57139 réponses à ce sujet

[blooregard]

I think both sides of this debate should stop being so aggressive in their opinion of the indoctrination theory


What happened to stay civil anyway?

[NoSpin]

GBGriffin wrote...

NoSpin wrote...


Arrival in interesting, didn't they say it had "massive" implications for ME3 or something?

You can't prove God exists, I can't prove he doesn't. A bit extravagant, but the same applies here. I can't prove he/she is indoctrinated, you can't prove he/she isn't. Until our "God" (Bioware) tells us that is.

Except if there is no God, then we never get that answer

This isn't God, or some natural phenomenon. You are speculating over a truth, the intent of a creative team, and claiming to know what they intended to do based on what fits a fan-made theory.

Again, to me, their post-launch actions suggests their intent, but clearly, people can dismiss that because it doesn't fit their theory, their interpretation of events. 

And to me their post launch talk (the exact same talk you have heard) has said nothing regarding the content of the ending (or DLC). Their writing job was sloppy, they need to fix it and make it clearer WHY things were happening. They want their to be closure (on what? The series? This specific game? Just the ending? I would consider Shep waking up in London with a big "4" flash up "closure". Wouldn't you?) That is all I have taken from their "announcement" so far. Many speculations!

[Jadebaby]

GBGriffin wrote...

Sorry, but you honestly don't do a very good job of making your point. I'm sure it sounds fine in your head, but it's not as easy to follow as you might think.

Why, for example, are you supporting continued interpretation in a thread that wants no interpretation and the IT theory to be true?

The question in the thread title is "was the ending a hallucination?" That invites interpretation.

Also, side note; omg I'm in sum1's sig! I feel special! Even if it wasn't one of my better comments

[Golferguy758]

Fhaarkas wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


^Dismissal of logical statements on multiple occasions. Interpretation was bioware's intention (truth.) So if we can craft up any theory that fits the mythos and lore of mass effect.. then it works.

Except you didn't write the mythos and lore; you admit to crafting the theory, which never existed prior to ME3, and then going back retroactively to support it.


Also, what is the truth? I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to argue. Was IT was their goal, or that interpretation was their goal all along? Do you want them to support IT, or support continued interpretation?

Man I love repeating myself. Multiple Interpretations were their goal all along for the ending.

I see more dismissal yet again.

Sorry, but you honestly don't do a very good job of making your point. I'm sure it sounds fine in your head, but it's not as easy to follow as you might think.

Why, for example, are you supporting continued interpretation in a thread that wants no interpretation and the IT theory to be true?

There are 10 kinds of IT subscribers - those that want clear cut confirmation (and new gameplay) and those in favour of interpretation.

[Jadebaby]

blooregard wrote...

I think both sides of this debate should stop being so aggressive in their opinion of the indoctrination theory


What happened to stay civil anyway?

Troll saliva is acidic.

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I can ask you a similar question. Why are you in a thread clearly disproving your ****** poor logic? You seem to bring the same point up.. over and over and over again. Only to have it logically countered. And you seem to selectively reply to posts that clearly fit your argument. The sad truth.

Because it's a dicussion forum, and what I'm discussing is on topic. What you're discussing is actually more off-topic (interpretation ending vs indoctrination ending).

Just because it doesn't support the theory doesn't mean that it's trolling, or false, or ****** poor. You claim it is these things because it doesn't support your interpretation. Again, you honestly do not make very valid arguments when you resort to childish remarks and describing arguments as "****** poor" because you don't agree with them. You are not as logical a poster as you like to think.

[Arian Dynas]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

blooregard wrote...

I think both sides of this debate should stop being so aggressive in their opinion of the indoctrination theory


What happened to stay civil anyway?

Troll saliva is acidic.

And an irritant.

[GBGriffin]

NoSpin wrote...


And to me their post launch talk (the exact same talk you have heard) has said nothing regarding the content of the ending (or DLC). Their writing job was sloppy, they need to fix it and make it clearer WHY things were happening. They want their to be closure (on what? The series? This specific game? Just the ending? I would consider Shep waking up in London with a big "4" flash up "closure". Wouldn't you?) That is all I have taken from their "announcement" so far. Many speculations!

It actually has said something, though. It just hasn't said something that supports what you think their intent should be, so of course you can claim it said "nothing".

They're expanding and clarifying the current endings. Based on their reactions, I'd say it's safe to assume they did not work IT into the final product. Again, for a group so willing to speculate, why does this one bit of information rely on a yes or no? Why not speculate over their actions, specifically their defense of the ending without mentioning IT?

[GBGriffin]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


The question in the thread title is "was the ending a hallucination?" That invites interpretation.

Also, side note; omg I'm in sum1's sig! I feel special! Even if it wasn't one of my better comments

I just thought it was hilarious because I've seen much bigger douchebags on the BSN.

[lex0r11]

Gee, and here i thought IT supporters were supposed to be fanatic.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I can ask you a similar question. Why are you in a thread clearly disproving your ****** poor logic? You seem to bring the same point up.. over and over and over again. Only to have it logically countered. And you seem to selectively reply to posts that clearly fit your argument. The sad truth.

Because it's a dicussion forum, and what I'm discussing is on topic. What you're discussing is actually more off-topic (interpretation ending vs indoctrination ending).

Just because it doesn't support the theory doesn't mean that it's trolling, or false, or ****** poor. You claim it is these things because it doesn't support your interpretation. Again, you honestly do not make very valid arguments when you resort to childish remarks and describing arguments as "****** poor" because you don't agree with them. You are not as logical a poster as you like to think.

How is my point off topic? My point is that any interpretation is as valid as any. Yours is that no interpretation besides your own is valid. It's called being open minded bro. You should try it sometime. You seem to neglect the fact that bioware intended room for interpretation..hence the fact that I have to keep repeating myself in order for you to soak it in. This thread was never about saying that indoctrination was indeed the truth... rather than the fact that it makes sense, fits and is way better than the pile of crap you proudly support.

[GBGriffin]

lex0r11 wrote...

Gee, and here i thought IT supporters were supposed to be fanatic.

Actually, the fringe element is. Not all of them. I've even made the remark that if the IT keeps you holding the line, then believe in it. Just don't get confrontational over trying to prove it.

[killnoob]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

That's nice

Now please comment more about my ego and less about I.T.

Let's reduce this thread into nothing but a bunch of pointless bickers

Notice I said self-righteous....

Also, you started the bickering multiple pages ago, I just hate having good discussions ruined by trolls.

Good discussions?

You mean all that 'la la la i'm not listening" and straw grasping?

I'm serious now.
Trolling mode = off.

Bioware said the new ending DLC will still have room for interpretation.
They did this to make you people happy.

But they also said there won't be new endings, and I.T requires alternative endings to float.

Otherwise, we're left with 'Shepard waking up in a rubble with the reapers alive and kicking"

The game won't be finished.

But if they removed this scene about Shepard waking up in the rubble, then I.T wouldn't make sense because we're not shown Shepard waking up.

Therefore,

Indoctrination theory was not their intention.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Modifié par killnoob, 07 avril 2012 - 04:28 .

[n00bsauce2010]

killnoob wrote...


Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

I think most of us are beyond the point of listening to a troll babble rehashed arguments.

[Arian Dynas]

killnoob wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

That's nice

Now please comment more about my ego and less about I.T.

Let's reduce this thread into nothing but a bunch of pointless bickers

Notice I said self-righteous....

Also, you started the bickering multiple pages ago, I just hate having good discussions ruined by trolls.

Good discussions?

You mean all that 'la la la i'm not listening" and straw grasping?

I'm serious now.
Trolling mode = off.

Bioware said the new ending DLC will still have room for interpretation.
They did this to make you people happy.

But they also said there won't be new endings, and I.T requires alternative endings to float.

Otherwise, we're left with 'Shepard waking up in a rubble with the reapers alive and kicking"

The game won't be finished.

But if they removed this scene about Shepard waking up in the rubble, then I.T wouldn't make sense because we're not shown Shepard waking up.

Therefore,

Indoctrination theory was not their intention.

Indoctrination theory is dead.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Grow up, or shut up. Pick one.

[killnoob]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

killnoob wrote...


Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

I think most of us are beyond the point of listening to a troll babble rehashed arguments.

How about you actually shoot me down with a rational arguement for once?

[n00bsauce2010]

killnoob wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

killnoob wrote...


Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

I think most of us are beyond the point of listening to a troll babble rehashed arguments.

How about you actually shoot me down with a rational arguement for once?

How about you make a rational argument for me to shoot down?

[Dwailing]

Arian Dynas wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

That's nice

Now please comment more about my ego and less about I.T.

Let's reduce this thread into nothing but a bunch of pointless bickers

Notice I said self-righteous....

Also, you started the bickering multiple pages ago, I just hate having good discussions ruined by trolls.

Good discussions?

You mean all that 'la la la i'm not listening" and straw grasping?

I'm serious now.
Trolling mode = off.

Bioware said the new ending DLC will still have room for interpretation.
They did this to make you people happy.

But they also said there won't be new endings, and I.T requires alternative endings to float.

Otherwise, we're left with 'Shepard waking up in a rubble with the reapers alive and kicking"

The game won't be finished.

But if they removed this scene about Shepard waking up in the rubble, then I.T wouldn't make sense because we're not shown Shepard waking up.

Therefore,

Indoctrination theory was not their intention.

Indoctrination theory is dead.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?

Grow up, or shut up. Pick one.

Agreed.  I have several responses to the troll, but honestly, I won't waste my digital breath.

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


How is my point off topic? My point is that any interpretation is as valid as any. Yours is that no interpretation besides your own is valid. It's called being open minded bro. You should try it sometime. You seem to neglect the fact that bioware intended room for interpretation..hence the fact that I have to keep repeating myself in order for you to soak it in. This thread was never about saying that indoctrination was indeed the truth... rather than the fact that it makes sense, fits and is way better than the pile of crap you proudly support.

See, again, you're changing your argument and not presenting it clearly enough. First, you say that your intent is that any interpretation is valid...which should mean that mine is as well. Mine, by your logic, is an interpretation, so why not respect it as a valid one...if that is indeed your intent?

Also, if that was the purpose of the thread, it seems that not everyone thinks as you do. If that's your interpretation, and that all of this is speculation and not fact, then I'm okay with that.

You're also misinterpreting my message. Not all theories are wrong; I just think this one is. 

[noobcannon]

RedShft wrote...

So how do people feel about IT? You still believe it is a possibility? Personally, I've lost faith several announcements ago but I'm interested to hear how people feel about it now.

I think it is still possible, but I have a hard time believing they would go this long without confirming it. The free multiplayer dlc coming out tuesday looks cool but I have no desire to play it.

[NoSpin]

GBGriffin wrote...

NoSpin wrote...


And to me their post launch talk (the exact same talk you have heard) has said nothing regarding the content of the ending (or DLC). Their writing job was sloppy, they need to fix it and make it clearer WHY things were happening. They want their to be closure (on what? The series? This specific game? Just the ending? I would consider Shep waking up in London with a big "4" flash up "closure". Wouldn't you?) That is all I have taken from their "announcement" so far. Many speculations!

It actually has said something, though. It just hasn't said something that supports what you think their intent should be, so of course you can claim it said "nothing".

They're expanding and clarifying the current endings. Based on their reactions, I'd say it's safe to assume they did not work IT into the final product. Again, for a group so willing to speculate, why does this one bit of information rely on a yes or no? Why not speculate over their actions, specifically their defense of the ending without mentioning IT?

You interpret them saying one thing, I interpret what they are saying as something different. You can't say your interpretation is the correct one The current endings are JUST as intended, that is why they defended them. Indoc theory relies on this story (Shepard's) continuing. Buzz Aldrin and Oxygen seem to point at this story continuing. Will the ending expansions make it even clearer? Or will they just explain why Joker is a scared little girl?

It will be a couple months before we find out. Pleasure talking with you sir. I'm out!

[killnoob]

Arian Dynas wrote...



Grow up, or shut up. Pick one.

Believe me, I would shut up if anyone respond with a logical counter arguement and not these "he's a troll dont listen to him " post.

[Dwailing]

OK, we all need to calm down a little, don't we? Would anyone like to watch a funny video? Here:

Yeah, it's off topic, but seriously, we all need to calm down.

[GBGriffin]

NoSpin wrote...

You interpret them saying one thing, I interpret what they are saying as something different. You can't say your interpretation is the correct one The current endings are JUST as intended, that is why they defended them. Indoc theory relies on this story (Shepard's) continuing. Buzz Aldrin and Oxygen seem to point at this story continuing. Will the ending expansions make it even clearer? Or will they just explain why Joker is a scared little girl?

It will be a couple months before we find out. Pleasure talking with you sir. I'm out!

Haha, I should be getting to bed as well. Later!

[Fhaarkas]

Seriously though, IMO in the end it all boils down to realists vs imaginists. I think IT is already pretty sound as a theory.

[speculation] The breath scene was supposed to invoke that "Was it real?" question. But because the preceding scenes were done so ****** poorly (thus not appeasing the realists - face value and IT both), it all went haywire.