937 réponses à ce sujet

[Seboist]

I thought belief in Santa was a pretty good metaphor, actually. I think analogizing IT to creationism is a little more apt when we're discussing the merits, but DeinonSlayer was talking about the experience of reading IT arguments rather than their substance.

 

IT is a mixture of end times cult and your standard 9/11-esque conspiracy theory brought about by sunk cost fallacy, post-purchase rationalization and fanboyism.

 

I've honestly never seen anything quite as pathetic as this and over a third person shooter's ending of all things.

[masster blaster]

I'd sign on for that if I'd actually ever heard any good IT arguments.But it's been years, and I haven't. The're all coming across as patched-together rationalizations to justify a position that wasn't chosen rationally in the first place. See, for instance, your response to Psychevore on page 22 above.

Same can go for the things I have heard about the endings are good. Each to his, or her own opinion. It depends on the topic though. There are things that we have debated about and ruled out not a possibility, in game glitches, or Bioware's over use. However it all depends on your stance on the endings. By now people either care or not care about ME3's endings. I don't like them yet if IT was involved then ya, but that is just my stance.

 

Ah I haven't debated much about the Destroy low ems. I usually in the passed just found things in game that could be used to help support the theory and i won't lie I did my fair share of hammering IT towards others, and said things that made IT look bad towards other people, than what they know about IT but I learned from the past two years from my mistakes and I make sure i never repeat my mistakes. Tis why I respect other peoples post, except for when they are trollish like Seb's

[XXIceColdXX]

I like IT enough, I think it's pretty clever. But I don't think it's anywhere near true, plus the implication is pretty grim as well, even if Shepard somehow 'resists' that still means he's lying on the ground somewhere before the Reapers straight up kill him.

An upside to this grim situation could be anther trilogy starring Shepard after were done with ME 4,5 and 6.

Unlikely, maybe wishful thinking, but not impossible.

[masster blaster]

An upside to this grim situation could be anther trilogy starring Shepard after were done with ME 4,5 and 6.

Unlikely, maybe wishful thinking, but not impossible.

Ya, or the other way around ME 4,5 and 6, yet that is all we are speculating on right now.

[SwobyJ]

ONE more story.

 

I wouldn't even want more than one, TBH. And even then, if I'm even right, it'd only technically be about 'The' Shepard, not Commander Shepard.

[masster blaster]

Until you actually start thinking about it, and then you find even more holes with the ending than accepting reality.

 

Holes such as: Low-EMS ending states, inclusion of Refusal (especially via shooting the Catalyst), and oh yes, the fact that IT requires hand-waving entire parts of the ending that prove it wrong (Control and Sync being positive overall endings) for it to fit in.

 

 

What I see here is blind acceptance of what people like/want to believe, and scrutiny only for the things they don't.

As I recall both sides do the same thing. We agree to disagree it seems and if so then we leave it at that. Each has it's holes on both sides, and each has it's own ways of thinking. Like how you and I think about the ending of ME3, and what it means. As for positive for control and synthesis......that is ones own opinion as it is for IT.

 

You can argue control and synthesis are morally wrong, and go against many things stated in the ME trilogy. That is why IT rules them out because it goes with the Reapers way of thinking. No one can say that those that have wanted control or synthesis were not working with the Reapers, or working with Cerberus at the time. yes the Krogan on the citadel talked about " if we all had the same DNA, things would be so much better".....that  can be argued about, yet as it stands IT has it's own way of thinking about the endings, and you have yours as do many others. If you think IT rules them out because we hate them, no, they are just more inclined with the Reapers way of thinking.. We have our supporting evidence, and our speculations primed for control and synthesis and how they are wrong. If you say " What evidence because I see none" I can say the same for synthesis and control. I see no good at all, but as I said both have our opinions and ideas. For refuse that is still up for debate in IT. It can be viewed as breaking free, or just simply giving up.,

[AlexMBrennan]

It is a perfect analogy to religion - you have a non-falsifiable theory vigorously defended by those who don't even know why falsifiability matters.

[SwobyJ]

Which is why it's so great Alex.

I'm sometimes very amused by those who wish to deny the religious aspects to the writing in Mass Effect.

[Allan Schumacher]

It is a perfect analogy to religion - you have a non-falsifiable theory vigorously defended by those who don't even know why falsifiability matters.

 

If it's not falsifiable, that simply means that it's a philosophical discussion.  As a scientist, I still enjoy discussion philosophy too.

 

Lets keep the analogies to religion beyond that out of here please.

[Farangbaa]

Yes and no. You have two now with the EC, and you can refuse, yet both lead to disaster, However exculding the EC and refuse, yes you do only have low-ems Destroy. Why it could be a few things.

 

1. Shepard thinks about destroy at the end, not the choices, but the thought of killing the Reapers, no matter the cost.

2. The Reapers need to keep Shepard from "waking up" and getting that moment of hope, so they need some kind of ending, to show Shepard that he/she saved the galaxy, yet in reality failed, and everyone was harvested, or killed.

3. The Reapers care not about Destroy ending at all. The catalyst is rude to Shepard in low ems options, and ask " WHY ARE YOU HERE" however in high ems ending choices the catalyst says " wake up".

And yes i know why would that catalyst say " WHY ARE YOU HERE" simply. at this point, Shepard is damaged mentally and physically. Shepard is losing the battle and his/her allies are dying. The Reapers are annoyed that Shepard has made it thus far, and think Shepard is not fit to become a servant to the Reapers, yet a threat none the less.

4. Shepard still draws breath, the Reapers are still not done taking out SWORD, SHIELD, and HAMMER. They do not see any value in Shepard, yet they must willingly have Shepard believe that there is a way to "save" the galaxy, yet it would be at a very high cost. With that in mind, the Reapers allow Shepard to go pick destroy, there is no point if Shepard wakes up by this point because the Reapers already have finished taking down Shepard's allies. Though when Shepard still functioned, the Reapers still have to stall Shepard from waking up, and by a huge amount of luck, turn the tide of the war.

 

Am I to reply to this? This makes absolutely no sense.

 

In low EMS you only have 1 option + Refuse. Not 2 + Refuse. Your option is locked to what you did with the Collector base.

Collector base destroyed? --> Destroy

Collector base intact? --> Control

 

Now consider low-EMS with collector base destroyed.

 

The Catalyst only offers you destroy. Yet in high-EMS is uses trickery and deception to lure you into choosing Synthesis (supposedly, a win for the Reapers... according to you).

 

So, let's recap here, using information you've spewed here:

 

High war assets = high resolve/willpower on Shepard (... errr, what?)

Low war assets = low resolve/willpower on Shepard.

 

Low-EMS with collector base destroyed = low resolve Shepard. The Catalyst, deceptive as it is, only offers Shepard the Destroy option because.... it likes to lose?

 

Why does the Catalyst wake Shepard up in the first place, in ALL situations? A Shepard that's bleeding to death unconscious on the floor isn't killing any Reapers.

[SwobyJ]

 

If it's not falsifiable, that simply means that it's a philosophical discussion.

 

Oh thank goodness you get this.

[Massa FX]

Yes please. The debates on the forums do NOT need religion discussions which will only result in a closed thread.

[masster blaster]

If it's not falsifiable, that simply means that it's a philosophical discussion.  As a scientist, I still enjoy discussion philosophy too.
 
Lets keep the analogies to religion beyond that out of here please.

Thank you.

[Dwailing]

Hey, just another long time ITist checking in.  Better late than never, right?  Anyway, I think the important thing to remember when discussing IT is that it is correct for those who believe it and wrong for those who don't.  What do I mean by that?  Well, I do believe BioWare has said at separate times that there are elements of ME3 designed to have non-literal interpretations and that IT is a valid interpretation of the endings.  Does that mean it's absolutely right and that it's the only way to interpret the endings?  Hell no, but it's still a legitimate theory.  Whether it's right or not will ultimately be decided by whether or not BioWare touches on the endings at all in the next game.  Until that time, however, it's no more right or wrong than saying a glass is half-empty or half-full.  Same facts, different opinions.  And before anyone decides to make any smart-ass comments comparing IT to Creationism I'd like to remind everyone involved that this is fiction.  Fiction, by its very nature, is open to a variety of competing, conflicting interpretations that are all simultaneously valid.  Everyone gets something different out of reading a book, watching a movie, playing a game, etc.  Sometimes those differences are small, sometimes they're large.  However, that does not mean that any of the readers/viewers/players are right or wrong.

[Iakus]

Hey, just another long time ITist checking in.  Better late than never, right?  Anyway, I think the important thing to remember when discussing IT is that it is correct for those who believe it and wrong for those who don't.  What do I mean by that?  Well, I do believe BioWare has said at separate times that there are elements of ME3 designed to have non-literal interpretations and that IT is a valid interpretation of the endings.  Does that mean it's absolutely right and that it's the only way to interpret the endings?  Hell no, but it's still a legitimate theory.  Whether it's right or not will ultimately be decided by whether or not BioWare touches on the endings at all in the next game.  Until that time, however, it's no more right or wrong than saying a glass is half-empty or half-full.  Same facts, different opinions.  And before anyone decides to make any smart-ass comments comparing IT to Creationism I'd like to remind everyone involved that this is fiction.  Fiction, by its very nature, is open to a variety of competing, conflicting interpretations that are all simultaneously valid.  Everyone gets something different out of reading a book, watching a movie, playing a game, etc.  Sometimes those differences are small, sometimes they're large.  However, that does not mean that any of the readers/viewers/players are right or wrong.

 

And this is, in part, why I say MENext better not touch on the endings at all.  Validating/invalidating ending interpretations will not just be kicking a hornet's nest, it will be picking it up and shaking it.

[Dwailing]

And this is, in part, why I say MENext better not touch on the endings at all.  Validating/invalidating ending interpretations will not just be kicking a hornet's nest, it will be picking it up and shaking it.

 

Part of me agrees with you, certainly.  However, on the other hand, one of the main interpretations of the ending is one in which the story is not finished yet.  If they make a sequel that doesn't address IT (which it seems like they are based on everything I've heard) they necessarily invalidate IT, no matter how far in the future they go.  It is an interpretation that requires validation in a future sequel to survive, at least in my opinion.  If the consequences of the endings are the same regardless of whether they were IT or literal, then that, in my mind, makes IT pointless, regardless of whether it's actually "invalidated."  There's no point in an interpretation that provides fodder for a different conclusion to the story if they don't build on it.  Now, I know there are other ITists who wouldn't agree with me, and I know there will certainly be Literalists who disagree with me, but this is my perspective on the subject.

[ZerebusPrime]

And this is, in part, why I say MENext better not touch on the endings at all.  Validating/invalidating ending interpretations will not just be kicking a hornet's nest, it will be picking it up and shaking it.

 

Hot potato hot potato hot potato hot potato hot potato hot potato hot potato hot potato hot potato hot potato hot potato!!!!!

[SwobyJ]

Shake away.

[XXIceColdXX]

And this is, in part, why I say MENext better not touch on the endings at all. Validating/invalidating ending interpretations will not just be kicking a hornet's nest, it will be picking it up and shaking it.

I'd be relieved if the next series validates/invalidates IT, I just want to know!

[masster blaster]

I'd be relieved if the next series validates/invalidates IT, I just want to know!

I know. We all feel that way, but we just have to wait and see. Personally nobody really cares anymore at this point, yet we still hope it can be true, yet at the same time we know it may not be.

[Steelcan]

I know. We all feel that way, but we just have to wait and see. Personally nobody really cares anymore at this point, yet we still hope it can be true, yet at the same time we know it may not be.

This sentence is grammatically correct with no spelling mistakes...

 

 

where is the real MB?

[masster blaster]

This sentence is grammatically correct with no spelling mistakes...

 

 

where is the real MB?

Steel. I am the original MB from the old BSN. No but it's me, I just have to put in more effort to have my post stand out towards the viewers here on the IT thread.

[ElSuperGecko]

Holes such as: Low-EMS ending states, inclusion of Refusal (especially via shooting the Catalyst), and oh yes, the fact that IT requires hand-waving entire parts of the ending that prove it wrong (Control and Sync being positive overall endings) for it to fit in.

 

 

What I see here is blind acceptance of what people like/want to believe, and scrutiny only for the things they don't.

 

A dismissive or skeptical attitude towards the Control and Synthesis choices and the slides that were added in the Extended Cut hardly constitutes a "hole in the argument".

 

We use our experiences during the Mass Effect trilogy, the lessons we have learned over the course of the games and our knowledge of the universe and lore to make our decision.  Less than three minutes before meeting the Catalyst, Shepard was referring to the idea of "Control" as a potentially disasterous pipe dream.  Shepard was arguing that we should not risk the future of the human race - let alone the Galaxy - on such a pipe dream, given what we know about the Reapers and their methods.

 

A couple of minutes of perfunctory exposition, circular logic and vague assurances later, and suddenly it becomes a good idea?  I think not.

 

The same rationale can be applied to Synthesis; we have seen a union of flesh and steel in the Mass Effect universe many times before.  It never ended well.

 

So the ending slides added in the Extended Cut seem (emphasis on seem) to show that it all works out in the end.  So what?  Does Shepard know this at the time he/she is required to actually MAKE the decision?  No.  Which means that the "evidence" of "positive outcomes" in the Extended Cut ending slides are entirely irrelevant when it comes to actually making that decision.

 

Plus of course, it's not unheard of for indoctrinated people within the Mass Effect universe to actually BELIEVE they are doing the right thing; in fact, it's something of a recurring theme.  The Illusive Man believed wholeheartedly he was working for the good of humanity and against the Reapers, yet he was their thrall.  Saren believed with 100% certainity that he was trying to save "more lives than have ever existed".  Yet he was indoctrinated, and implanted, and ultimately dead wrong.  They both had a positive vision for the future, yet if their actions had succeeded, so to would the Reapers.

 

The Extended Cut slides (added as late to the game as they were) show what they show.  Take them at face value, believe what they show implicitly and without question if you want to - that's up to you.  But don't believe for one second that they show absolutely everything, or that they rule anything out.  You have CHOICE, remember?  More than you know.

[AlexMBrennan]

If it's not falsifiable, that simply means that it's a philosophical discussion

Fine, as long as you stop implying that it's science by calling it a theory. 

[AlanC9]

Fine, as long as you stop implying that it's science by calling it a theory.

It's a little late to rename it, though.