ElSuperGecko wrote...
AlanC9 wrote...
Hmmm... you mean that people misread the poll?
No, just that most people who voted will have already formulated an opinion on the endings based on the information the Catalyst conversation provided, and by providing no clear alternative to that scenario, HYR 2.0 has given them no real reason to consider altering their decision.
Removing the Catalyst is more than enough, since so many people don't shut up about how the Catalyst's presense makes them second-guess everything they hear from him. It's addition, by subtraction.
If you can prove to me that a significant (> 15%) number of people
would choose differently without the Catalyst's dialogue and that the poll I conducted was somehow flawed, you're welcome to it. I would make a pretty strong wager against it, though, because I've seen absolutely nobody -- ever -- claim that "if not for Glowboy, I would choose differently." Moreover, only Destroyers and Refusers seem to use Glowboy as reason why they choose what they chose.
The poll itself is a pretty clear example of confirmation bias at work; HYR 2.0 has a particular opinion of the notion that the Catalyst conversation influences players' final decision,and so constructs a biased search for information followed by a biased interpretation in order to "prove"that opinion correct. As further evidenced by the assumptions based on the results and strawman argument HYR 2.0 presents in response to my own interpretation above.
It's an anonymous and voluntary poll. I have no control over the results.
And no, there are no strawmen here, you
did claim that the way the scene was crafted by the writers -- with the Catalyst and the info he gives us -- is how they influence people out of choosing Destroy. These are your words...
Personally, I believe that it's not Shepard who is being indoctrinated. It's the player themselves.
*snip*
Three minutes of exposition, and everything apparently changes. (less than) three minutes of sketchy monologues, veiled threats, circular logic, vague explanations, vague assurances, palm-waving and platitudes and suddenly some of us decide we no longer want to Destroy the Reapers.
...and THAT is where the indoctrination comes in. If we're not careful, we (as the players) end up doing something that nobody else wanted, something that we ourselves argued against, and convince ourselves that it's a good idea. We find increasingly convoluted ways to believe that we're actually doing the right thing.
Well played, Bioware. that's some serious next-level mindbending storytelling, right there.
Bolded parts: attributing the players' decision (not to pick Destroy) to the scene itself causing a change in opinion.
You're making the assumption that everyone would choose Destroy if not for the way that the scene was crafted. It does not occur to you that, maybe (just maybe), these people don't
need convincing and simply see the alternatives as superior options to Destroy. Then again, Destroyers have always felt a false-consensus effect with their opinion.
To say nothing of the fact that the other poll I posted proves that the Catalyst is actually a
detriment to the messages it's trying to promote, because most people cannot trust its words. Those that can are actually the exception here.
Though I don't blame you for trying to distance yourself from your words.
Modifié par HYR 2.0, 28 novembre 2013 - 08:24 .
Retour en haut
