If it was so obvious, kindly explain how you knew. Map out your reasoning.
We saw the soldier implanted with Reaper technology so we knew TIM was using it. We know this causes Indoctrination 100% of the time so far. We are given no reason to believe this is an exception. TIM is now opposing our efforts to defeat the Reapers when he was formally all about defeating the Reapers. He has a totally new idea about Controlling them that was never mentioned before. All of this screams Indoctrination. Sure, it's possible he isn't, but I had no reason to think so.
It's not meaningless. The in-game reality is a fictional world that exists just for me. Yours exists just for you. And they can be different; they're like bubble universes.
I can resolve the ambiguity however I like, and I choose to do it in the way that makes the game better for me. But I'm not the one making positive claims, so I'm not the one who needs evidence.
Until proven otherwise, all things are possible. Without conclusive evidence otherwise, I'll happily play with thise possibilities.
I don't find it ambiguous at all. As I said above, the game is shouting that TIM is Indoctrinated. Sure it's not until later that it says it plainly instead of just providing the evidence, but that doesn't mean it wasn't clear.
You are indeed making positive claims. You said it's possible TIM figured out a way to stop Indoctrination. There is no evidence of that. There is plenty of reason to think the opposite.
For two reasons. One, I don't find examples informative. I can't generalize from examples, but I can instantiate from universals, so I prefer to deal in universals.
Two, I reject your premise. The game is different without knowledge of the previous games, but I deny that it is nonsensical. Shepard doesn't need to understand the Reapers or their cycle in order to recognize them as a threat. The game still works; it's just different.
Ok, well it's pretty universal that in trilogies, the first two installments are key to understanding the third.
On the second point, yes, the Reapers are still presented as a threat well, but the game doesn't present it's setting as well as the first game did. The basic plot can still work, but most of the events along the way are stripped of their weight. On the positive side, you'll have less reason to be annoyed by Cerberus as you'll be unaware of their transformation from a small, rogue alliance cell, but there's still no good reason for them to be the primary antagonist.
The fact that the story is so removed from the events of the previous chapters that you think it works alone is a weakness, not a strength.
I think you're making the mistake of viewing the story as a single piece. I would argue that there is no story except the one that arises as you play. A playthrough can have a story, but the game doesn't. The game contains merely events. To describe that combination of events as a story is to invent structure where it doesn't exist.
This is factually wrong unless you define every change as a different story even if those stories have the exact same plot. Maybe that's what you're doing. There is a set story that allows you to influence non plot integral things along the way. The things that you do have an influence on really don't affect the plot. They do eventually effect your ability to get certain EMS things, but there is plenty to still get max EMS from other sources. For example, you technically have two different stories if you save or abandon the council, but the plot is the same.
The media's intent is irrelevant. Death of author.
While it's certainly possible for media to have an effect the creator didn't intend, you said inducing an emotional response is pointless and unnecessary, yet that's what media does all the time.
The player needs some way to direct his character in a manner that is consistent with that character's design. Until we can define the character in advance with sufficient detail as to capture every nuance, we need player inputs.
Moreover, player inputs aren't the game acknowledging me. They're the means by which I acknowledge the game.
And I suppose I neant in-game events, as opposed to UI elements.
Ok, what in-game events are acknowledging the player's existence? A scene being set or constructed a certain way isn't this.
A defined character whom I think makes terrible decisions, and one I don't particularly enjoy playing.
I can't argue with you there. Mass Effect isn't for you then because that's what Bioware made.
Retour en haut
