57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Has it really?

Last I heard Bioware's response to that whole thing was 'The person who said that doesnt work for Bioware. Please ignore the fact that it was posted on an account known to be owned by Patrick Weekes.'

And for some reason everyone was like 'Ok, yeah that makes sense.' and believed them.

Hacking isn't just a MP objective.  It's a real thing.

If I say something stupid on a forum, and claim 'Oh wait, turns out I was actually hacked!' no one ever believes me.

But if Bioware says it, it must be true? Maybe my trust in Bioware has been eroded from all their false statements about the gam

But if IT is true, wouldn't it still be possible for their promises to be fulfilled?

Even if IT is true, their statements are still false until they release the DLC proving it.

You've got a point.  Still, I have faith that Bioware won't mess this up.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You must have dived into debating me, thinking that you knew my position completely, and were wrong about what I thought, as I have told you many times (and still keep misinterpreting my view). There seems to be some agreement; Occam's Razor can't be used to draw complete conclusion, but if used correctly, can be useful in determining which explanation is more likely, which is what I have been saying all along!

No we are not in agreement. You have used Occam's Razor to further your interpretation and proposed suppositions as fact. We are not arguing about the definition, but its use in determining which interpretation ( or "explanation" as you like to say ) is more likely in a work of fiction.

I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.

You seem to have a problem with Occam's Razor itself, that the simplest explanations with the fewest assumptions are more likely to be, citing that literature is a special example. Is that because I am wrong in saying that IT requires more assumptions, or do you just disagree with OR itself? You might need to take more care with literature, but that doesn't make its use, like you seem to believe, pointless. You can't also detach the world created by the developer from restrictions placed on BW in the real world.

[Benny8484]

Just beat ME3, can someone please tell me what the hell I just watched?  I have no idea what just happened.  It certianly wasn't "artistic integrity" I'll give you that.....

I'm guessing I am not alone.  This thread is 1600 pages+ long & no one seems to know.  Extended cutscenes will not fix this.  This ending needs to be changed period.

Modifié par Benny8484, 21 avril 2012 - 09:26 .

[SubAstris]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


In terms of their radical reinterpretation of events to skew them to support the theory. Such as, the Shadow Broker's ship is the same as the one on the Citadel!!! Evidence for IT!!! (or BW reuses things to save time and money; furthermore if you don't play LOTSB, then Shep isn't presumed to be at the Shadow Broker base, therefore he can remember things he hasn't even experienced?" etc. ( I realise not everyone is going to believe this is good evidence, but a sizeable number do)

So your main argument against IT is 'Some of the more tenuous evidence isnt very convincing'?

Personally, I find the idea that so many of the things in the final area seem to mirror things Shep has seen before to be pretty intriguing, but it doesnt make or break the entire theory.

Your 'Bioware is lazy, and just reuses things to save time' idea has exactly as much proof behind it as the 'Shep is piecing together the area from things he has seen before' idea.

I only provided one piece of evidence as an example, whether you think it is weak depends on your opinion (others would say it is strong)

I never said BW is lazy, they are just doing what every other developer in existence would do and does aswell. I refuted the evidence that Shep is imaging the Shadow Broker's ship, which he may or may not have any knowledge of. If s/he doesn't, then if that is used as evidence for IT it becomes non-sensical

[ThinkIntegral]

Dwailing wrote...
OK, here I go.  Have you ever actually seen anyone truly beat indoctrination before?  If Shepard was going to be able to beat it, it would not be easy.  And think about it, up to this point, Shepard's only goal has been the destruction of the Reapers.  If he sticks to his beliefs, he can beat them.  If he sacrifices his beliefs to try and take the easy way out, he is indoctrinated.  And Control and Synthesis are kind of the easy way out, when you think about it.  I think the general consensus is that Bioware would not WANT to make it easy to beat Indoc.  If they did, it would undermine the power of indoctriation and the Reapers. 

hmm. thanks for that. I guess that kind of makes sense.  Seems a bit self bolstering.  I guess I'll just have to wait for the extended cut.

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...


I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.

Writing off the godchild as simply not existing requires less assumptions than explaining why he needed Saren and Sovereign to open the Citadel relay in ME1. Therefore, it is a fact that godchild doesnt exist.

See, I can use Occam's Razor to prove my own point too.

Its almost like using Occam's Razor in fiction is foolish. But hey, what do I know.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You must have dived into debating me, thinking that you knew my position completely, and were wrong about what I thought, as I have told you many times (and still keep misinterpreting my view). There seems to be some agreement; Occam's Razor can't be used to draw complete conclusion, but if used correctly, can be useful in determining which explanation is more likely, which is what I have been saying all along!

No we are not in agreement. You have used Occam's Razor to further your interpretation and proposed suppositions as fact. We are not arguing about the definition, but its use in determining which interpretation ( or "explanation" as you like to say ) is more likely in a work of fiction.

I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.

You seem to have a problem with Occam's Razor itself, that the simplest explanations with the fewest assumptions are more likely to be, citing that literature is a special example. Is that because I am wrong in saying that IT requires more assumptions, or do you just disagree with OR itself? You might need to take more care with literature, but that doesn't make its use, like you seem to believe, pointless. You can't also detach the world created by the developer from restrictions placed on BW in the real world.

More assumptions? It's obvious they wanted to indoctrinate Shepard. No assumptions really. Now starbrat, that  requires mental leaps and bounds to accept.

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You must have dived into debating me, thinking that you knew my position completely, and were wrong about what I thought, as I have told you many times (and still keep misinterpreting my view). There seems to be some agreement; Occam's Razor can't be used to draw complete conclusion, but if used correctly, can be useful in determining which explanation is more likely, which is what I have been saying all along!

No we are not in agreement. You have used Occam's Razor to further your interpretation and proposed suppositions as fact. We are not arguing about the definition, but its use in determining which interpretation ( or "explanation" as you like to say ) is more likely in a work of fiction.

I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.

You seem to have a problem with Occam's Razor itself, that the simplest explanations with the fewest assumptions are more likely to be, citing that literature is a special example. Is that because I am wrong in saying that IT requires more assumptions, or do you just disagree with OR itself? You might need to take more care with literature, but that doesn't make its use, like you seem to believe, pointless. You can't also detach the world created by the developer from restrictions placed on BW in the real world.

My problem is simply the illogical arrogance of using Occam's Razor on a work of fiction to further one interpretation over another. Both interpretations are right and at the same time both are wrong just as Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Until the box is opened and Bioware releases a statement (who would believe them at this point? ) or releases EC supporting either view, neither interpretation can be declared to be superior or inferior. Both interpretations suffer from a lack of information that can end the ambiguity of either or both. It's as simple as that.

[paxxton]

Benny8484 wrote...

Just beat ME3, can someone please tell me what the hell I just watched?  I have no idea what just happened.  It certianly wasn't "artistic integrity" I'll give you that.....

I'm guessing I am not alone.  This thread is 1600 pages+ long & no one seems to know.  Extended cutscenes will not fix this.  This ending needs to be changed period.

Nothing happened. That's the whole point.

[SubAstris]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.

Writing off the godchild as simply not existing requires less assumptions than explaining why he needed Saren and Sovereign to open the Citadel relay in ME1. Therefore, it is a fact that godchild doesnt exist.

See, I can use Occam's Razor to prove my own point too.

Its almost like using Occam's Razor in fiction is foolish. But hey, what do I know.

I should add that OR not only entails that fewer assumptions make it more likely but also greater ones, more shaky ones. For example, if it were only due to fewer assumptions, then Creationism would triumph over Evolution, yet it doesn't. Sorry, I assumed familiarity of the concept.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You must have dived into debating me, thinking that you knew my position completely, and were wrong about what I thought, as I have told you many times (and still keep misinterpreting my view). There seems to be some agreement; Occam's Razor can't be used to draw complete conclusion, but if used correctly, can be useful in determining which explanation is more likely, which is what I have been saying all along!

No we are not in agreement. You have used Occam's Razor to further your interpretation and proposed suppositions as fact. We are not arguing about the definition, but its use in determining which interpretation ( or "explanation" as you like to say ) is more likely in a work of fiction.

I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.

You seem to have a problem with Occam's Razor itself, that the simplest explanations with the fewest assumptions are more likely to be, citing that literature is a special example. Is that because I am wrong in saying that IT requires more assumptions, or do you just disagree with OR itself? You might need to take more care with literature, but that doesn't make its use, like you seem to believe, pointless. You can't also detach the world created by the developer from restrictions placed on BW in the real world.

More assumptions? It's obvious they wanted to indoctrinate Shepard. No assumptions really. Now starbrat, that  requires mental leaps and bounds to accept.

The Reapers want to indoctrinate Shep, doesn't mean they have

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

Writing off the godchild as simply not existing requires less assumptions than explaining why he needed Saren and Sovereign to open the Citadel relay in ME1. Therefore, it is a fact that godchild doesnt exist.

See, I can use Occam's Razor to prove my own point too.

Its almost like using Occam's Razor in fiction is foolish. But hey, what do I know.

I should add that OR not only entails that fewer assumptions make it more likely but also greater ones, more shaky ones. For example, if it were only due to fewer assumptions, then Creationism would triumph over Evolution, yet it doesn't. Sorry, I assumed familiarity of the concept.

Your explanation made no sense. Greater and more shaky assumptions make it more likely?

Maybe you just worded it poorly, but you totally confused me.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You must have dived into debating me, thinking that you knew my position completely, and were wrong about what I thought, as I have told you many times (and still keep misinterpreting my view). There seems to be some agreement; Occam's Razor can't be used to draw complete conclusion, but if used correctly, can be useful in determining which explanation is more likely, which is what I have been saying all along!

No we are not in agreement. You have used Occam's Razor to further your interpretation and proposed suppositions as fact. We are not arguing about the definition, but its use in determining which interpretation ( or "explanation" as you like to say ) is more likely in a work of fiction.

I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.

You seem to have a problem with Occam's Razor itself, that the simplest explanations with the fewest assumptions are more likely to be, citing that literature is a special example. Is that because I am wrong in saying that IT requires more assumptions, or do you just disagree with OR itself? You might need to take more care with literature, but that doesn't make its use, like you seem to believe, pointless. You can't also detach the world created by the developer from restrictions placed on BW in the real world.

More assumptions? It's obvious they wanted to indoctrinate Shepard. No assumptions really. Now starbrat, that  requires mental leaps and bounds to accept.

The Reapers want to indoctrinate Shep, doesn't mean they have

You've been trying to poke holes in I.T. for days, doesn't mean you have.

[n00bsauce2010]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

Writing off the godchild as simply not existing requires less assumptions than explaining why he needed Saren and Sovereign to open the Citadel relay in ME1. Therefore, it is a fact that godchild doesnt exist.

See, I can use Occam's Razor to prove my own point too.

Its almost like using Occam's Razor in fiction is foolish. But hey, what do I know.

I should add that OR not only entails that fewer assumptions make it more likely but also greater ones, more shaky ones. For example, if it were only due to fewer assumptions, then Creationism would triumph over Evolution, yet it doesn't. Sorry, I assumed familiarity of the concept.

Your explanation made no sense. Greater and more shaky assumptions make it more likely?

Maybe you just worded it poorly, but you totally confused me.

I find it funny how people compare the theory to creationism vs. evolution.

[Skillz1986]

I do not get the point of actually arguing who's right and who's wrong. last time i've checked, this thread was about discussing IT. not proving IT theory, since nobody in here could actually do it (unless he's abioware writer who's been trollimg us eversince). as long as it is not officially proven, EVERY goddamn interpretation remains mere speculation. none of them is more likely. and since nobody is able to prove s**t, i suggest we all just calm down a bit.

[MaximizedAction]

Benny8484 wrote...

Just beat ME3, can someone please tell me what the hell I just watched?  I have no idea what just happened.  It certianly wasn't "artistic integrity" I'll give you that.....

I'm guessing I am not alone.  This thread is 1600 pages+ long & no one seems to know.  Extended cutscenes will not fix this.  This ending needs to be changed period.

First of all, sorry for that and lastly, welcome to the club!
With the fanbase being pretty much devided into two basic groups: pro IT and pro Space Magic, this is what you should do:

My advice for you is to first study what the Indoctrination Theory is all about, with the help of the Youtube clip (we all watched it) and the recommended webpages in the clip's description, espacially this.

Then you'll need a few days for IT to sink in. And as it grows to making more and more sense, you'll be on the same level as the regular's of this thread.

If you happen to not like it or disagree with it, well, then you can still look for other interpretations.

Whatever floats your boat, it's still all "a lot of speculations from everyone".

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 21 avril 2012 - 09:38 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You must have dived into debating me, thinking that you knew my position completely, and were wrong about what I thought, as I have told you many times (and still keep misinterpreting my view). There seems to be some agreement; Occam's Razor can't be used to draw complete conclusion, but if used correctly, can be useful in determining which explanation is more likely, which is what I have been saying all along!

No we are not in agreement. You have used Occam's Razor to further your interpretation and proposed suppositions as fact. We are not arguing about the definition, but its use in determining which interpretation ( or "explanation" as you like to say ) is more likely in a work of fiction.

I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.

You seem to have a problem with Occam's Razor itself, that the simplest explanations with the fewest assumptions are more likely to be, citing that literature is a special example. Is that because I am wrong in saying that IT requires more assumptions, or do you just disagree with OR itself? You might need to take more care with literature, but that doesn't make its use, like you seem to believe, pointless. You can't also detach the world created by the developer from restrictions placed on BW in the real world.

More assumptions? It's obvious they wanted to indoctrinate Shepard. No assumptions really. Now starbrat, that  requires mental leaps and bounds to accept.

The Reapers want to indoctrinate Shep, doesn't mean they have

No but according to this theory that is what they are doing in that final part.

Assuming that Shepard is not in some part Indoctrinated by the end means accepting the assumption Shepard remained near unaffected by close contact with countless Reaper objects, artifacts and beeing inside a Reaper as well as the Collector Base and Ship.

[byne]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I find it funny how people compare the theory to creationism vs. evolution.

Young Earth Creationists and 9/11 Truthers are usually the two things they fall back to compare us to.


I didnt really think SubAstris was a troll at first, but he's basically going out of his way to use the same language trolls do.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You must have dived into debating me, thinking that you knew my position completely, and were wrong about what I thought, as I have told you many times (and still keep misinterpreting my view). There seems to be some agreement; Occam's Razor can't be used to draw complete conclusion, but if used correctly, can be useful in determining which explanation is more likely, which is what I have been saying all along!

No we are not in agreement. You have used Occam's Razor to further your interpretation and proposed suppositions as fact. We are not arguing about the definition, but its use in determining which interpretation ( or "explanation" as you like to say ) is more likely in a work of fiction.

I haven't said that because I think that a non-IT ending requires fewer assumptions, therefore it is fact.

You seem to have a problem with Occam's Razor itself, that the simplest explanations with the fewest assumptions are more likely to be, citing that literature is a special example. Is that because I am wrong in saying that IT requires more assumptions, or do you just disagree with OR itself? You might need to take more care with literature, but that doesn't make its use, like you seem to believe, pointless. You can't also detach the world created by the developer from restrictions placed on BW in the real world.

My problem is simply the illogical arrogance of using Occam's Razor on a work of fiction to further one interpretation over another. Both interpretations are right and at the same time both are wrong just as Schrödinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time. Until the box is opened and Bioware releases a statement (who would believe them at this point? ) or releases EC supporting either view, neither interpretation can be declared to be superior or inferior. Both interpretations suffer from a lack of information that can end the ambiguity of either or both. It's as simple as that.

Where exactly have I been arrogant? I presume by arrogant, you mean thinking OR solves everything, which I clearly don't.

I think the comparison with Schrodinger's cat is invalid because it assumes both interpretations are equally valid, which is only your opinion (you profess to be neutral, do you not?). I agree both can't be proven totally correct or incorrect, but that doesn't imply one is as good an interpretation as the other (like Creation v Evolution).

I think the problem is you think IT and not IT are equally valid and not proven wrong. I think that IT is less likely to be true, although it has not been confirmed or proven untrue. Common ground?

[n00bsauce2010]

byne wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I find it funny how people compare the theory to creationism vs. evolution.

Young Earth Creationists and 9/11 Truthers are usually the two things they fall back to compare us to.


I didnt really think SubAstris was a troll at first, but he's basically going out of his way to use the same language trolls do.

In reality our best evidence is fractions of skeletons of rougly 12-15 different species. All being primates. But I won't get into that.

[Skillz1986]

@byne..i don't know, deliberately misunderstanding very clear statements seems very troll like to me. and he's been doing this for some time now. as well as deliberately not answering questions which would have definitely weakened his position. smell like troll in here...

[BatmanTurian]

Skillz1986 wrote...

I do not get the point of actually arguing who's right and who's wrong. last time i've checked, this thread was about discussing IT. not proving IT theory, since nobody in here could actually do it (unless he's abioware writer who's been trollimg us eversince). as long as it is not officially proven, EVERY goddamn interpretation remains mere speculation. none of them is more likely. and since nobody is able to prove s**t, i suggest we all just calm down a bit.

the conversation is calm. At least on my side. I'm merely explaining my position. It's part of coming to some kind of conclusion or likewise agreeing to disagree. Debate can strengthen or weaken positions, but it should not be discouraged.

[SubAstris]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

Writing off the godchild as simply not existing requires less assumptions than explaining why he needed Saren and Sovereign to open the Citadel relay in ME1. Therefore, it is a fact that godchild doesnt exist.

See, I can use Occam's Razor to prove my own point too.

Its almost like using Occam's Razor in fiction is foolish. But hey, what do I know.

I should add that OR not only entails that fewer assumptions make it more likely but also greater ones, more shaky ones. For example, if it were only due to fewer assumptions, then Creationism would triumph over Evolution, yet it doesn't. Sorry, I assumed familiarity of the concept.

Your explanation made no sense. Greater and more shaky assumptions make it more likely?

Maybe you just worded it poorly, but you totally confused me.

I find it funny how people compare the theory to creationism vs. evolution.

OR: The explanation that requires the fewer and more founded/provable assumptions is more likely to be the correct one. Is this adequate?

[SubAstris]

Skillz1986 wrote...

@byne..i don't know, deliberately misunderstanding very clear statements seems very troll like to me. and he's been doing this for some time now. as well as deliberately not answering questions which would have definitely weakened his position. smell like troll in here...

"deliberately not answering questions"- I have tried my best to keep up with all questions, if I have failed to do so I'm sorry.

[Skillz1986]

But this is not really a debate. The moment your opponent is not really answering your arguments, or deljberately leaves out or misinterpretes otherwise very clear statements, it is merely a farce and nothing more. in which case the more rational party should end the conversation.