57139 réponses à ce sujet

[UrgedDuke]

I am IT for life ..... or at least until it is proven/disproven

[blooregard]

blooregard wrote...

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.

One bump.

[killnoob]

DashingSplash wrote...


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.

What he is trying to say is, that the theorist applied their own interpretation to what is being show, and then regard it as evidence, when it is anything but.

That would be like Me saying Fibonacci sequence is god's way of telling us he exist because nature can't possible develope goden ratio on its own.

[UrgentArchengel]

blooregard wrote...

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.

[DashingSplash]

blooregard wrote...

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.

1) That is because of the stubborness of Shepard. The most stubborn human to be alive.

2) That is what we explain with the IT. Everything after the blast from Harbringer is a lucid dream.
And the indoctrination is broken when you choose to destroy the Reapers.

3) The explanation is that the child was part of the Indoctrination, only existing in Shepards mind.

4) Powerful biotics? No idea. Everything above is also speculations, and may be taken as such.

Hopefully I explained some of the points of IT.

[GBGriffin]

balance5050 wrote...



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:

The evidence should form the theory; the theory should not form the evidence. Just because I noticed them doesn't mean I gave them the same meaning you did; it just means we interpreted it two different ways.

It probably isn't fair to generalize, but I was there at the start of this thread because, again, I beleived in it. But it really did take the shape of working backwards to move forwards, and, to me, while that evidence might have made sense at the time, some of it clearly didn't mean anything until the theory came along.

[GBGriffin]

balance5050 wrote...

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

Haha, I'm fine leaving it at this for the night because I'm exhausted

Night!

[DashingSplash]

killnoob wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...


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.

What he is trying to say is, that the theorist applied their own interpretation to what is being show, and then regard it as evidence, when it is anything but.

That would be like Me saying Fibonacci sequence is god's way of telling us he exist because nature can't possible develope goden ratio on its own.

It is, as stated before, just a theory. No solid evidence, the theory still got flaws. As with every theory.

Is that not what some religious people would say? The have their way of interperating life.

[killnoob]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

blooregard wrote...

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.

simple explanation = Plot holes.

There are no meanings behind them.

You attach the meanings and use them as evidence to formulate a giant conspiracy.
The only way you can possible prove that Shepard is indoctrinated would be a sequence where he was SHOWN indoctrinated.

The same with disproving.

But you are not shown anything.
You are presented with an ending you're supposed to take at face value.
But people want a good ending so bad they're happy to use IT as an excuse to create their own happy ending.

Which is fine

Until they try to shove it down your throat and regard it as fact.

 

[Fhaarkas]

killnoob wrote...

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?

IT is not out to 'prove' anything. It asks a question. The reapers will still be destroyed, you will still get to.. I don't know, see how well Garrus is doing or something (in cinematics). And then it will all end with the breath scene. Bam. Das Malefitz.

I am not sure about this, but has it been said anywhere that this DLC will reveal the fate of Shepard? Like, explicitly "fate of Commander Shepard"? Because if so, my inference is invalid then.

[AnuzaGray]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

blooregard wrote...

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.

1) Significantly stronger will than nearly everyone else indoctrinated.  It's only after an excellent opening and massive amounts of stress that the Reapers are able to get this far with him/her.

2) How does this relate to IDT?  If IDT is correct, Shepard never left Earth.  Also, Shepard didn't survive the his/her inital travel through the atmosphere are the start of ME2, s/he just lucked out and had enough of her body and CNS survive to make Lazarus possible.

3) Again, how does this relate to IDT?  If anything the kid somehow magically surviving that blast and than being ignored by Anderson (who has what it appears to be a clear line of sight to kid and doesn't even ask Shepard who s/he is talking to) supports the IDT theory instead of contradicting it.

4) Again, how does this relate to IDT? If it is just a dream, than it's just a dream and TIM's power is simply a manifestation of what Shepard think's he'll achieve with Reaper tech.  If IDT is incorrect, TIM's power makes even less sense.

I really haven't seen a good argument against IDT...

[killnoob]

DashingSplash wrote...


It is, as stated before, just a theory. No solid evidence, the theory still got flaws. As with every theory.

Is that not what some religious people would say? The have their way of interperating life.

Sure, but as I've stated numerous time,

Bioware has given us enough info to nail this theory as dead.

There will be no extended gameplay in clarification DLC, so the whole idea of Shepard waking up and defeat the reapers are gone.

[DashingSplash]

killnoob wrote...

simple explanation = Plot holes.

There are no meanings behind them.

You attach the meanings and use them as evidence to formulate a giant conspiracy.
The only way you can possible prove that Shepard is indoctrinated would be a sequence where he was SHOWN indoctrinated.

The same with disproving.

But you are not shown anything.
You are presented with an ending you're supposed to take at face value.
But people want a good ending so bad they're happy to use IT as an excuse to create their own happy ending.

Which is fine

Until they try to shove it down your throat and regard it as fact.

Not everyone try to shove it down your throat.

[Jadebaby]

CLB17 wrote...

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.

Thank you, if the evidence had to come before the theory, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be fact.

[blooregard]

DashingSplash wrote...

blooregard wrote...

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.

1) That is because of the stubborness of Shepard. The most stubborn human to be alive.

2) That is what we explain with the IT. Everything after the blast from Harbringer is a lucid dream.
And the indoctrination is broken when you choose to destroy the Reapers.

3) The explanation is that the child was part of the Indoctrination, only existing in Shepards mind.

4) Powerful biotics? No idea. Everything above is also speculations, and may be taken as such.

Hopefully I explained some of the points of IT.

While I thank you for the reply I was hoping an anti IT guy would be able to answer these.


To be fair the past 250 pages of this thread to the best of my knowledge have been a flame war between anti IT guys and pro IT guys. At this point BW hasn't confirmed or denied anything (or of they have be specific about it) so as to why everyone is trying to kill everyone is something I can't comprehend.

[Lyria]

killnoob wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...


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.

What he is trying to say is, that the theorist applied their own interpretation to what is being show, and then regard it as evidence, when it is anything but.

That would be like Me saying Fibonacci sequence is god's way of telling us he exist because nature can't possible develope goden ratio on its own.

I'm sorry but anything that trys to prove/disprove God/Gods/Gary Gygax isn't scientific, which is built upon the foundation of taking things found and analysing them, but faith.
Completely different subjects/lines of thought.

If you look at something and interpret it that is how analysis works....so you're saying we shouldn't look at the in game weirdness and analyze it to see what its about and come to a conclusion?

[killnoob]

AnuzaGray wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

blooregard wrote...

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.

1) Significantly stronger will than nearly everyone else indoctrinated.  It's only after an excellent opening and massive amounts of stress that the Reapers are able to get this far with him/her.

2) How does this relate to IDT?  If IDT is correct, Shepard never left Earth.  Also, Shepard didn't survive the his/her inital travel through the atmosphere are the start of ME2, s/he just lucked out and had enough of her body and CNS survive to make Lazarus possible.

3) Again, how does this relate to IDT?  If anything the kid somehow magically surviving that blast and than being ignored by Anderson (who has what it appears to be a clear line of sight to kid and doesn't even ask Shepard who s/he is talking to) supports the IDT theory instead of contradicting it.

4) Again, how does this relate to IDT? If it is just a dream, than it's just a dream and TIM's power is simply a manifestation of what Shepard think's he'll achieve with Reaper tech.  If IDT is incorrect, TIM's power makes even less sense.

I really haven't seen a good argument against IDT...

So what are you saying?

I thought IDT is supposed to be just theory?

[DashingSplash]

killnoob wrote...

Sure, but as I've stated numerous time,

Bioware has given us enough info to nail this theory as dead.

There will be no extended gameplay in clarification DLC, so the whole idea of Shepard waking up and defeat the reapers are gone.

How much tweets from Jessica can be taken seriously is yet to be seen.
But according to her there is nothing that implies we wont get any gameplay with the DLC.

[Fhaarkas]

killnoob wrote...
the whole idea of Shepard waking up and defeat the reapers are gone.

That much is true. But that is not what IT is about.

[killnoob]

protognosis wrote...

killnoob wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...


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.

What he is trying to say is, that the theorist applied their own interpretation to what is being show, and then regard it as evidence, when it is anything but.

That would be like Me saying Fibonacci sequence is god's way of telling us he exist because nature can't possible develope goden ratio on its own.

I'm sorry but anything that trys to prove/disprove God/Gods/Gary Gygax isn't scientific, which is built upon the foundation of taking things found and analysing them, but faith.
Completely different subjects/lines of thought.

If you look at something and interpret it that is how analysis works....so you're saying we shouldn't look at the in game weirdness and analyze it to see what its about and come to a conclusion?

How is that different to religion then?
You are not shown shepard getting indoctrinated.
If Shepard is indeed indoctrinated, the game would not be complete.
The game's ending will be "shepard wakes up in the rubble."

What happen to the reapers?
Speculate.

What does crucible do?
Speculate

How is Shepard gonna destroy reapers?
Speculate

How does Me3 ends?
Speculate

What is the plot of Me3?

Gathering Allies

For what?
Speculate. ( Remember, we're not told what crucible does, if IT is correct)


How is that a good game?

[GBGriffin]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

CLB17 wrote...

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.

Thank you, if the evidence had to come before the theory, it wouldn't be a theory, it would be fact.

Bah, couldn't resist checking the thread one more time.

The big difference here, and this has been stated already, is that you are shown the revelation. You are factually Revan. In ME3, you are, at best, possibly indoctrinated, possibly not.

In ME3, you are shown...something. Something you've never seen before, and players attached interpretation and meaning to it to make sense of it. It isn't clearly explained, but the Revan reveal was. It made it into the final release, but if this was a planned reveal, that Shep was indoctrinated...why not show an indoctrinated Shep instead of just a waking one?.

[GBGriffin]

Fhaarkas wrote...

killnoob wrote...
the whole idea of Shepard waking up and defeat the reapers are gone.

That much is true. But that is not what IT is about.

Really? I've read otherwise, from multiple people, that this ending works because you could wake up to continue the fight.

[DashingSplash]

blooregard wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...

blooregard wrote...

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.

1) That is because of the stubborness of Shepard. The most stubborn human to be alive.

2) That is what we explain with the IT. Everything after the blast from Harbringer is a lucid dream.
And the indoctrination is broken when you choose to destroy the Reapers.

3) The explanation is that the child was part of the Indoctrination, only existing in Shepards mind.

4) Powerful biotics? No idea. Everything above is also speculations, and may be taken as such.

Hopefully I explained some of the points of IT.

While I thank you for the reply I was hoping an anti IT guy would be able to answer these.


To be fair the past 250 pages of this thread to the best of my knowledge have been a flame war between anti IT guys and pro IT guys. At this point BW hasn't confirmed or denied anything (or of they have be specific about it) so as to why everyone is trying to kill everyone is something I can't comprehend.

It is nice that you want to be able to see it from boths perspective. Kudos to you. (:

I certainly hope we were able to stop some of flamewar a bit earlier.

I hope that someone will give you insight on their perspective regarding the questions.

[Bill Casey]

killnoob wrote...

You are presented with an ending you're supposed to take at face value.

This is patently untrue...
Regardless of what you think the ending is, the ending was designed to be "ambiguous" and invoke "lots of speculation"...


http://idioms.thefre...e at face value

take something at face value
to accept something because of the way it first looks or seems, without thinking about what else it could mean

That is not lots of speculation... for everybody...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 07 avril 2012 - 06:34 .

[balance5050]

killnoob wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...


It is, as stated before, just a theory. No solid evidence, the theory still got flaws. As with every theory.

Is that not what some religious people would say? The have their way of interperating life.

Sure, but as I've stated numerous time,

Bioware has given us enough info to nail this theory as dead.

There will be no extended gameplay in clarification DLC, so the whole idea of Shepard waking up and defeat the reapers are gone.

Now you...

What "info" are you talking about? and is it from thesame people that told you that you wouldn't get an ABC ending? not a very trustwothy source my friend...