57139 réponses à ce sujet

[MaximizedAction]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

He talks about "ALL PLOT-IMPORTANT CHARACTERS". Shepard it is safe to say is one such character!

Ha big boys! The same ones who quote her as gospel when her comments seem to support IT but deny her at all cost when she doesn't!

Yeah, that's from that one interview that was acually just a fan.

Also they aren't being "prescriptive" of the ending so anything weekes says isn't post ending materrial.

And the interviewer had convenient memory losses when Weekes was going into detail...

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

He talks about "ALL PLOT-IMPORTANT CHARACTERS". Shepard it is safe to say is one such character!

Ha big boys! The same ones who quote her as gospel when her comments seem to support IT but deny her at all cost when she doesn't!

Yeah, that's from that one interview that was acually just a fan.

Also they aren't being "prescriptive of the ending so anything weekes says isn't post ending materrial.

When you can't win an argument on the evidence itself, question the quality of the source of the evidence you just used...

Admittedly it is paraphrased, but Weekes has also come out to clarify a bit of what he said. I find it strange that the same people who use evidence from that interview to support IT are less reluctant to use it when it doesn't.

Still irrelevant, Shep is on the Citadel, according to BW

Weekes actually came out to say that it wasn't accurate and that a lot of it was skewed, Jessica said the same.

I assume you looked at the thread aswell. He said that some of it was wrong, but Weekes corrected the mistakes in what the interviewer wrote down, such as his comments about Vega.

I haven't seen any evidence that she was wrong on that issue. Unless she mistakenly meant "Shep is not..."

[balance5050]

MaximizedAction wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

He talks about "ALL PLOT-IMPORTANT CHARACTERS". Shepard it is safe to say is one such character!

Ha big boys! The same ones who quote her as gospel when her comments seem to support IT but deny her at all cost when she doesn't!

Yeah, that's from that one interview that was acually just a fan.

Also they aren't being "prescriptive" of the ending so anything weekes says isn't post ending materrial.

And the interviewer had convenient memory losses when Weekes was going into detail...

The day I start taking fan interviews as canon.... well, I'll actually never do that.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

I would actually like SubAstris' opinion of the trees on the Crucible. What's your explanation for why they're there?

(image in case it's been lost http://wenchy.net/stupidity/trees.png)

He said they arent actually there and we're seeing things.

I was specifically referring to the visuals on the floor rather than the trees themselves. Admittedly, off the top of my head I can't think of another reason why they are there. That doesn't mean there isn't one though. I still think it odd that if that is evidence for IT why they would trees like that instead of say, a wallpaper of Reapers

Well, it's pretty clear to me that you can indeed see them on the floor (as you'd have to if they're on the cubemap). But ok. And as for trees...well, trees are the only objects in the dreams. Surely that's obvious?  

Yes these trees are full of leaves, vibrant, not dead like the ones in the dream and around the beam

BUT WHY DID BIOWARE PUT THEM THERE?? Dead or alive trees are trees.

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

He talks about "ALL PLOT-IMPORTANT CHARACTERS". Shepard it is safe to say is one such character!

Ha big boys! The same ones who quote her as gospel when her comments seem to support IT but deny her at all cost when she doesn't!

Yeah, that's from that one interview that was acually just a fan.

Also they aren't being "prescriptive of the ending so anything weekes says isn't post ending materrial.

When you can't win an argument on the evidence itself, question the quality of the source of the evidence you just used...

Admittedly it is paraphrased, but Weekes has also come out to clarify a bit of what he said. I find it strange that the same people who use evidence from that interview to support IT are less reluctant to use it when it doesn't.

Still irrelevant, Shep is on the Citadel, according to BW

Weekes actually came out to say that it wasn't accurate and that a lot of it was skewed, Jessica said the same.

I assume you looked at the thread aswell. He said that some of it was wrong, but Weekes corrected the mistakes in what the interviewer wrote down, such as his comments about Vega.

I haven't seen any evidence that she was wrong on that issue. Unless she mistakenly meant "Shep is not..."

Some fan interview might be good canon for you, but I would rather go by the story thats actually in the game.

[Tirian Thorn]

Dracorequiem wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Dracorequiem wrote...



That's just a video of the synthesis ending. My question to you guys is: am I the only one that thinks maybe synthesis has a hint of hope at not being indoctrinated?

The main "hard" evidence I am using for this is the awning as you approach the beam. It's mostly blue from control, true, but there's a little bit of the red from destroy on the side. This indicates, to me, that though you may be mostly indoctrinated, there's still a hint of rebellion within you. Also during the sequence in which Shep disintegrates, there are all 3 colors: green mostly, but red and blue at the edges of energy.

My main "soft" evidence: what's the purpose of putting two choices that indoctrinate you totally? Control, yes, you're indoc all the way. Synthesis, maybe the Reapers are trying to work around your resistance rather than destroy it absolutely. You can still pull the last stand of willpower like Benezia or Saren or TIM, and possibly destroy the Reapers.

There are 4 destroy endings (inlcuding "Shep_Alive"), 2 control endings, and 1 synthesis endng.

That tells me that control would be the one where you might resist indoc at pop yourself or something, but that's just speculation.

Hmmm good point. So maybe synthesis works a different way.

I remember that for a while I thought that the way synthesis broke indoctrination would be through the protheans somehow because all of their tech/biotics are green and shep's eyes turn green when using it. Maybe the cipher or beacons had some hidden message that could help to break indoctrination.

Two big points I always come back to on Control/Synthesis that each of those options is given by someone we know to indoctrinated. 

Synthesis - Saren thought this was the way to save the galaxy.

Control - The Illusive Man

Both indoctrinated. 

Do you really want to trust theories/ideas that those two presented? 

[DJBare]

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

A slight bit of hope in a wilderness that seems hopeless.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

He talks about "ALL PLOT-IMPORTANT CHARACTERS". Shepard it is safe to say is one such character!

Ha big boys! The same ones who quote her as gospel when her comments seem to support IT but deny her at all cost when she doesn't!

Yeah, that's from that one interview that was acually just a fan.

Also they aren't being "prescriptive of the ending so anything weekes says isn't post ending materrial.

When you can't win an argument on the evidence itself, question the quality of the source of the evidence you just used...

Admittedly it is paraphrased, but Weekes has also come out to clarify a bit of what he said. I find it strange that the same people who use evidence from that interview to support IT are less reluctant to use it when it doesn't.

Still irrelevant, Shep is on the Citadel, according to BW

Weekes actually came out to say that it wasn't accurate and that a lot of it was skewed, Jessica said the same.

I assume you looked at the thread aswell. He said that some of it was wrong, but Weekes corrected the mistakes in what the interviewer wrote down, such as his comments about Vega.

I haven't seen any evidence that she was wrong on that issue. Unless she mistakenly meant "Shep is not..."

Some fan interview might be good canon for you, but I would rather go by the story thats actually in the game.

By the way of which you mean comments directly from one of the lead writers which have been confirmed in regards to their veracity? This is not good?

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...


I assume you looked at the thread aswell. He said that some of it was wrong, but Weekes corrected the mistakes in what the interviewer wrote down, such as his comments about Vega.

I haven't seen any evidence that she was wrong on that issue. Unless she mistakenly meant "Shep is not..."

Why do you both continue to tell us Jessica is an unreliable source AND continue to use her as evidence against IT?

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Shepard seeing trees where there are non goes against the idea that he was seeing things that aren't there (I.T.)? Now you're just contradicting youself....

Modifié par balance5050, 01 mai 2012 - 07:23 .

[DJBare]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I assume you looked at the thread aswell. He said that some of it was wrong, but Weekes corrected the mistakes in what the interviewer wrote down, such as his comments about Vega.

I haven't seen any evidence that she was wrong on that issue. Unless she mistakenly meant "Shep is not..."

Why do you both continue to tell us Jessica is an unreliable source AND continue to use her as evidence against IT?

Just so they can get us to respond?, just saying.

[SubAstris]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I assume you looked at the thread aswell. He said that some of it was wrong, but Weekes corrected the mistakes in what the interviewer wrote down, such as his comments about Vega.

I haven't seen any evidence that she was wrong on that issue. Unless she mistakenly meant "Shep is not..."

Why do you both continue to tell us Jessica is an unreliable source AND continue to use her as evidence against IT?

?? I am criticising those who use her selectively use her comments to fit their theories. I haven't done that, instead preferring hypothetical situations

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

Why do you both continue to tell us Jessica is an unreliable source AND continue to use her as evidence against IT?

?? I am criticising those who use her selectively use her comments to fit their theories. I haven't done that, instead preferring hypothetical situations

The hell does that even mean?

I know the meaning of the individual words, but it makes no sense in this context.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Shepard seeing trees where there are non goes against the idea that he was seeing things that aren't there (I.T.)? Now you're just contradicting youself....

Shepard seeing trees of such quality which are not the same to any trees seen in the other evidences for IT, such as dreams. Points to another reason, not IT

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Shepard seeing trees where there are non goes against the idea that he was seeing things that aren't there (I.T.)? Now you're just contradicting youself....

Shepard seeing trees of such quality which are not the same to any trees seen in the other evidences for IT, such as dreams. Points to another reason, not IT

And that reason is...?

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Shepard seeing trees where there are non goes against the idea that he was seeing things that aren't there (I.T.)? Now you're just contradicting youself....

Shepard seeing trees of such quality which are not the same to any trees seen in the other evidences for IT, such as dreams. Points to another reason, not IT

LOL! and what reason would that be?

[SubAstris]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

Why do you both continue to tell us Jessica is an unreliable source AND continue to use her as evidence against IT?

?? I am criticising those who use her selectively use her comments to fit their theories. I haven't done that, instead preferring hypothetical situations

The hell does that even mean?

I know the meaning of the individual words, but it makes no sense in this context.

I basically mean that if you don't trust her on some issues and not others for no reason other than it fits your theory, then you are being hypocritical

[Tirian Thorn]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


I assume you looked at the thread aswell. He said that some of it was wrong, but Weekes corrected the mistakes in what the interviewer wrote down, such as his comments about Vega.

I haven't seen any evidence that she was wrong on that issue. Unless she mistakenly meant "Shep is not..."

Why do you both continue to tell us Jessica is an unreliable source AND continue to use her as evidence against IT?

Byne, SubAstris is either the most stubborn person I have ever met or they're just arguing because they love to argue. 

I give up.  I'm happy to discuss IT with people, but Sub just seems to me to want to argue or prove they're right by any means necessary. 

Honestly, NOTHING has been proven or disproven at this point.  But he/she can't even agree on that.  Neither can Wald. 

IT is speculation, that's why it's called Indoctrination Theory.  It's a theory that fits what took place based on what we've seen so far. 

I'm happy to talk and discuss with people, but good intelligent conversations a being buried by nonsense with these two. 

[balance5050]

I like arguing with indoctrinated trolling presences. They suck at logic.

Modifié par balance5050, 01 mai 2012 - 07:35 .

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Shepard seeing trees where there are non goes against the idea that he was seeing things that aren't there (I.T.)? Now you're just contradicting youself....

Shepard seeing trees of such quality which are not the same to any trees seen in the other evidences for IT, such as dreams. Points to another reason, not IT

LOL! and what reason would that be?

I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Shepard seeing trees where there are non goes against the idea that he was seeing things that aren't there (I.T.)? Now you're just contradicting youself....

Shepard seeing trees of such quality which are not the same to any trees seen in the other evidences for IT, such as dreams. Points to another reason, not IT

LOL! and what reason would that be?

I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

So you think Starjar is GOD? Superstitious awe my friend, superstitious awe.

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...


I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

You didnt answer his question.

SubAstris wrote...

Evading the issue...I like it

[Tirian Thorn]

balance5050 wrote...

I like arguing with indoctrinated trolling presences. They suck at logic.

Don't like Indoctrination Theory?  How about the Zoidberg Theory? 

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

We don't know. I'm not sure they necessarily put them as remodelled it from another purpose, hence the trees. Full trees seem to go against indoctrination (why would Shep think of them)?

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you're trying to say. Shepard seeing trees where there are non goes against the idea that he was seeing things that aren't there (I.T.)? Now you're just contradicting youself....

Shepard seeing trees of such quality which are not the same to any trees seen in the other evidences for IT, such as dreams. Points to another reason, not IT

LOL! and what reason would that be?

I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

So you think Starjar is GOD? Superstitious awe my friend, superstitious awe.

Yes I am clearly indoctrinated. And now my facts and logic are indoctrinating you

[Dracorequiem]

SubAstris wrote...

I'll give you a similar argument to what you are saying:

1) Unexplained thing happens
2) God could explain unexplained thing
3) Therefore God did unexplained thing

See what could be wrong there?

2nd premise doesn't lead nicely into the last

It IS a similar argument. People that believe in God believe God designed the universe, so any weird thing is his doing.

We know FOR A FACT that Bioware designed every aspect of the game. A lot of arguments for IT take this into account, while those against IT tend to forget that.

There can be no random trees or treeish pattern that just happens to be there because someone HAD to program those trees there. At this point, if you're not understanding this you're simply being obtuse.