Literalists say the darndest things

And, as well as being the best parts of the game, were heavily foreshadowed. Especially Rannoch, how could they possibly NOT resolve the geth/quarian thing?

Yes.

Just imagine the fan outrage if Bioware had never followed through with these two major plotlines.

It wouldn't have mattered what you did with the genophage data, it didn't get a follow up. It wouldn't have mattered what you did with the heretics, it didn't get a follow up.

I mean these are major plotlines that were established in the first game, and followed up in the second game. Just imagine never resolving them.

What's so baffling about his opinion is that he was one of the fanatical 'Re-take Mass Effect' guys. His biggest complaint about the game is that "your choices don't matter".

And then saying resolving the genophage and Quarian/Geth plotlines is just fanservice... what the actual FUCK?

*head desk*

AxStapleton wrote:http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/15655698/1#15656538

This isn't even about IT and its left me scratching my head.

"You're stretching" - the common rebute from a person who has no counter-arguement or incite, yet still wants to increase his post count.

So as for these literalists claiming plot holes and such, according to the credits, not only does the game go through a QA process (bug fixes), the story also goes through one to fix bugs or "plot holes" in the story as well.



That's from Mass Effect 2, but you get the idea.

Reading the BSN actually makes me feel kinda sad for Literalists/Reductionists.

I mean, they actually see the Catalyst kid being torn by a power struggle with the Reapers.

Like it's a good guy.

Lol.

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

IT is a crock.

Let's assume for a second that IT is indeed true. That means Shep is lying in a pile of rubble mentally grasping with Harby. That also means that nothing actually happens after the beam. Nothing. The reapers aren't destroyed. There's no synthesis. Shep never talks to TIM and never takes control of the reapers.

. . . But that can't be because we clearly have these epilogue scenes telling us that something DID indeed happen. Shep did take control of the reapers. Shep blew them all up, or he synth'd all life that ever was. All of that would be impossible if Shep were just dreaming while lying in a pile of rubble.

I'll just leave this here.

GethPrimeMKII wrote:
I'll just leave this here.

And I'll just leave my main thread response.

RavenEyry wrote:
Hah, the second guy posting completely failed to notice the breath comes AFTER the epilogues, so it sounds like he's saying if it happened in a dream it must be real.

The "no closure" argument is bunk. It doesn't matter - it just means we're on a cliffhanger. Which is a valid form of ending in its own right.

GethPrimeMKII wrote:

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

IT is a crock.

Let's assume for a second that IT is indeed true. That means Shep is lying in a pile of rubble mentally grasping with Harby. That also means that nothing actually happens after the beam. Nothing. The reapers aren't destroyed. There's no synthesis. Shep never talks to TIM and never takes control of the reapers.

. . . But that can't be because we clearly have these epilogue scenes telling us that something DID indeed happen. Shep did take control of the reapers. Shep blew them all up, or he synth'd all life that ever was. All of that would be impossible if Shep were just dreaming while lying in a pile of rubble.

I'll just leave this here.

I do hope the next DLC is a IT confirm just so I can laugh when they do a 180 and jump on the bandwagon just to only to be denied unless they admit they were wrong.

Colour me a bit pompous but I'd rather it not be completely obvious. I just want it to continue the story and clear things up, and pave the way for another sequel.

Andromidius wrote:Colour me a bit pompous but I'd rather it not be completely obvious. I just want it to continue the story and clear things up, and pave the way for another sequel.

:O

You pompous bastard!

lex0r11 wrote:

Andromidius wrote:Colour me a bit pompous but I'd rather it not be completely obvious. I just want it to continue the story and clear things up, and pave the way for another sequel.

:O

You pompous bastard!

Unlike Lexor...I don't think that makes you pompous at all...a bit idealistic maybe. And I only say that becuase they tried the vague approach (maybe it wasn't done very well) and look at the shit storm that it got them...burned them once, not sure that they will be ballsy enough to try it again.

Edit: Not that I neccessarily want it, but I think that this is the biggest reason, if we do get an IT reveal it will hand holding walk through of it.

The respones will be threefold:

1) Some people will admit their mistake and - provided the additional content has a certain quality - enjoy the trilogy again.

2) Some people will not admit that they made a mistake and try to make you believe that "they have been always convinced of IT!".

3) Some people will be disappointed - even pissed - and say that the IT has been implemented just to cater to all the anti-enders and that it just was BW copying a fan-theory.

The latter will most likely come from the most vocal anti-ITers. Our job would change then, to show them that IT was there from the beginning - burried in the data.

Restrider wrote: Our job would change then, to show them that IT was there from the beginning - burried in the data.

We've been doing that for almost a year. What makes you think they'll listen even then? :|

If we get an IT reveal, I couldn't care less what kind of bullshit the non-believers come up with. I'll be too busy dancing on the table.

SwobyJ wrote:Reading the BSN actually makes me feel kinda sad for Literalists/Reductionists.

I mean, they actually see the Catalyst kid being torn by a power struggle with the Reapers.

Like it's a good guy.

Lol.

yeah, some of them even say the literal ending is good... rofl.

DoomsdayDevice wrote:If we get an IT reveal, I couldn't care less what kind of bullshit the non-believers come up with. I'll be too busy dancing on the table.

Pretty much!

BatmanTurian wrote:

Restrider wrote: Our job would change then, to show them that IT was there from the beginning - burried in the data.

We've been doing that for almost a year. What makes you think they'll listen even then? :|

Touché.

I am even that bold to suggest that - even if IT is revealed - a few people will state that IT is not true, because of a lack of a basic understanding of the theory. They will not be able to compare the IT we propose with the actual content and make the connection.

DoomsdayDevice wrote:I feel kind of bad for bringing this up, because it was a friend of mine who said it, but anyway...

My friend is an IT-hating literalist. He believes it's all bad writing, but here's the thing.

Upon completing the game a second time, he felt like curing the genophage and resolving the Geth/Quarian conflict was purely included as cheap and blatant fan service...

Yeah.

I don't even know where to begin with that statement.

I think I was facepalming for 15 minutes straight.

My friend is an IT-apathetic literalist. He knows enough of the theory (I think), but doesn't give a damn.

He also thinks that DLC that reveals anything, would make the DLC good but make the main game a cocktease, and not worth his time. "Have the STORY in the GAME'S STORY, NOT DLC" basically.

But he's a perfect Renegade, in Bioware's minds, if IT is true. He immediately shot the tubes. Fuck the Reapers and their God, boom boom.

I was fooled and picked Synthesis the first time, so yeah.

BF picked Destroy but only after me hinting stuff since his first day of playing the game. He doesn't know whether he would pick Synthesis or Control, and wonders what he would have picked if I kept silent about the story.

But yeah, I haven't met a pure literalist in person, actually. Others I've met were at least sympathizers, even if they didn't think it was going to happen. I've only seen outright literalists in things like MMO chat channels, and abusive literalists on the BSN. In person though? They either like IT or don't like IT, but are understanding of those who hope that it's the truth.

"Control is the best ending"

"Synthesis is the best ending"



Anyone who prescribes to these two ideas are morons.


Not only are control and synthesis philosophically wrong, but it's as if anyone who choses these two endings has not paid attention to a shred of dialog in the entire series.

AlexMBrennan wrote..."...Because you have not presented a shred of evidence for your hypothesis - where evidence means some observation inconsistent with the null hypothesis; that's basic hypothesis testing - if you disagree, get a degree in mathematics.

Simply put, you have failed to give us any reason to believe your hypothesis rather than any of the other equally plausible alternative hypotheses."

...Because mathematical and scientific principles should be applied to ALL works of fiction when discussing and debating the writer's intent. /facepalm

leafs43 wrote:"Control is the best ending"

"Synthesis is the best ending"



Anyone who prescribes to these two ideas are morons.

You're right on another level as well.

If you're a reductionist and see all the endings as being 'true', then all of the endings should have their merits and drawbacks. There is no 'best' ending, just like in Deus Ex.

Now, if they said 'favourite' then I can't argue that. Taste and all that.

Oh, and in IT none of those are an ending. So its a moot point!

ElSuperGecko wrote:AlexMBrennan wrote..."...Because you have not presented a shred of evidence for your hypothesis - where evidence means some observation inconsistent with the null hypothesis; that's basic hypothesis testing - if you disagree, get a degree in mathematics.

Simply put, you have failed to give us any reason to believe your hypothesis rather than any of the other equally plausible alternative hypotheses."

...Because mathematical and scientific principles should be applied to ALL works of fiction when discussing and debating the writer's intent. /facepalm

Not to mention we have given plenty of evidence. Just because someone is too lazy to study it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is wrong.

Also, he's an idiot for suggesting you need a degree in Mathematics to understand what hypothesis testing is. That's a standard in science, not maths.

Andromidius wrote:Also, he's an idiot for suggesting you need a degree in Mathematics to understand what hypothesis testing is. That's a standard in science, not maths.

Don't worry, notice has been served.

ElSuperGecko wrote...
"....all of which is an utter failure of an argument. You're making yourself look foolish by trying to be too clever.

The OP is not trying to formulate a mathematical equation, or scientifically prove an argument. They are, instead, subjecting a work of fiction to analysis, and speculating on the meanings its creators intended to deliver. Scientific hypothesis testing is irrelevant when discussing and debating the writer's intent within a work of fiction. If you disagree, get a degree in English Literature.

Of course, if you strongly believe that scientific principles should apply to speculating about hidden meanings within a work of fiction, maybe you'd care to give us an example or two, possibly starting with something nice and simple like Aesop's Fables?"