Literalists say the darndest things

@ Rif; Yeah, ME1 has wonky gameplay, but ME2 and especially ME3 work really well on consoles.

Crazy accurate aim in ME3 even. Works great for multiplayer.

I'll always be better with keyboard and mouse though. If only for the fact that I can click my mouse much faster than I can pull my trigger.

I do love the weapon feedback on the controller though, it's awesome.

BSN moderator owns literalists on the topic of closure. Also hints there may be more to come after the breath scene.

I think I just found my new favorite moderator.

I think the mod's just stating that those scenes make it obvious that Shep's alive. They wouldn't have any more information about possible DLC than us.

That message is from 4 months ago.

clennon8 wrote:That message is from 4 months ago.

I know, still relevant to the topic.

Phantom Infiltrator wrote:"Shepard cant be indoctrinated because I, the player control Shepard and I'm not indoctrinated"

That's the best

draconian139 wrote:I think the mod's just stating that those scenes make it obvious that Shep's alive. They wouldn't have any more information about possible DLC than us.

It should be obvious Shepard is alive. To some, like the people that run the wiki, there's no such thing as obvious; we're either told/shown directly with no ability to question or doubt what's being presented, and there's no way to interpret it differently, or it's headcanon. If their hand is not being held, then it's not true/doesn't happen.

BleedingUranium wrote:

It should be obvious Shepard is alive. To some, like the people that run the wiki, there's no such thing as obvious; we're either told/shown directly with no ability to question or doubt what's being presented, and there's no way to interpret it differently, or it's headcanon. If their hand is not being held, then it's not true/doesn't happen.

But usually everything that is in the wiki, is 100 % true without a doubt. If you are looking for speculations, that is certainly not the place to go. If you are looking for facts, it's nice.
I agree, though, that a "speculative section" for the articles would improve it a lot.

Selene moonsong.

*sigh* It seems folks are insistent upon missing the obvious of the gasp of breath and the romantic interest not hanging Shep's plaque on the Normandy memorial wall.

How much hand-holding through a story do people need, an epilogue addendum detailing how Shep recovered and s/he and his/her LI rejoined and raised children?

IMHO, those are stories for another time and place, such as mention in another game at another time.

she's a mod so her information is likely shaky at best, i dont want to wait until ME4 when we'll be playing as someone else to find out what happened to shepard after the war from an NPC in a 5 minute dialogue section, just dosent do it for me "oh yeah shepard settled on earth/thessia/rannoch/tropical planet with liara/ash/kaidan/tali/garrus" "can we see that" "NO! headcannon it cretins"

dork wrote:
IMHO, those are stories for another time and place, such as mention in another game at another time.

Yep. Even a datapad you find or a broadcast annoucement in the background mentioning Shepard's retirement would be awesome.

It wouldn't be Shepard's story then either, but we'd get some closure on Shep's character arc.

Thats the problem with games today. Most have insultingly simplistic plots leading many gamers to expect to have their hand held throughout the story.

Then along comes a game whose ending choice tests how much attention was payed to the story and the characters, and the reaction isnt pretty.

The most laughable thing Ive heard anyone say on BSN is that its unfair for the game to punish them for the decisions they make. Even more laughable is the suggestion that Mass Effect lacks consequences for bad decisions. I mean its not like the fate of multiple races depend on them or anything.

i'll post this link here. saw it on BSN earlier. It's a fans views on ME3.

clike here to feel the butthurt

Phantom Infiltrator wrote:Thats the problem with games today. Most have insultingly simplistic plots leading many gamers to expect to have their hand held throughout the story.

Then along comes a game whose ending choice tests how much attention was payed to the story and the characters, and the reaction isnt pretty.

The most laughable thing Ive heard anyone say on BSN is that its unfair for the game to punish them for the decisions they make. Even more laughable is the suggestion that Mass Effect lacks consequences for bad decisions. I mean its not like the fate of multiple races depend on them or anything.

I was having a chat with someone yesterday about the whole stuff like this needs to happen in order for things to change. Otherwise, we'd all be stuck with these overly simple games which are designed so everyone and their grandmother can play.

I don't want to label anything, but there is such a thing where games or even other things are designed in such a way for people with short attention spans. The whole instant gratification thing and such that is having a negative impact on our society.

Now with Mass Effect, people actually have to use that noggin of theirs and actually think about stuff, and they start freaking out. I've actually read some didn't like the ending because "I didn't actually want to use my brain". They were expecting some sort of mindless Hollywood cliche ending where everyone lives and the main character rides off into the sunset with their love interest. That's basically what the complaints on the forums boil down to. The whole conventional victory, happy ending, or ending that makes sense (it doesn't make sense to them, because it wasn't the familiar kind of ending they're used to seeing, I could be wrong) as well as a boss fight with Harbinger (ah the boss fight, not every game must have one at the end), and I thank Bioware for breaking the mould a bit and trying something different.

magnetite wrote:

Phantom Infiltrator wrote:Thats the problem with games today. Most have insultingly simplistic plots leading many gamers to expect to have their hand held throughout the story.

Then along comes a game whose ending choice tests how much attention was payed to the story and the characters, and the reaction isnt pretty.

The most laughable thing Ive heard anyone say on BSN is that its unfair for the game to punish them for the decisions they make. Even more laughable is the suggestion that Mass Effect lacks consequences for bad decisions. I mean its not like the fate of multiple races depend on them or anything.

I was having a chat with someone yesterday about the whole stuff like this needs to happen in order for things to change. Otherwise, we'd all be stuck with these overly simple games which are designed so everyone and their grandmother can play.

I don't want to label anything, but there is such a thing where games or even other things are designed in such a way for people with short attention spans. The whole instant gratification thing and such that is having a negative impact on our society.

Now with Mass Effect, people actually have to use that noggin of theirs and actually think about stuff, and they start freaking out. I've actually read some didn't like the ending because "I didn't actually want to use my brain". They were expecting some sort of mindless Hollywood cliche ending where everyone lives and the main character rides off into the sunset with their love interest. That's basically what the complaints on the forums boil down to. The whole conventional victory, happy ending, or ending that makes sense (it doesn't make sense to them, because it wasn't the familiar kind of ending they're used to seeing, I could be wrong) as well as a boss fight with Harbinger (ah the boss fight, not every game must have one at the end), and I thank Bioware for breaking the mould a bit and trying something different.

Exactly, the ending under IT displays perfectly what the potential of storytelling in video games is. IT as we see it is an experience unachievable in any other media, because it is interactive and has multiple choices. By making some choices wrong you are suddenly able to fool and manipulate the player in a way a book or film cant do, as it is no longer a simple plot element, no now it is the player making the decision and the player taking the fall.

Raistlin Majere wrote:
Exactly, the ending under IT displays perfectly what the potential of storytelling in video games is. IT as we see it is an experience unachievable in any other media, because it is interactive and has multiple choices. By making some choices wrong you are suddenly able to fool and manipulate the player in a way a book or film cant do, as it is no longer a simple plot element, no now it is the player making the decision and the player taking the fall.

Some have hailed the indoctrination theory as the greatest things in the history of the gaming medium (if they actually come out and say that's what it was, which they probably will when all the DLC is finished releasing. They've been dropping lots of hints to suggest that's what it was, but they haven't fully admitted IT yet) or the greatest ruse gaming ever told.

magnetite wrote:

Raistlin Majere wrote:
Exactly, the ending under IT displays perfectly what the potential of storytelling in video games is. IT as we see it is an experience unachievable in any other media, because it is interactive and has multiple choices. By making some choices wrong you are suddenly able to fool and manipulate the player in a way a book or film cant do, as it is no longer a simple plot element, no now it is the player making the decision and the player taking the fall.

Some have hailed the indoctrination theory as the greatest things in the history of the gaming medium (if they actually come out and say that's what it was, which they probably will when all the DLC is finished releasing. They've been dropping lots of hints to suggest that's what it was, but they haven't fully admitted IT yet) or the greatest ruse gaming ever told.

Exactly. The Revan twist has become a stable and cliche all onto itself after Bioware used it and I have seen it hailed as the "I am your father" twist of gaming. The IT on the other hand would be storytelling immortality.

This is where I part ways with many of you, at least a little bit. I'm here. I support IT. But a not insignificant portion of me wonders if IT isn't giving Bioware too much credit. It's a very supportable theory, but there are just enough little inconsistencies to cause me some cognitive dissonance. And so I can definitely sympathize with Drayfish and others who complain about thematic inconsistency and the pointlessness and faux-depth of the (literally interpreted) endings.

clennon8 wrote:This is where I part ways with many of you, at least a little bit. I'm here. I support IT. But a not insignificant portion of me wonders if IT isn't giving Bioware too much credit. It's a very supportable theory, but there are just enough little inconsistencies to cause me some cognitive dissonance. And so I can definitely sympathize with Drayfish and others who complain about thematic inconsistency and the pointlessness and faux-depth of the (literally interpreted) endings.

So all the evidence and information that we found that fixes 95%+ of the plot holes and inconsistencies is just coincidental? The fact that Shepard is showing every single symptom of indoctrination can't be just a coincidence. Not to mention, they've had this ending more or less finished since last summer (minus the TIM scene which was tweaked, Starbinger was in there too). Lots of time to change stuff if they needed to. Doesn't sound like something that was just thrown together at the last minute.

Andromidius wrote:

Rifneno wrote:
The entire thing is based on the fallacy that the Citadel explosion was nuclear in nature. It wasn't nuclear in nature, but nuclear explosions are the only types that most people are familiar with being of that magnitude. I thought about explaining this to him, but then I realize I'd have better luck trying to teach a cactus trigonometry.

You know, that part is so obvious I forgot about it.

That's how stupid Hanar is. Its infectous.

In all honesty, it was not Hanar who kept comparing the Citadel explosion with a nuclear explosion, but an ITer (I forgot who it was). It was an ITer who kept bringing up Hiroshima over and over again. In fact, several ITers seemed to compare the explosion on the Citadel with Hiroshima. I can't remember exact names though, but I'mm willing to look it up, if I can ever find it back (the IT thread is unstickied on the BSN ).
Heretic_Hanar said that IF the explosion on the Citadel is indeed of nuclear nature, than it would work like this and this and that.

I'm not physics expert, and I certainly don't want to defend Heretic_Hanar, but I do think you guys are being a little unfair here.

also, Heretic_Hanar is right about the fact that nuclear explosions behave differently in space than they do in an atmosphere. That's all I really know about this subject though.


So maybe Heretic_Hanar indeed made a dumb comparison, but in all honesty, he was not the one who originally brought it up, it was an ITer who did.

magnetite wrote:So all the evidence and information that we found is just coincidental? The fact that Shepard is showing every single symptom of indoctrination can't be just a coincidence. Not to mention, they've had this ending more or less finished since last summer (minus the TIM scene which was tweaked, Starbinger was in there too). Lots of time to change stuff if they needed to. Doesn't sound like something that was just thrown together at the last minute.

You're acting like I just said the whole thing is hogwash. I'm not. There are definitely a lot of clues throughout the game, many of which I will never accept are anything less than intentional. But I'm not sure they followed the idea all the way through to the very end. Like I said, there are just enough problems that require what feel more like rationalizations than logic to work around, or an assumption of an extraordinary level of deviousness on Bioware's part. Plus there's the way Bioware folks have acted since the game was released, the things they've said in interviews and tweets. I often get the sense that we're being humored. And why not, right? Why not let some people go on believing, in perpetuity, that you have pulled off this grand masterstroke of a twist ending?

I also find this thread quite tasteless.

Why can't we just focus on the IT, support it, find new evidence, speculate and discuss? Why do we need a Literalist-bashing thread? Personal attacks, behind peoples back no less, is something I'd expect from Heretic_Hanar and the other trolls, but not from smart folks like you.

I get the impulse. We all just got booted off BSN, basically, and those that remain there are dancing on our graves.

Iggy Koopa wrote:

Andromidius wrote:

Rifneno wrote:
The entire thing is based on the fallacy that the Citadel explosion was nuclear in nature. It wasn't nuclear in nature, but nuclear explosions are the only types that most people are familiar with being of that magnitude. I thought about explaining this to him, but then I realize I'd have better luck trying to teach a cactus trigonometry.

You know, that part is so obvious I forgot about it.

That's how stupid Hanar is. Its infectous.

In all honesty, it was not Hanar who kept comparing the Citadel explosion with a nuclear explosion, but an ITer (I forgot who it was). It was an ITer who kept bringing up Hiroshima over and over again. In fact, several ITers seemed to compare the explosion on the Citadel with Hiroshima. I can't remember exact names though, but I'mm willing to look it up, if I can ever find it back (the IT thread is unstickied on the BSN ).
Heretic_Hanar said that IF the explosion on the Citadel is indeed of nuclear nature, than it would work like this and this and that.

I'm not physics expert, and I certainly don't want to defend Heretic_Hanar, but I do think you guys are being a little unfair here.

also, Heretic_Hanar is right about the fact that nuclear explosions behave differently in space than they do in an atmosphere. That's all I really know about this subject though.


So maybe Heretic_Hanar indeed made a dumb comparison, but in all honesty, he was not the one who originally brought it up, it was an ITer who did.

That was me comparing it to Hiroshima, but I did as a comparison to the destructiveness of the fireball, I was not saying it was a nuclear explosion (though Heretic misunderstood it as that). To elaborate the fireball caused by the nuke dropped on Hiroshima did not even touch the ground and yet still incinerated everything within several hundred meters below it.

Compare that to the Citadel fireball which engulfs the place Shepard supposedly stands...and yeah you get the picture.

Anyway, back to what I was saying before. I guess what I'm getting at is that, internally, I haven't been able to 100% commit to IT. I want it to be true, but part of me also wants to rage at Bioware for fumbling the ball at the 1-yard line.

So, before I can endorse Bioware as the masters who gave us the most ingenious video game ending ever, they're going to have to own up to it.