57139 réponses à ce sujet

[n00bsauce2010]

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

So everyone here is still supporting indoc theory?

No. There's still  a few deluded people who aren't.

why do you say that? Have any tangible bits of evidence been thrown out by the devs?

[Sovereign Skyguardian]

Is it weird to just jump in here to look for lex0r11's memes?

[Arian Dynas]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

So everyone here is still supporting indoc theory?

No. There's still  a few deluded people who aren't.

why do you say that? Have any tangible bits of evidence been thrown out by the devs?

Yes.

It's called Mass Effect 3.

[Hawk227]

paxxton wrote...

He says so because the view out the window is so calm. The Reaper threat in ME2 is not as obvious as you might think. Remember that at the beginning no one knows about the Collectors kidnapping humans. Then after Shepard learns it it's still not obvious that the Reapers are really behind it. It turns out to be so on Horizon.

Only TIM connects the Collectors and the Reapers early on in the story. He sends Shepard to the Collector ship that turns out to be a trap (and than admits he knew it and hid it only after Shepard manages to escape).

The Citadel is the seat of the government because it controls the whole relay network. An obvious choice.

But can the inhabitants use it to control the network? I've never heard that, but I didn't read the books.

A reaper got to the citadel tower, and almost opened the relay into dark space. Shepard, who was the first to mention the Reaper threat says there's more. The Council's only justification for dismissing it is clearly contradictory.

The language James uses is interesting. "This place makes you forget about the war". He could easily be referring to the calmness. But why is it so calm? Peoples homeworlds are being invaded by giant genocidal synthetic squid!

Like I said, its all vague and circumstantial. But it's interesting.

[n00bsauce2010]

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

So everyone here is still supporting indoc theory?

No. There's still  a few deluded people who aren't.

why do you say that? Have any tangible bits of evidence been thrown out by the devs?

Yes.

It's called Mass Effect 3.

Although I was a supporter of Indoc being planned by the devs before pax statements ocurred, I just don't think it was. Yes it's definitely valid as an interpretation and I think that much was intended by the devs. But we don't really know enough about the epilogue to say others are deluded for not supporting it.

[savagejuicebox]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

So everyone here is still supporting indoc theory?

Yep, arent you, buddy?

[n00bsauce2010]

savagejuicebox wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

So everyone here is still supporting indoc theory?

Yep, arent you, buddy?

I do support it. I think it is a valid theory. But I'm still not convinced it was planned by the devs. It wasn't the "ace up their sleeves" if you will. Definitely a valid interpretation and extremely well crafted. I think that much was intended by the developers.. but it isn't "canon" as far as the ending should be seen by fans. But those bits hinting at it were def. put there for a reason.

[Rifneno]

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

So everyone here is still supporting indoc theory?

No. There's still  a few deluded people who aren't.

why do you say that? Have any tangible bits of evidence been thrown out by the devs?

Yes.

It's called Mass Effect 3.

  +1.  Yay for long term memory.

[spotlessvoid]

Pax, to me, doesn't seem dismissive of IT.
In fact, my opinion is Bioware played it about the only way they could without confirming IT.

[Arian Dynas]

Rifneno wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

So everyone here is still supporting indoc theory?

No. There's still  a few deluded people who aren't.

why do you say that? Have any tangible bits of evidence been thrown out by the devs?

Yes.

It's called Mass Effect 3.

  +1.  Yay for long term memory.

I was tempted to just say; "You're indoctrinated!"

[byne]

Werent people saying before PAX that Bioware was just going to have plants in the audience to ask only questions they wanted to be asked?

And wasnt the IT question the only ending question asked?

Not that I actually think Bioware had plants or anything, I'm just saying

[n00bsauce2010]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Pax, to me, doesn't seem dismissive of IT.
In fact, my opinion is Bioware played it about the only way they could without confirming IT.

And I'm not saying it was dismissive. The insane amount of PR doublespeak has made me realize that listening to the dev's statements and considering them to be canon is rather ridiculous - Although it might've been planned. There is no evidence to suggest it. I'm a supporter of IT.. but I can't really pick a stance on whether it was planned or not. There's just no way to tell yet.

[Dwailing]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Pax, to me, doesn't seem dismissive of IT.
In fact, my opinion is Bioware played it about the only way they could without confirming IT.

And I'm not saying it was dismissive. The insane amount of PR doublespeak has made me realize that listening to the dev's statements and considering them to be canon is rather ridiculous - Although it might've been planned. There is no evidence to suggest it. I'm a supporter of IT.. but I can't really pick a stance on whether it was planned or not. There's just no way to tell yet.

I personally think that BW was planning this from the beginning.  Even if you assume that there are an infinite number of alternate universes, there wouldn't be a single one where their writers could screw up so badly.

[n00bsauce2010]

Dwailing wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Pax, to me, doesn't seem dismissive of IT.
In fact, my opinion is Bioware played it about the only way they could without confirming IT.

And I'm not saying it was dismissive. The insane amount of PR doublespeak has made me realize that listening to the dev's statements and considering them to be canon is rather ridiculous - Although it might've been planned. There is no evidence to suggest it. I'm a supporter of IT.. but I can't really pick a stance on whether it was planned or not. There's just no way to tell yet.

I personally think that BW was planning this from the beginning.  Even if you assume that there are an infinite number of alternate universes, there wouldn't be a single one where their writers could screw up so badly.

And that seems to be the definitive evidence for IT.  We just don't know anything yet.

[Rifneno]

I've got 17 stitches in my head from where I scratched a hole halfway through my skull trying to figure out the reactions people are having about the PR double speak. We ask some questions, we get definitive yes/no responses. We ask about IT, we get something that would make a political pundit's head spin. And people are losing it because they didn't just up and scream "YES, it was IT!", which they practically are doing if you put it in context of other answers?

[Dwailing]

Rifneno wrote...

I've got 17 stitches in my head from where I scratched a hole halfway through my skull trying to figure out the reactions people are having about the PR double speak. We ask some questions, we get definitive yes/no responses. We ask about IT, we get something that would make a political pundit's head spin. And people are losing it because they didn't just up and scream "YES, it was IT!", which they practically are doing if you put it in context of other answers?

Yeah.  I swear, we should NEVER make the ME team politcians.  If we did, I'm not sure we would survive.  Although, this might explain how they were able to write Udina and the Council so well....

[n00bsauce2010]

Rifneno wrote...

I've got 17 stitches in my head from where I scratched a hole halfway through my skull trying to figure out the reactions people are having about the PR double speak. We ask some questions, we get definitive yes/no responses. We ask about IT, we get something that would make a political pundit's head spin. And people are losing it because they didn't just up and scream "YES, it was IT!", which they practically are doing if you put it in context of other answers?

But the problem with that is seeing the statements the way you want to. You can either see it as them saying just leading fans on in order to let the hate/rage blow over or them saying "yes" to IT. The problem with the whole thing is that too many fans go upset over the ending much too fast. If it wasn't for the outrage then the answer would seem more definitive. They wouldn't have a reason to try and lead people on with doublespeak.

[Domanese]

Speculation for all!

But seriously Im going to quote a movie quote here that might be relevant for this thread.

"It's a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."

There is a question I honestly had to ask myself once I heard said. The question being,

"Are we twisting the facts in game to suit the theory or is it the other way around?"

I also think the people that are against IT should also ask that as well. Might get around to reevaluate what we know in game. Personally I just look at in game facts rather then everything else. I ignore the twitters, the comments and such, because they are double talking and avoiding the questions they are unwilling to answer. (Probably because we are so rabid.)

Food for thought.

Modifié par Domanese, 16 avril 2012 - 02:10 .

[Domanese]

Darn double post.

Modifié par Domanese, 16 avril 2012 - 02:09 .

[spotlessvoid]

One of the common anti IT arguments is that EA would never allow Bioware to do this.
If EA was truly that hands on, to the point of forcing Bioware away from doing an indoctrination ending, then what is the likeliness off them approving the ending as it stands?

In actuality, this would be a huge positive marketing opportunity for EA.
As in, "Hey, maybe EA isn't really pure evil empire, after all, look at the risk they took allowing Bioware to do the IT ending."

Also, claiming EA didn't know what was happening contradicts the initial argument that they would never allow it.

If people think EA isn't aware of the perception that people have of them, and aren't at least somewhat concerned from a business standpoint, they clearly don't understand big business. The backlash against EA, if it ever came out they stopped Bioware from doing possibly one of the greatest twist endings ever, would be apoplectic.

[DusalisDrake]

byne wrote...

Werent people saying before PAX that Bioware was just going to have plants in the audience to ask only questions they wanted to be asked?

And wasnt the IT question the only ending question asked?

Not that I actually think Bioware had plants or anything, I'm just saying

There was a question asked about the citadel blowing up, and that there were lock down areas where people could survive, etc.

[Dwailing]

Domanese wrote...

Speculation for all!

But seriously Im going to quote a movie quote here that might be relevant for this thread.

"It's a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."

There is a question I honestly had to ask myself once I heard said. The question being,

"Are we twisting the facts in game to suit the theory or is it the other way around?"

I also think the people that are against IT should also ask that as well. Might get around to reevaluate what we know in game. Personally I just look at in game facts rather then everything else. I ignore the twitters, the comments and such, because they are double talking and avoiding the questions they are unwilling to answer. (Probably because we are so rabid.)

Food for thought.

Funny, I remember a similar quote from C.S.I.  I agree that some of the "evidence" we have may be circumstancial at best.  However, even IF you rule out some of the more unlikely evidence, you still have a darn good theory supported by a significant amount of unquestionable observations.

[Rifneno]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

But the problem with that is seeing the statements the way you want to. You can either see it as them saying just leading fans on in order to let the hate/rage blow over or them saying "yes" to IT. The problem with the whole thing is that too many fans go upset over the ending much too fast. If it wasn't for the outrage then the answer would seem more definitive. They wouldn't have a reason to try and lead people on with doublespeak.

Oh.  I forgot how happy their current responses are making everyone.

[n00bsauce2010]

Rifneno wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

But the problem with that is seeing the statements the way you want to. You can either see it as them saying just leading fans on in order to let the hate/rage blow over or them saying "yes" to IT. The problem with the whole thing is that too many fans go upset over the ending much too fast. If it wasn't for the outrage then the answer would seem more definitive. They wouldn't have a reason to try and lead people on with doublespeak.

Oh.  I forgot how happy their current responses are making everyone.

really? As far as I can tell theres a substantial amount of people happy with the extended cut dlc.

[Rifneno]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

really? As far as I can tell theres a substantial amount of people happy with the extended cut dlc.

You mean the DLC that's right in line with what IT proponents have been expecting since day 1?  Or the stuff about "artistic integrity" that people took such offense at that it's become a meme?