57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Hacedor1566]

killnoob wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Nerd Rage ^ He is pissed.

^Proves me right.

A clear case of " LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING".

¡Another ocasion for my favourite picture on the citadel!

Modifié par Hacedor1566, 07 avril 2012 - 03:48 .

[GBGriffin]

Pirates10i wrote...

Well from biowares reaction to the I.t. Theory it seems like to me they did not in fact mean to do it and they are not ruling it out to clean up their mess

If it was not their intention at the launch of the game, then supporting it would be changing the ending, which they clearly stated they would not do.

For the IT to be included in the DLC, it would have to be true in the current ending and then clarified. I do not believe it is true in the current ending based on their reactions (as well as the lack thereof), so they will not expand on it.

[killnoob]

NoSpin wrote...


Is is clearer to take a leap of faith that somehow Joker picked up your crew and left you to rot, Anderson who FOLLOWED you up is now in front of you (when nobody made it), Mass Relays don't destroy the system they are in when they explode, Shepard honestly sits there and takes the logic the there will never be peace between organics and synthetics, when HE JUST MADE PEACE BETWEEN THEM an hour ago, that Shepard somehow survives the citadel explosion......or is it clearer to say "Harbinger was right there, Shep got hit by the laser and is fighting Harbinger in his mind, nothing you see from this point on is real until you breathe in the rubble."

There isn't enough evidence to prove me or you correct. That's why this thread exists, for simple respectful debate. Once people start to forget the respect part....I'm sure you guys know.

Dude... are you serious?
If you're saying this before PAX, i would say yea okay.

But they announced in Pax there will be no more new endings, and I.T requires new ending featuring what happens after Shepard wakes up.

Instead, Clarification DLC, which probably means a proper epilogue, will be avalible.

Srsly, if you still believe I.T to be true then there's no hope left for you.

Just accept that I.T is dead and wait for the clarification okay?

[noobcannon]

Freakaz0idx wrote...

]it was a stupid question? I thought it was legitimate question that could have had a short reply without any unecessary disrespect towards me. Since I'm new to learning about this theory, I need other people who are here to confirm that my question was stupid.

Can anyone who is a reg in this forum please confirm that my question was stupid? Did everyone just automatically know the answer to my question without any insight?

i responded. all good.

"i agree, alot of things in that video could be easily passed off as neglect or oversight. like you said you've never been able to shoot the keepers, why would you be able to now?

there are three things that gave the indoc theory weight for me. the first was what certainly looked like "oily shadows" in shepard's dreams which, according to the rachni queen, are a sign of indoctrination. the second is how anderson got to the citadel, got there before you, and was somehow already at the console, even though there was clearly only one way to get there. the third is you breathing under the rubble at the very end after the citadel blows up.

i've only considered 2 possible explanations for these 3 points. Either poor writing, or some form of the indoctrination theory. whatever the extended cut dlc reveals/speculates/clarifies, it HAS to be able to answer those three points, and actually make sense. otherwise i'm just not interested. "

Modifié par noobcannon, 07 avril 2012 - 03:50 .

[killnoob]

Hacedor1566 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Nerd Rage ^ He is pissed.

^Proves me right.

A clear case of " LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING".

¡Another ocasion for my favourite picture on the citadel!

OH nice.

I haven't seen that picture before.

Where did you find it?

[n00bsauce2010]

Freakaz0idx wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Freakaz0idx wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Freakaz0idx wrote...

I'm watching the theory vid right now. I don't know if every point is identical in everyone's explanation because I haven't been keeping track of this. But, one of the points were that Shepard had infinite ammo and couldn't harm the keepers or anderson, but how is that relevant at all? At no point in any 3 games were you able to harm friendlies with a weapon, it was just a game mechanic and it still is. I don't get how that support the theroy that he's indoctrinated.

Where have you been the past 3-4 weeks when this theory was presenting arguments?
Start at page 1. We'll see you in a couple days.

I was out having a life, no offense.

Then don't expect stupid questions to be answered.

And I find it very hard to believe that you have a life that amounts to anything more than facebook stalking girls you'll never talk to in person.

it was a stupid question? I thought it was legitimate question that could have had a short reply without any unecessary disrespect towards me. Since I'm new to learning about this theory, I need other people who are here to confirm that my question was stupid.




Can anyone who is a reg in this forum please confirm that my question was stupid? Did everyone just automatically know the answer to my question without any insight?

It's a stupid question because you look to debunk the theory after it's been discussed in detail for a month. As I just stated. If you wish to neglect that.. it's your decision. But don't try to blame me for making yourself look like a fool.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

Pirates10i wrote...

Well from biowares reaction to the I.t. Theory it seems like to me they did not in fact mean to do it and they are not ruling it out to clean up their mess

If it was not their intention at the launch of the game, then supporting it would be changing the ending, which they clearly stated they would not do.

For the IT to be included in the DLC, it would have to be true in the current ending and then clarified. I do not believe it is true in the current ending based on their reactions (as well as the lack thereof), so they will not expand on it.

As it has been explained many time.. the ability for fans to interpret the ending was their intention. I don't know why that concept is so hard for you to grasp.

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

It's a stupid question because you look to debunk the theory after it's been discussed in detail for a month. As I just stated. If you wish to neglect that.. it's your decision. But don't try to blame me for making yourself look like a fool.

So, any question, even if it might be an old one, that seeks to debunk the theory is stupid?

Thank you for proving my point.

[killnoob]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Nerd Rage ^ He is pissed.

^Proves me right.

A clear case of " LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING".

^I made the troll cry

%20http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmjhFnwSvjKkIZqXhPqhZOCyyVzsI-I7GV_h1t4oz53jGtffIycQ%20

You merely prove my point of a trolls need to "fill in" his low self esteem.

lol now it's a case of troll trolling trolls.
You know what that means?

I.T is done.

You can't produce any good arguements therefore you have to troll trolls to make yourself feel better.
Make sense? 

[NoSpin]

GBGriffin wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

Is is clearer to take a leap of faith that somehow Joker picked up your crew and left you to rot, Anderson who FOLLOWED you up is now in front of you (when nobody made it), Mass Relays don't destroy the system they are in when they explode, Shepard honestly sits there and takes the logic the there will never be peace between organics and synthetics, when HE JUST MADE PEACE BETWEEN THEM an hour ago, that Shepard somehow survives the citadel explosion......or is it clearer to say "Harbinger was right there, Shep got hit by the laser and is fighting Harbinger in his mind, nothing you see from this point on is real until you breathe in the rubble."

There isn't enough evidence to prove me or you correct. That's why this thread exists, for simple respectful debate. Once people start to forget the respect part....I'm sure you guys know.

Actually, a leap of faith versus what you're actually being shown does make less sense. To me, what you're being shown, in addition to their defense of it, is "clearer" than a fan-made theory they haven't backed up.

Seriously, there's all this supposed proof in game, but no proof that seems just as valid outside of the game? Whereas, if you believed the product was rushed, then both in game and out of game evidence can explain that.

You brought up a good point before (or someone did), maybe it WAS the goal to have Shep Indoctrinated. They canned it, accidentally left tidbits in the final product, and thus led to this mess. I, as I'm sure many here, would LOVE to be able to question the writers directly as to some of their "decisions". Or heck, one long blog post by the writing team outlining exactly what they were aiming for.... They would end this hate fest in a second and put this controversy behind them, but I guess spoiling the free DLC that may or may not be anything of substance discourages that.

[lex0r11]

Hacedor1566 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Nerd Rage ^ He is pissed.

^Proves me right.

A clear case of " LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING".

¡Another ocasion for my favourite picture on the citadel!

Yes Sir, here to back you up.

[killnoob]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Pirates10i wrote...

Well from biowares reaction to the I.t. Theory it seems like to me they did not in fact mean to do it and they are not ruling it out to clean up their mess

If it was not their intention at the launch of the game, then supporting it would be changing the ending, which they clearly stated they would not do.

For the IT to be included in the DLC, it would have to be true in the current ending and then clarified. I do not believe it is true in the current ending based on their reactions (as well as the lack thereof), so they will not expand on it.

As it has been explained many time.. the ability for fans to interpret the ending was their intention. I don't know why that concept is so hard for you to grasp.

And I've explained to you,

They are going to release a clarification DLC.

if they want you to interpret it, which you have ALREADY done, why do they wanna clarify more?

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

It's a stupid question because you look to debunk the theory after it's been discussed in detail for a month. As I just stated. If you wish to neglect that.. it's your decision. But don't try to blame me for making yourself look like a fool.

So, any question, even if it might be an old one, that seeks to debunk the theory is stupid?

Thank you for proving my point.

What point? That you're a dipsh*t troll with no life? You've done well at that so far.

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


As it has been explained many time.. the ability for fans to interpret the ending was their intention. I don't know why that concept is so hard for you to grasp.

It's hard for me to grasp because people are arguing that the IT has been true all along, but now you're saying that interpretation was their goal all along.

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

It's a stupid question because you look to debunk the theory after it's been discussed in detail for a month. As I just stated. If you wish to neglect that.. it's your decision. But don't try to blame me for making yourself look like a fool.

So, any question, even if it might be an old one, that seeks to debunk the theory is stupid?

Thank you for proving my point.

What point? That you're a dipsh*t troll with no life? You've done well at that so far.

My point that supporters can dismiss anything that seeks to contradict the theory, which you so eloquently did.

[n00bsauce2010]

killnoob wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Pirates10i wrote...

Well from biowares reaction to the I.t. Theory it seems like to me they did not in fact mean to do it and they are not ruling it out to clean up their mess

If it was not their intention at the launch of the game, then supporting it would be changing the ending, which they clearly stated they would not do.

For the IT to be included in the DLC, it would have to be true in the current ending and then clarified. I do not believe it is true in the current ending based on their reactions (as well as the lack thereof), so they will not expand on it.

As it has been explained many time.. the ability for fans to interpret the ending was their intention. I don't know why that concept is so hard for you to grasp.

And I've explained to you,

They are going to release a clarification DLC.

if they want you to interpret it, which you have ALREADY done, why do they wanna clarify more?

Go back and read the panel statements and PR from tweets the last few days. They said the ending dlc will still have room for interetation. Are you mentally retarded or are you just looking for any reason to neglect the meaning of truth?

[NoSpin]

As for leaving the ending up to interpretation....games like "Journey" are meant to be interpreted. I just want to know if my squad/universe is ok. I want to know if my character,who I played as for 3 games, lived. If i need to interpret those facts....that is not art, that's bad writing.

[Golferguy758]

Difference between GBgriffin and killnoob is that while GB disagrees entirely he does it respectfully to those who are respectful back, two-way street guys. And it's okay to disagree it is just a theory after all. Speculation is fun. It is still my headcannon at least until i see what BW does with the ending DLC, hell they may make a better one, or they may make a worse one. We don't know yet.

But seeing as how popular this topic became I would be surprised if Indoctrination isn't referenced in the DLC


As to Freakazoid's question! Some people interpreted the gun to be Shepard's willpower. Destroy is the only one he doesn't drop it as he moves toward his choice. Much like in the geth VR a gun is given to Shepard as it is something that is most comfortable to him. I personally thought it was just a gameplay element, but I can kind of see how they can interpret it that way. It was one of the weaker pieces of evidence, same with the keepers you can walk through there, but not anywhere else

[killnoob]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Pirates10i wrote...

Well from biowares reaction to the I.t. Theory it seems like to me they did not in fact mean to do it and they are not ruling it out to clean up their mess

If it was not their intention at the launch of the game, then supporting it would be changing the ending, which they clearly stated they would not do.

For the IT to be included in the DLC, it would have to be true in the current ending and then clarified. I do not believe it is true in the current ending based on their reactions (as well as the lack thereof), so they will not expand on it.

As it has been explained many time.. the ability for fans to interpret the ending was their intention. I don't know why that concept is so hard for you to grasp.

And I've explained to you,

They are going to release a clarification DLC.

if they want you to interpret it, which you have ALREADY done, why do they wanna clarify more?

Go back and read the panel statements and PR from tweets the last few days. They said the ending dlc will still have room for interetation. Are you mentally retarded or are you just looking for any reason to neglect the meaning of truth?

What does interetation means?

[GBGriffin]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Difference between GBgriffin and killnoob is that while GB disagrees entirely he does it respectfully to those who are respectful back, two-way street guys. And it's okay to disagree it is just a theory after all. Speculation is fun. It is still my headcannon at least until i see what BW does with the ending DLC, hell they may make a better one, or they may make a worse one. We don't know yet.

But seeing as how popular this topic became I would be surprised if Indoctrination isn't referenced in the DLC


As to Freakazoid's question! Some people interpreted the gun to be Shepard's willpower. Destroy is the only one he doesn't drop it as he moves toward his choice. Much like in the geth VR a gun is given to Shepard as it is something that is most comfortable to him. I personally thought it was just a gameplay element, but I can kind of see how they can interpret it that way. It was one of the weaker pieces of evidence, same with the keepers you can walk through there, but not anywhere else

Just going to quote you and thank you for your post since I know you hate seeing your posts ignored!

[Dwailing]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Pirates10i wrote...

Well from biowares reaction to the I.t. Theory it seems like to me they did not in fact mean to do it and they are not ruling it out to clean up their mess

If it was not their intention at the launch of the game, then supporting it would be changing the ending, which they clearly stated they would not do.

For the IT to be included in the DLC, it would have to be true in the current ending and then clarified. I do not believe it is true in the current ending based on their reactions (as well as the lack thereof), so they will not expand on it.

As it has been explained many time.. the ability for fans to interpret the ending was their intention. I don't know why that concept is so hard for you to grasp.

And I've explained to you,

They are going to release a clarification DLC.

if they want you to interpret it, which you have ALREADY done, why do they wanna clarify more?

Go back and read the panel statements and PR from tweets the last few days. They said the ending dlc will still have room for interetation. Are you mentally retarded or are you just looking for any reason to neglect the meaning of truth?

OK, settle down everyone.  Getting angry isn't going to help anything.

[Jadebaby]

killnoob wrote...

Why would i be in this thread? 
Cuz slapping people out of their fantasies is fun.

First of all, this comment just makes me want to slap you upside your immature head.

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

I merely see a 12 year old child with poor trolling tactics.

You're in here because you have nothing better to do with your life. Isn't it obvious?

killnoob wrote...

And you have something to do with your life because you're ...here? Arguing abount the ending of a game, hanging on to your last straw and refusing to let go?

LOOL.

nice logic.

Umm I don't know if you realize this or not (clearly you dont)... But you're actually the one argueing about it.
Most of the Indoc people have come to their own conclusion about it and the only thing that will prove them wrong is the extended DLC should it not contain IT. Not some slob sitting back in their underwear with nothing better to do in their day then bring others down because his/her life is f****ed up. I swear if you're not still in your teenage years, your mind is.

Grow up.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

It's a stupid question because you look to debunk the theory after it's been discussed in detail for a month. As I just stated. If you wish to neglect that.. it's your decision. But don't try to blame me for making yourself look like a fool.

So, any question, even if it might be an old one, that seeks to debunk the theory is stupid?

Thank you for proving my point.

What point? That you're a dipsh*t troll with no life? You've done well at that so far.

My point that supporters can dismiss anything that seeks to contradict the theory, which you so eloquently did.

The argument has been brought up dozens of times..and has been argued. I think we're aware that we haven't been able to shoot at keepers in the past. It also has nothing to do with what the majority of us are discussing in the thread here and now.

That particular bit of "evidence" is not in any way what I use to explain the theory. So if you're speaking for all theorists you're wrong.

[Golferguy758]

GBGriffin wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

Difference between GBgriffin and killnoob is that while GB disagrees entirely he does it respectfully to those who are respectful back, two-way street guys. And it's okay to disagree it is just a theory after all. Speculation is fun. It is still my headcannon at least until i see what BW does with the ending DLC, hell they may make a better one, or they may make a worse one. We don't know yet.

But seeing as how popular this topic became I would be surprised if Indoctrination isn't referenced in the DLC


As to Freakazoid's question! Some people interpreted the gun to be Shepard's willpower. Destroy is the only one he doesn't drop it as he moves toward his choice. Much like in the geth VR a gun is given to Shepard as it is something that is most comfortable to him. I personally thought it was just a gameplay element, but I can kind of see how they can interpret it that way. It was one of the weaker pieces of evidence, same with the keepers you can walk through there, but not anywhere else

Just going to quote you and thank you for your post since I know you hate seeing your posts ignored!

you even if we disagree on the theory! 

[Dwailing]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Difference between GBgriffin and killnoob is that while GB disagrees entirely he does it respectfully to those who are respectful back, two-way street guys. And it's okay to disagree it is just a theory after all. Speculation is fun. It is still my headcannon at least until i see what BW does with the ending DLC, hell they may make a better one, or they may make a worse one. We don't know yet.

But seeing as how popular this topic became I would be surprised if Indoctrination isn't referenced in the DLC


As to Freakazoid's question! Some people interpreted the gun to be Shepard's willpower. Destroy is the only one he doesn't drop it as he moves toward his choice. Much like in the geth VR a gun is given to Shepard as it is something that is most comfortable to him. I personally thought it was just a gameplay element, but I can kind of see how they can interpret it that way. It was one of the weaker pieces of evidence, same with the keepers you can walk through there, but not anywhere else

You can walk through the keepers?  That is actually weird because the keepers were solid earlier on the Citadel.  Why would they change that?