement as a known and uundeniable fact, it's another to prove it (as most IT'ers are or should be only too well aware of).  Proof is scarce in ME3 either way - again, because story was left open to interpretation and speculation was actively encouraged.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 05 décembre 2013 - 06:34 .

[AlanC9]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Mockery doesn't prove you right, it just makes you look like an ass. I simply do not approve of such behavior and see no value in exacerbating the toxic nature of this forum.

What's wrong with mockery? If a position can be mocked, it deserves to be.

[CronoDragoon]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Catalyst isn't lying about what the Crucible does.

Fact or opinion?

Fact actually, given the EC slides.

[Deathsaurer]

AlanC9 wrote...

What's wrong with mockery? If a position can be mocked, it deserves to be.

I'll remember that if I ever see you saying something stupid.

[CronoDragoon]

Deathsaurer wrote...

I'll remember that if I ever see you saying something stupid.

Now you're catching on!

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

It's one thing to present a statement as a known and uundeniable fact, it's another to prove it (as most IT'ers are or should be only too well aware of).  Proof is scarce in ME3 either way - again, because story was left open to interpretation and speculation was actively encouraged.

This is that old postmodernist all-interpretations-are-valid move, right? There's no real MEU in the first place, so any coherent interpretation is just fine.

[AlanC9]

Deathsaurer wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What's wrong with mockery? If a position can be mocked, it deserves to be.

I'll remember that if I ever see you saying something stupid.

Bring it on.

This has happened on occasion. Unlike some, I don't get flustered when it happens. I just say "Whoops! You're right about that" and move on.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
The Catalyst isn't lying about what the Crucible does.

Fact or opinion?

Fact actually, given the EC slides.

But the slides are lying, except when they're not. You remember that, right?

Personally, I preferred Original Recipe IT, where the Destroy slides were lies too but somehow Shepard woke up after experiencing them, or something like that. But that one fell out of favor when it became clear that the big IT reveal DLC isn't coming.

Edit: I guess that's actually IT Mark 2, since obviously the theory predates the slides.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 décembre 2013 - 06:46 .

[DeathScepter]

Do you guys realize there are indoctrinating Devices within the thread? We need a squad to disable them and return them to a certain base for study