57139 réponses à ce sujet

[DashingSplash]

GBGriffin wrote...

To address your last point first, I've actually done so earlier in this thread, a few pages back. Sure enough, it was dimissed, but I do consider it to be evidence to the contrary.

Now, as for the rest:

Consider your second point: the theory was formed with the second to last video clip, Shepard waking up. That, by itself, formed the theory. People then went back through all 3 games to support that theory. If it was truly intended, why not make it more obvious so that the theory was formed during the game proper, not once it actually ended?

My point is this: People came up with the theory, then worked backwards to prove it. It's like Nostradamus's prophecies: they are only true in hindsight. This theory only works in hindsight; there was nothing leading up to the indoctrination theory before that scene, but once the scene happened, people went back to make it make sense. The theory predated the evidence; the evidence did not form the theory by itself. Fans had to make the evidence fit the theory.

People went back into the previous games to analys the actions BW let us do, because in the end we knew they can pull out great stories.
But each theory will have it flaws, even the IT. 

We may be right, or maybe you are right. In the end we will hold on to our beliefs.

[Jadebaby]

GBGriffin wrote...

Now, as for the rest:

Consider your second point: the theory was formed with the second to last video clip, Shepard waking up. That, by itself, formed the theory. People then went back through all 3 games to support that theory. If it was truly intended, why not make it more obvious so that the theory was formed during the game proper, not once it actually ended?

Because it would be exactly that, obvious. They didn't want it to be obvious because that's not how Indoctrination works!

GBGriffin wrote...

My point is this: People came up with the theory, then worked backwards to prove it. It's like Nostradamus's prophecies: they are only true in hindsight.
 
This theory only works in hindsight; there was nothing leading up to the indoctrination theory before that scene, but once the scene happened, people went back to make it make sense. The theory predated the evidence; the evidence did not form the theory by itself. Fans had to make the evidence fit the theory.

The point is it makes sense. Sometimes you have to take a backwards step to make two forward.

[GBGriffin]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


NO! It does not! It makes them genius' because they just Indoctrinated you in real life! By presenting you with choices that seem like good ideas but have both been tested before "Saren and TIM".

Again, this would presume that the IT was intended at launch, and I maintain that it was not. While the choices certainly reflect those individuals, I do not believe they are actually manifestations of the subconscious.

You seem to be hanging on to the no gameplay angle.. can you provide a link for evidence?

I'm basing this off of the blog, which, to me, is more definitive than Merizan's tweets. I can see how "scenes" and PAX remarks could be interpreted as hints of gameplay, but I believe that additional gameplay would change the ending, which they clearly stated they will not do. To me, gameplay would change the ending, and I think people are reading into the remarks too much and hoping for gameplay because, again, it fits with their current hopes.

[UrgedDuke]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

If they made you reload and pick red option it would be like Broken Steel in Fallout

He can only be reuinted with love interest if he lives (unless of course it was cortez) In reality making one choice more "correct" then others.

yea but you would be punishing players that picked green or blue

Are we referring to the ending according to indoctrination theory? or what bioware has said about the extended cut?

whichever one you were refering to above

[n00bsauce2010]

protognosis wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

IT is the best possible expatiation

Nope. It actually has several issues with it.

For one, as it stands, it invalidates the current endings and makes the other two options "incorrect". Without additional gameplay, two scenes would essentially be game overs because even the people who pick Control and Synthesis don't want their Shep to become indoctrinated.

IT only favors the people who pick Destroy. That isn't a balanced ending.

Not this S*** again?  Seriously, the same tired argument.  The other endings are invalidated?  No it just means the player failed.  And IT works with the other endings.  Control means you were controlled and a puppet of the Reapers, Sythesis means you messed with the Reapers and they had to trick you into something that was a win/win scenario since you had to much EMS. Understand what the endings mean in terms of IT before you try to troll.
The other two options are just as correct as destroy.  
Saying there is no balance in the ending if only one choice is correct is a straw man arguemnt if I've ever saw one.
There is no balance in any of the endings.  ME1 your choice of human council member was either what Bioware wanted, Udina, or the "incorrect" choice of Anderson.  If you picked Anderson, that choice was invalidated in ME3.
ME2 had several options that all depended on the player's ability.  If Shepard died it was because the Player failed.  If crew members died, it was because the player failed.  And the destroy the collector base option was the "incorrect" choice because regardless of the player's choice, The Illusiveman still got his reaper goodies.  He still won.  That choice was invalidated so the only real choice was to keep the Collector base.

So don't come in here, talking the same tired arguments without the basics of IT down and with an argument of balance when non of the endings were balanced and many of the players choices were invalidated as Bioware needed to make certain choices canon.

GBGriffins argument/tactics against your post- "I'm right.. you're wrong" now I'll go back and restate all my other arguments and move the discussion in a huge circle.

[GBGriffin]

balance5050 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

"Again, the evidence for IT came about after the theory was formed. The evidence did not form the theory"


I.T. has always been in the game... All three games... You must be confused... U thinking of Halo?

No, indoctrination always has been; the theory only came about, as stated, with the end of the third game. People then worked backwards to prove Shep was indoctrinated; there was no mention of this prior to the ending...or, at least, not to this extent.

[Lyria]

I'm honestly starting to think OPs should have the ability to bounce people who just troll without adding to the discussion/understanding the subject matter.

[n00bsauce2010]

[quote]UrgedDuke wrote...

[quote]n00bsauce2010 wrote...

[/quote]

Are we referring to the ending according to indoctrination theory? or what bioware has said about the extended cut?

[/quote]

whichever one you were refering to above

[/quote]

The one i was referring to was extended cut. In reality it only has one "correct" ending.. because it is the only one where shepard lives.. therefore making it more likely people will choose it over the others. and witht he incentive of reuniting with your love interest... it's just more likely.

[balance5050]

GBGriffin wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...


NO! It does not! It makes them genius' because they just Indoctrinated you in real life! By presenting you with choices that seem like good ideas but have both been tested before "Saren and TIM".

Again, this would presume that the IT was intended at launch, and I maintain that it was not. While the choices certainly reflect those individuals, I do not believe they are actually manifestations of the subconscious.

You seem to be hanging on to the no gameplay angle.. can you provide a link for evidence?

I'm basing this off of the blog, which, to me, is more definitive than Merizan's tweets. I can see how "scenes" and PAX remarks could be interpreted as hints of gameplay, but I believe that additional gameplay would change the ending, which they clearly stated they will not do. To me, gameplay would change the ending, and I think people are reading into the remarks too much and hoping for gameplay because, again, it fits with their current hopes.

So you're basing your argument on a peice of software that is still in development? That's not very sturdy evidence to back up your claim... You should be more speculative like us;)

[UrgedDuke]

[quote]n00bsauce2010 wrote...

[quote]UrgedDuke wrote...

[quote]n00bsauce2010 wrote...

[/quote]

Are we referring to the ending according to indoctrination theory? or what bioware has said about the extended cut?

[/quote]

whichever one you were refering to above

[/quote]

The one i was referring to was extended cut. In reality it only has one "correct" ending.. because it is the only one where shepard lives.. therefore making it more likely people will choose it over the others. and witht he incentive of reuniting with your love interest... it's just more likely.

[/quote]

that sounds like awful design because there is no reward for the other endings

[n00bsauce2010]

[quote]UrgedDuke wrote...

[quote]n00bsauce2010 wrote...

[quote]UrgedDuke wrote...

[quote]n00bsauce2010 wrote...

[/quote]

Are we referring to the ending according to indoctrination theory? or what bioware has said about the extended cut?

[/quote]

whichever one you were refering to above

[/quote]

The one i was referring to was extended cut. In reality it only has one "correct" ending.. because it is the only one where shepard lives.. therefore making it more likely people will choose it over the others. and witht he incentive of reuniting with your love interest... it's just more likely.

[/quote]

that sounds like awful design because there is no reward for the other endings

[/quote]

all endings will have cutscenes with squad members and such. And I'm sure they'll all still be good. But in reality.. there are some that are better than others.. making one more correct.

[GBGriffin]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Now, as for the rest:

Consider your second point: the theory was formed with the second to last video clip, Shepard waking up. That, by itself, formed the theory. People then went back through all 3 games to support that theory. If it was truly intended, why not make it more obvious so that the theory was formed during the game proper, not once it actually ended?

Because it would be exactly that, obvious. They didn't want it to be obvious because that's not how Indoctrination works!

GBGriffin wrote...

My point is this: People came up with the theory, then worked backwards to prove it. It's like Nostradamus's prophecies: they are only true in hindsight.
 
This theory only works in hindsight; there was nothing leading up to the indoctrination theory before that scene, but once the scene happened, people went back to make it make sense. The theory predated the evidence; the evidence did not form the theory by itself. Fans had to make the evidence fit the theory.

The point is it makes sense. Sometimes you have to take a backwards step to make two forward.

If it isn't obvious, then it isn't good storytelling. I shouldn't have to go to the Internet to grasp the "true" meaning of a game. It should be presented in the story proper. That, to me, makes sense when it comes to telling a story: tell the story, don't make your readers/players look outside the game for meaning. The meaning should be presented clearly in the game.

Again, just because it makes sense does not mean it is the truth. The truth doesn't have to make sense to be the truth. The theory was developed before the evidence; fans created the evidence by attaching meaning to elements which, prior to the theory, didn't have meaning.

[GBGriffin]

balance5050 wrote...

So you're basing your argument on a peice of software that is still in development? That's not very sturdy evidence to back up your claim... You should be more speculative like us;)

What? She asked where I believed there would be no more gameplay, and I provided a link to support my claim.

How you, or I, interpret it is up in the air, I guess, although I think they would have said "We will be adding new gameplay"...but maybe that doesn't "make sense", I guess.

[Lyria]

@n00bsauce2010: I know. I'm just so fed up with people who refuse to see other sides. Its like every Troll that posts in here learned debate tactics from FoxNews. "I'm right, you're wrong and I don't have to prove it."

Most of us understand there are holes in the theory as, since this isn't Science, we can't test the theory except with what we have found in game. We can analyse the heck out of the things we find but until we get a straight answer from Bioware people will continue to troll without understanding or attempting to understand others.

[Jadebaby]

GBGriffin wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...


NO! It does not! It makes them genius' because they just Indoctrinated you in real life! By presenting you with choices that seem like good ideas but have both been tested before "Saren and TIM".

Again, this would presume that the IT was intended at launch, and I maintain that it was not. While the choices certainly reflect those individuals, I do not believe they are actually manifestations of the subconscious.

You seem to be hanging on to the no gameplay angle.. can you provide a link for evidence?

I'm basing this off of the blog, which, to me, is more definitive than Merizan's tweets. I can see how "scenes" and PAX remarks could be interpreted as hints of gameplay, but I believe that additional gameplay would change the ending, which they clearly stated they will not do. To me, gameplay would change the ending, and I think people are reading into the remarks too much and hoping for gameplay because, again, it fits with their current hope.

Without looking at the link, I think you're misinterpreting the word change. I think when they say change it means they're not going to take anything out, not that they're not going to add anything in. Because they clearly are.

[UrgedDuke]

[quote]n00bsauce2010 wrote...

[quote]UrgedDuke wrote...

[quote]n00bsauce2010 wrote...

[quote]UrgedDuke wrote...

[quote]n00bsauce2010 wrote...

[/quote]

Are we referring to the ending according to indoctrination theory? or what bioware has said about the extended cut?

[/quote]

whichever one you were refering to above

[/quote]

The one i was referring to was extended cut. In reality it only has one "correct" ending.. because it is the only one where shepard lives.. therefore making it more likely people will choose it over the others. and witht he incentive of reuniting with your love interest... it's just more likely.

[/quote]

that sounds like awful design because there is no reward for the other endings

[/quote]

all endings will have cutscenes with squad members and such. And I'm sure they'll all still be good. But in reality.. there are some that are better than others.. making one more correct.

[/quote]

yes but in mass effect there are suppoed to be no wrong choices just different ones based on the player's ideology

Modifié par UrgedDuke, 07 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[balance5050]

GBGriffin wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

"Again, the evidence for IT came about after the theory was formed. The evidence did not form the theory"


I.T. has always been in the game... All three games... You must be confused... U thinking of Halo?

No, indoctrination always has been; the theory only came about, as stated, with the end of the third game People then worked backwards to prove Shep was indoctrinated; there was no mention of this prior to the ending...or, at least, not to this extent.

What's wrong with using in game evidence to back up what happened at the end of said game? Lot's of people thought it was a dream right when they see the white light after harbingers beam. You only see that white light in dreams and when pluggin into the Geth Consensus, I thought it was a dream when I played it the FIRST TIME, it was really obvious actually. So for many people I'm sure they were creating a hypothosis in their head to explain why things were happening the way they were. We all thought something was up so there pretty much was.

Sorry if you didn't notice those things:unsure:

Modifié par balance5050, 07 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[killnoob]

balance5050 wrote...


Uhm, most of us aren't arguing if it was inentional by bioware or not, it's our interpretation of the end. The nifty thing is that it allows us to create anything past "Shep wakes up" through speculation. Whether it was intentional or not it fits into the game better then the end and no "in game" evidence can refute it.

Fair enough.

All I'm gonna say is there's a hell lot of speculations  going on - and i do mean a HELL lot, basically half the plots even, because you have to substitute what crucible even does with your own imagination,ignore the 3 min cinemtaic of relays blowing up and the fact that we see shepard's crewmate escaping,  all the while continuously using "your own interpretation" as an excuse to what you have been shown.

What you're basically saying is that none of the things that happened in the last 15 minute is real. 

The entire plot of Me3 basically involves:
Gathering allies to defend a machine that has no purpose

And there is no ending,
Everything beyond London is hallucination (including the cinematic) and everything happens after Shepard wake up is also speculation.

Honestly, with that reasoning, you may as well believe anything past the defense committee is a dream (I'm dead serious, the rubble can be the rubbles of the Defense HQ on earth) and use the same old excuse "because no ingame evidence can refute it.

=============================

Now, let's take a look at the ending of each installment to get a sense of what's going on here:

ME 1 =  We destroy soverign. The reapers are still coming, but we know that for certain. There are no speculations here.

Me 2 = We destroy collectors.  The reapers are still coming. This is also certain. Everything's fact.

What ME 3 is supposed to be about:

ME 3 = we destroy the reapers.

And what it IS as presented:

We destroy the reapers. At high cost.

What Indoctrination Theory is trying to prove:

Shepard wakes up in a rubble. Fate unkown.

How is that consistent with the entire series as a whole?

Modifié par killnoob, 07 avril 2012 - 06:13 .

[DashingSplash]

GBGriffin wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Now, as for the rest:

Consider your second point: the theory was formed with the second to last video clip, Shepard waking up. That, by itself, formed the theory. People then went back through all 3 games to support that theory. If it was truly intended, why not make it more obvious so that the theory was formed during the game proper, not once it actually ended?

Because it would be exactly that, obvious. They didn't want it to be obvious because that's not how Indoctrination works!

GBGriffin wrote...

My point is this: People came up with the theory, then worked backwards to prove it. It's like Nostradamus's prophecies: they are only true in hindsight.
 
This theory only works in hindsight; there was nothing leading up to the indoctrination theory before that scene, but once the scene happened, people went back to make it make sense. The theory predated the evidence; the evidence did not form the theory by itself. Fans had to make the evidence fit the theory.

The point is it makes sense. Sometimes you have to take a backwards step to make two forward.

If it isn't obvious, then it isn't good storytelling. I shouldn't have to go to the Internet to grasp the "true" meaning of a game. It should be presented in the story proper. That, to me, makes sense when it comes to telling a story: tell the story, don't make your readers/players look outside the game for meaning. The meaning should be presented clearly in the game.

Again, just because it makes sense does not mean it is the truth. The truth doesn't have to make sense to be the truth. The theory was developed before the evidence; fans created the evidence by attaching meaning to elements which, prior to the theory, didn't have meaning.

You don't know everything about the games until you have played through all three of them.
What use would it be to play a third game if the two previous games explained everything.

[Legion109]

protognosis wrote...

I'm honestly starting to think OPs should have the ability to bounce people who just troll without adding to the discussion/understanding the subject matter.

But But But then I'd be bounced 

[Golferguy758]

I would like to point out that IT theory could be expounded upon with just cinematics if the cinematics are done well.

And I'd also like to reiterate they could easily just make every choice a "real one" I.e. if you chose Red you believed the indoc theory and cinematics show you breakign control and finishing the fight through somehow. if you chose green the synthesis actually does occur and cinematics explain how it happens. if you chose blue you control the reapers to make them do your bidding and cinematics show it happening.

That way all endings are still valid, and all are expounded upon through cinematics. hell they could add some gameplay and they'd still say the same message. Everyone gets the endings they would like: Whether ID theory, synth, control,, anything.

If still not clear i'll explain more, but it's kind of late.

[CLB17]

GBGriffin wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Yes, that is my point. IT is not true, and the game as it stands came about as a combination of a rushed product and bad writing/design. They're defense of the endings as is, and their reaction overall, confirms this for me.

I actually agree with you on this, but that's what led me to believe in Indoctrination. The evidence supporting it, just as I believed it was a rushed product based on the evidence supporting that. Think about it, if it was such a rushed product and shotty writing, why would they give the starchild layers with shep/femshep voices when they could just add tweeks?
Their view of the ending as a company was always going to support their product.
But you have to remember that Indoc is based off what they gave us, a lot of it is suspect. Mainly because of their promises.
Also the ending, they said, had been planned for years.

If you look around enough you might be surprised.

GBGriffin wrote...

Again, the evidence for IT came about after the theory was formed. The evidence did not form the theory.

 
No it didn't, because the first piece of evidence that formed the theory, was Shepard waking up in London.

GBGriffin wrote...
People proposed the idea and then went back to twist game elements to make it work, while simultaneously discarding any evidence to the contrary.

Maybe you could elaborate on discarding the contrary?

To address your last point first, I've actually done so earlier in this thread, a few pages back. Sure enough, it was dimissed, but I do consider it to be evidence to the contrary.

Now, as for the rest:

Consider your second point: the theory was formed with the second to last video clip, Shepard waking up. That, by itself, formed the theory. People then went back through all 3 games to support that theory. If it was truly intended, why not make it more obvious so that the theory was formed during the game proper, not once it actually ended?

My point is this: People came up with the theory, then worked backwards to prove it. It's like Nostradamus's prophecies: they are only true in hindsight. This theory only works in hindsight; there was nothing leading up to the indoctrination theory before that scene, but once the scene happened, people went back to make it make sense. The theory predated the evidence; the evidence did not form the theory by itself. Fans had to make the evidence fit the theory.

Well in KOTOR i didn't see the character i created turing out to be the dark lord of the sith prior to to actuel revelation. But looking in  hindsight i could see all the hints and clues that led to this revelation. A twist only works if you don't expect it.

[blooregard]

I imagine this will get buried pretty fast but I was wondering if a few things are still elephants in the room when it comes to disproving the IT theory.

1) Why as Shepard been immune to the effects of indoctrination despite all his interactions with reaper tech?

2) Why does Shepard only wake up on earth AFTER the destroy ending (because we all know his track record of surviving suffocation, re-entry, and terminal velocity impact with a planet)?

3) Why can we see that kid run into the building before getting lasered? And why does the kid survive it before saying cryptic and "non child like" lines like "everyone's dying" and "you can't save me"?

4) While TIM may have been able to control Shepard due to the cybernetic implants (unlikely but possible) how can he control Anderson too?


I just was wondering if these are still outstanding issues or not.

[balance5050]

 GBGriffin-"How you, or I, interpret it is up in the air, I guess,"
That's what this thread is all about;)

[DashingSplash]

Golferguy758 wrote...

I would like to point out that IT theory could be expounded upon with just cinematics if the cinematics are done well.

And I'd also like to reiterate they could easily just make every choice a "real one" I.e. if you chose Red you believed the indoc theory and cinematics show you breakign control and finishing the fight through somehow. if you chose green the synthesis actually does occur and cinematics explain how it happens. if you chose blue you control the reapers to make them do your bidding and cinematics show it happening.

That way all endings are still valid, and all are expounded upon through cinematics. hell they could add some gameplay and they'd still say the same message. Everyone gets the endings they would like: Whether ID theory, synth, control,, anything.

If still not clear i'll explain more, but it's kind of late.

Hopefully they will explain the .