57139 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

[NoSpin]

blooregard wrote...

For those of us who haven't noticed this yet.

www.reddit.com/r/Indoctrinated/comments/t1rtj/a_major_it_breakthrough/

Coates always annoyed the hell out of me. He is a pointless character, why give him a name and a voice? And why make him such a douche?

This makes sense, though I disagree Shep makes it to the Citadel.

[NeoDobby]

SubAstris wrote...

So if she had come out and had said "Shep was on Earth all the time" and Weekes said that "no one whatsoever survived on the Citadel", are you genuinely saying that you would not believe this strong evidence for IT?

I'm not saying we wouldn't be excited by such information or there wouldn't be some who would take that as proof, but I always see the majority of active supporters in this thread being careful with that kind of info, because of the sources (in case of Jessica on Twitter). With Weekes it would depend, I think. As it has been said before, the quoted interview was posted from memory and thus not completely believable.

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

hey you know, it actually makes sense. maybe jessica meant that the citadel wasnt really destroyed because it happened in shepards head. shes playing mind tricks. 

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 02 mai 2012 - 03:56 .

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

hey you know, it actually makes sense. maybe jessica meant that the citadel wasnt really destroyed because it happened in shepards head. shes playing mind tricks. 

Oh dear... To say this is unlikely is understating it. If they are all playing mind tricks, there is absolutely no way IT could ever be confirmed or disproved you realise, you could never tell.

Look up falsifiability

Modifié par SubAstris, 02 mai 2012 - 03:59 .

[NoSpin]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

Ignore Merizan, we don't talk about her here because she knows nothing more storywise than the rest of us. If you are talking about the fan interview, wasn't the question "could people survive if the citadel blew up?". Weekes than talks about how people could survive if the citadel blew up. He doesn't say it actually DOES. He doesn't say Shep is on it. He looks at the ending and says, in that explosion people could survive because...blahblahbs about arms...

If IT is true, they wouldn't say, "WTF you nuts? The citadel doesn't explode". We are supposed to think this ending is real, so all questions they answer will be dealt with as such. The reveal was supposed to be a surprise. Until it is debunked IN GAME, or freaking Mac and Casey come out of their shelter and discuss how the ending sucked and IT wasn't used in the ending....IT stands.

[NoSpin]

DOuble post!

Modifié par NoSpin, 02 mai 2012 - 04:00 .

[blooregard]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

Word of god is the greatest form of canon I won't deny this and I'm sure all of us indoc theorists will put down the flag when they say "the indoctrination theory is false".


The only problem is they haven't said that. the interview while gives us answers also doesn't tell us much, the tweets are their opinions alone and should be taken with a grian of salt, and the official announcements are vague descriptions of what we'll eventually get.


Both anti and pro IT guys are guilty of reading a Jessica Marizan tweet then going on to make a thread called "the end of IT" or "IT is true says Merizan" but in the end these tweets are just their opinions as fans and nothing more.


The most solid thing anti ITers have is the Weekes interview which again says alot but says nothing at the same time (I'm not discrediting the Weekes interview as it was a breath of fresh air after drowning in the PR spin ocean I'm simply saying that he was asked questions about specific parts of the game and gave answers about those specific parts of the game)

Modifié par blooregard, 02 mai 2012 - 04:02 .

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

hey you know, it actually makes sense. maybe jessica meant that the citadel wasnt really destroyed because it happened in shepards head. shes playing mind tricks. 

Oh dear... To say this is unlikely is understating it. If they are all playing mind tricks, there is absolutely no way IT could ever be confirmed or disproved you realise, you could never tell.

Look up falsifiability

thank you for admiting it, because thats pretty much exactly what they have been doing. 

[SubAstris]

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

So if she had come out and had said "Shep was on Earth all the time" and Weekes said that "no one whatsoever survived on the Citadel", are you genuinely saying that you would not believe this strong evidence for IT?

I'm not saying we wouldn't be excited by such information or there wouldn't be some who would take that as proof, but I always see the majority of active supporters in this thread being careful with that kind of info, because of the sources (in case of Jessica on Twitter). With Weekes it would depend, I think. As it has been said before, the quoted interview was posted from memory and thus not completely believable.

Yet the same people who think she is unreliable in this case put her forward her views as evidence for IT if they think her comments lean that way! And never do they actually provide a link showing where she went wrong.

Weekes looked over what was written, and corrected errors in what had been written down. It is same to assume the rest is what he intended all along

[NoSpin]

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

So if she had come out and had said "Shep was on Earth all the time" and Weekes said that "no one whatsoever survived on the Citadel", are you genuinely saying that you would not believe this strong evidence for IT?

I'm not saying we wouldn't be excited by such information or there wouldn't be some who would take that as proof, but I always see the majority of active supporters in this thread being careful with that kind of info, because of the sources (in case of Jessica on Twitter). With Weekes it would depend, I think. As it has been said before, the quoted interview was posted from memory and thus not completely believable.

Yet the same people who think she is unreliable in this case put her forward her views as evidence for IT if they think her comments lean that way! And never do they actually provide a link showing where she went wrong.

Weekes looked over what was written, and corrected errors in what had been written down. It is same to assume the rest is what he intended all along

Read my post above. On behalf of all Pro-ITers I hereby remove all Jessica Merizan tweets from our evidence! Begone foul beasts!!! (I didn't think we were using any of her tweets....)

Make you feel better?

[NeoDobby]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

hey you know, it actually makes sense. maybe jessica meant that the citadel wasnt really destroyed because it happened in shepards head. shes playing mind tricks. 

Oh dear... To say this is unlikely is understating it. If they are all playing mind tricks, there is absolutely no way IT could ever be confirmed or disproved you realise, you could never tell.

Look up falsifiability

"Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability (yes, I know, you shouldnt quote wikipedia, but in this case, I can live with it)

Isn't that what's so "nice" about conspiracy theories? Just because someone inside says "There is no Indoctrination" won't soothe any conspiracy theorist. But in this case, there is actually a chance that IT can be falsified, and that is when the EC is out. Before, no statement of any developer would stop the theory. So I would say, don't try to find something someone from Bioware said about the IT - if you want to disprove us, look for evidence in-game.

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

hey you know, it actually makes sense. maybe jessica meant that the citadel wasnt really destroyed because it happened in shepards head. shes playing mind tricks. 

Oh dear... To say this is unlikely is understating it. If they are all playing mind tricks, there is absolutely no way IT could ever be confirmed or disproved you realise, you could never tell.

Look up falsifiability

thank you for admiting it, because thats pretty much exactly what they have been doing. 

And yet you miss the fact that it works massively against IT...

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

So if she had come out and had said "Shep was on Earth all the time" and Weekes said that "no one whatsoever survived on the Citadel", are you genuinely saying that you would not believe this strong evidence for IT?

I'm not saying we wouldn't be excited by such information or there wouldn't be some who would take that as proof, but I always see the majority of active supporters in this thread being careful with that kind of info, because of the sources (in case of Jessica on Twitter). With Weekes it would depend, I think. As it has been said before, the quoted interview was posted from memory and thus not completely believable.

Yet the same people who think she is unreliable in this case put her forward her views as evidence for IT if they think her comments lean that way! And never do they actually provide a link showing where she went wrong.

Weekes looked over what was written, and corrected errors in what had been written down. It is same to assume the rest is what he intended all along

actually we thought she was a reliable source in the begining then she started contradicting herself, and realized this wasnt the case. so we kinda started ingoring her, and the few quotes that have come up werent taken quite so seriously as before. 

get it straight. 

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 02 mai 2012 - 04:11 .

[SubAstris]

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

hey you know, it actually makes sense. maybe jessica meant that the citadel wasnt really destroyed because it happened in shepards head. shes playing mind tricks. 

Oh dear... To say this is unlikely is understating it. If they are all playing mind tricks, there is absolutely no way IT could ever be confirmed or disproved you realise, you could never tell.

Look up falsifiability

"Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability (yes, I know, you shouldnt quote wikipedia, but in this case, I can live with it)

Isn't that what's so "nice" about conspiracy theories? Just because someone inside says "There is no Indoctrination" won't soothe any conspiracy theorist. But in this case, there is actually a chance that IT can be falsified, and that is when the EC is out. Before, no statement of any developer would stop the theory. So I would say, don't try to find something someone from Bioware said about the IT - if you want to disprove us, look for evidence in-game.

But as I have said, developer's word trumps all

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

hey you know, it actually makes sense. maybe jessica meant that the citadel wasnt really destroyed because it happened in shepards head. shes playing mind tricks. 

Oh dear... To say this is unlikely is understating it. If they are all playing mind tricks, there is absolutely no way IT could ever be confirmed or disproved you realise, you could never tell.

Look up falsifiability

thank you for admiting it, because thats pretty much exactly what they have been doing. 

And yet you miss the fact that it works massively against IT...

if there playing with us theres no way to tell (as you pointed out)

but if its a real stated it can be interpeted in two diferent ways.  either way its still not a confirmation of anything, and we never said it was. even those that worked in favore of IT, at best we considered it "plasusible evidence"

[blooregard]

SubAstris wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have said that Weekes has said this all along, this is nothing new. He also clarified areas where he felt such "negative spin" existed- he didn't clarify anything on his statements about the Citadel

Citadel statements vague at best. Besides, we like to stick with IN GAME evidence, thank you. 

Vague in what way? Vague because they don't IT? You do realise that the word of the developer trumps all in-game evidence anyway?

hey you know, it actually makes sense. maybe jessica meant that the citadel wasnt really destroyed because it happened in shepards head. shes playing mind tricks. 

Oh dear... To say this is unlikely is understating it. If they are all playing mind tricks, there is absolutely no way IT could ever be confirmed or disproved you realise, you could never tell.

Look up falsifiability

"Falsifiability or refutability of an assertion, hypothesis or theory is the logical possibility that it can be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then some observation or experiment will produce a reproducible result that is in conflict with it." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability (yes, I know, you shouldnt quote wikipedia, but in this case, I can live with it)

Isn't that what's so "nice" about conspiracy theories? Just because someone inside says "There is no Indoctrination" won't soothe any conspiracy theorist. But in this case, there is actually a chance that IT can be falsified, and that is when the EC is out. Before, no statement of any developer would stop the theory. So I would say, don't try to find something someone from Bioware said about the IT - if you want to disprove us, look for evidence in-game.

But as I have said, developer's word trumps all

Show me something where a developer explicitly says "IT is false" and I'll believe it and this thread will probably die.

[NeoDobby]

blooregard wrote...

Show me something where a developer explicitly says "IT is false" and I'll believe it and this thread will probably die.

Maybe. And that's exactly why I think the creators are so vague (at best) about it. They explicitely wanted "speculation from everyone". Why would they remove that by saying "IT is true/false"? Maybe they want speculation until the EC is out, or maybe they even want that afterwards. But at least until EC, there won't be any clear statement about the theories.

[Rosewind]

Noooooo but what about the cookies?

[blooregard]

NeoDobby wrote...

blooregard wrote...

Show me something where a developer explicitly says "IT is false" and I'll believe it and this thread will probably die.

Maybe. And that's exactly why I think the creators are so vague (at best) about it. They explicitely wanted "speculation from everyone". Why would they remove that by saying "IT is true/false"? Maybe they want speculation until the EC is out, or maybe they even want that afterwards. But at least until EC, there won't be any clear statement about the theories.

It seems that the whole indoctrination debate just did a polar shift I remember a time where IT supporters were near over zealous christian levels of dedicated hammering away at the non believers if as though they were on a crusade for the holy land. We used every scrap of pieced togeteher letters Jessica threw us and took everything that confirmed IT at face value and worshipped it.


Now it seems the IT denouncers have become the over zealous christians in taking everything that may "prove" the IT is false and propping it up on a pillar saying ""you have been proven wrong worship this statement for it is both vague and absolute"


The fact of the matter is there's a mountain of in-game evidence that proves IT is correct and there isn't much in the real word that totally disproves it OR confirms it press releases are vague, developer statements are vague, and developer tweets are vague AND contradictory. The sooner we begin looking at most of the tweets as nothing more then PR spin and/or fan based opinions the better the forums will be.

Modifié par blooregard, 02 mai 2012 - 04:30 .

[lex0r11]

Rosewind wrote...

Noooooo but what about the cookies?

Cookies?



What's up folks? Anything that needs motivating?

Modifié par lex0r11, 02 mai 2012 - 04:31 .

[llbountyhunter]

blooregard wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

blooregard wrote...

Show me something where a developer explicitly says "IT is false" and I'll believe it and this thread will probably die.

Maybe. And that's exactly why I think the creators are so vague (at best) about it. They explicitely wanted "speculation from everyone". Why would they remove that by saying "IT is true/false"? Maybe they want speculation until the EC is out, or maybe they even want that afterwards. But at least until EC, there won't be any clear statement about the theories.

It seems that the whole indoctrination debate just did a polar shift I remember a time where IT supporters were near over zealous christian levels of dedicated hammering away at the non believers if as though they were on a crusade for the holy land. We used every scrap of pieced togeteher letters Jessica threw us and took everything that confirmed IT at face value and worshipped it.


Now it seems the IT denouncers have become the over zealous christians in taking everything that may "prove" the IT is false and propping it up on a pillar saying ""you have been proven wrong worship this statement for it is both vague and absolute"


The fact of the matter is there's a mountain of in-game evidence that proves IT is correct and there isn't much in the real word that totally disproves it OR confirms it press releases are vague, developer statements are vague, and developer tweets are vague AND contradictory. The sooner we begin looking at most of the tweets as nothing more then PR spin and/or fan based opinions the better the forums will be.

ahh, how the tables have turned.....the way I see it is

in-game evidence= IT wins
out-game evidence (tweets, articles, etc.)= vauge and unclear.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 02 mai 2012 - 04:34 .

[balance5050]

lex0r11 wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

Noooooo but what about the cookies?

Cookies?



What's up folks? Anything that needs motivating?

Thank you! I just now logged on and needed it before I even posted!

Modifié par balance5050, 02 mai 2012 - 04:36 .

[blooregard]

lex0r11 wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

Noooooo but what about the cookies?

Cookies?



What's up folks? Anything that needs motivating?

Lex0r motivate us weak mortals into a higher plane of thinking where we don't hang on every word the developers at bioware tweet on their accounts.

[Unschuld]

SubAstris wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...


6)      The Star-Kid says the Citadel is part of it. Well, if that’s the case, then how were the Protheans able to sabotage the Citadel so the reapers couldn’t jump directly there from Dark Space. The Star-Kid should have been able to correct for that which totally invalidates ME1. 

This. So much. 

If that wasn't a tip off, I don't know what is. If that hole was unintentionally created, that's a case of monumental unfathomable stupidity by the writers. I refuse to accept that the ME writers could be blind enough to miss something like this, which is something I wouldn't even expect from a grade school fanfic writer. 

Was it his nap time? Why wouldn't catalyst kid "wake up" and dial R-E-A-P-E-R-S on his proverbial phone when some meddling organics started molesting the keepers? Does he really sleep that soundly?

Unfathomable. 

We don't know the exact qualities of the Catalyst, its capabilities. It could be that he is shackled somewhat and unable to change the signal. That is what happens when you introduce a new important character very late in the game.

And don't forget BW have made mistakes... What's the actual point of ME2 in terms of plot?

Good point, but does it make any sense whatsoever that someone who "controls the reapers" because they're "his solution" to NOT have any oversight or control? The answer is no, that doesn't make any sense. His existence means nothing if that's the case, since all it took was a few sneaky protheans to jam up the citadel, making him an even bigger **** up than Sovereign the janitor who tried to fix it.

There's mistakes, and then there's monumental mistakes. You can easily overlook a bunch of little plotholes, but big glaring ones are usually pretty hard to miss. While Bioware's writers are far from infallible, I honestly think that it's more likely that they'd intentionally make some of the massive holes in logic we see as clues to a twist, rather than a serious case of derp.

ME2? Filler, and Reaper "plan B". With some changes, I think ME1 and ME2's plots could have been exchanged for a better story flow (I think Saphra Deden blogged it some time ago). But since ME1 was already written and published, what else could they have done?