57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Rosewind]

lex0r11 wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

Noooooo but what about the cookies?

Cookies?



What's up folks? Anything that needs motivating?

SUGAR!!!!!! ./pounce

[MarkasLin]

*snip*

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

[/quote]

I don't mean to troll, or be rude, or otherwise insult anyone.
but Why do you, SubAstris, care?
It seems your presence here only riles up tempers.
Surely, you've got a right to be here, as do anyone else, but if you don't care for the IT then why are you here?

[balance5050]

blooregard wrote...

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.

I know right? It's a sad day when one has to use paraphrased fan interviews and tweets as "evidence" of anything. Poor souls get desperate I guess.

[blooregard]

"Our judgement must be made on facts and evidence not wild imaginings and reckless speculation"
~Turian Councilor

EDIT: Come to think of it that wasn't the best quote to use since it was in response to Saren's

"Are we allowing dreams into evidence now?"
~saren arterius

Modifié par blooregard, 02 mai 2012 - 04:42 .

[Dwailing]

[quote]MarkasLin wrote...

*snip*

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

[/quote]

I don't mean to troll, or be rude, or otherwise insult anyone.
but Why do you, SubAstris, care?
It seems your presence here only riles up tempers.
Surely, you've got a right to be here, as do anyone else, but if you don't care for the IT then why are you here?[/quote]

I think SubAstris has replace waldstr18.  And we ALL know how well he listened to us. <_<

[NeoDobby]

blooregard wrote...

"Our judgement must be made on facts and evidence not wild imaginings and reckless speculation"
~Turian Councilor

EDIT: Come to think of it that wasn't the best quote to use since it was in response to Saren's

"Are we allowing dreams into evidence now?"
~saren arterius

Well, actually, the dreams turned out to be valid evidence in the end

[blooregard]

NeoDobby wrote...

blooregard wrote...

"Our judgement must be made on facts and evidence not wild imaginings and reckless speculation"
~Turian Councilor

EDIT: Come to think of it that wasn't the best quote to use since it was in response to Saren's

"Are we allowing dreams into evidence now?"
~saren arterius

Well, actually, the dreams turned out to be valid evidence in the end

Forshadowing?

[balance5050]

blooregard wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

blooregard wrote...

"Our judgement must be made on facts and evidence not wild imaginings and reckless speculation"
~Turian Councilor

EDIT: Come to think of it that wasn't the best quote to use since it was in response to Saren's

"Are we allowing dreams into evidence now?"
~saren arterius

Well, actually, the dreams turned out to be valid evidence in the end

Forshadowing?

Whispers, hints that the kid is evil, symbology that if you side with the kid you will be consumed in flames, and manipulation of dreams is part of indoctrination as well.

[paxxton]

Take a ME3 survey on www.masseffect-universe.de (English available).
It was tweeted on Mass Effect feed so maybe they'll watch for the results.
There are questions on the IT and endings.

Modifié par paxxton, 02 mai 2012 - 04:54 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

I think IT is the confused response from the fandom to the reality that the game doesn't offer a happily-ever-after ending with SPACE HUSBANDO!!!! or WAIFU!!!! It's pretty clear that the main problem most people have with the ending is that it's not feel-good. Also, that it's ill-explained and poorly presented, and that I can agree with. But that's where this theory is clearly just a popular and widely-accepted headcanon between your average ME fans, and nothing more. No one who subscribes to this wants to accept anything but beating the Reapers, so it's reasoned here that this is all a ploy by the Reapers.

At the end of the day, this is just as much a speculation as any other interpretation, but it has glaring holes.What hints does the narrative itself make about the Catalyst being untrustworthy? The answer is none. There can always be interpretations from here and there, but no concrete/black-and-white example. Not like ME2 where everyone and their grandmother tells you "don't trust Cerberus, don't trust the Illusive Man" (for which you saw why in ME3). Also, if ReaperBieber is trying to trick you, why is Destroy the default option? Why are Control and Synthesis only unlocked with a stronger fleet?

There are clear flaws with this thing, and I'm sure I'd find more if I cared enough to read up more on this headcanon than the mere skimming I've done. But that's my opinion on IH (Indoctrination Headcanon). Sorry if people don't like it, but I'm free to voice my opinion on things here, so deal with it.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 02 mai 2012 - 04:54 .

[Simon_Says]

balance5050 wrote...

Whispers, hints that the kid is evil, symbology that if you side with the kid you will be consumed in flames, and manipulation of dreams is part of indoctrination as well.

What's the actual precedent for this? I'm not denying it's plausible but I don't recall it ever being mentioned before, other than the rachni queen's "oily shadows" line, which doesn't directly relate to dreams.

[NeoDobby]

blooregard wrote...

NeoDobby wrote...

blooregard wrote...

"Our judgement must be made on facts and evidence not wild imaginings and reckless speculation"
~Turian Councilor

EDIT: Come to think of it that wasn't the best quote to use since it was in response to Saren's

"Are we allowing dreams into evidence now?"
~saren arterius

Well, actually, the dreams turned out to be valid evidence in the end

Forshadowing?

Hmm, the "dreams" in ME1 were fed to Shepard by the Prothean Beacon - according to our interpretation, the ending is fed by Harbinger. Every experience that didn't take place in "reality", aka visions, geth consensus  - would've been triggered by something else. Beacon -> Visions, Geth interface -> Geth consensus. Therefore, our conclusion (Indoctrination -> Dreams/Hallucinations) isn't very surprising. And the fact that caps were filled by things from Shepard's memory.

[llbountyhunter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I think IT is the confused response from the fandom to the reality that the game doesn't offer a happily-ever-after ending with SPACE HUSBANDO!!!! or WAIFU!!!! It's pretty clear that the main problem most people have with the ending is that it's not feel-good. Also, that it's ill-explained and poorly presented, and that I can agree with. But that's where this theory is clearly just a popular and widely-accepted headcanon between your average ME fans, and nothing more. No one who subscribes to this wants to accept anything but beating the Reapers, so it's reasoned here that this is all a ploy by the Reapers.

At the end of the day, this is just as much a speculation as any other interpretation, but it has glaring holes.What hints does the narrative itself make about the Catalyst being untrustworthy? The answer is none. There can always be interpretations from here and there, but no concrete/black-and-white example. Not like ME2 where everyone and their grandmother tells you "don't trust Cerberus, don't trust the Illusive Man" (for which you saw why in ME3). Also, if ReaperBieber is trying to trick you, why is Destroy the default option? Why are Control and Synthesis only unlocked with a stronger fleet?

There are clear flaws with this thing, and I'm sure I'd find more if I cared enough to read up more on this headcanon than the mere skimming I've done. But that's my opinion on IH (Indoctrination Headcanon). Sorry if people don't like it, but I'm free to voice my opinion on things here, so deal with it.

*very forced calm voice*  can you please elaborate? point out the flaws, please, help us understand....

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 02 mai 2012 - 05:00 .

[Unschuld]

If the dreams didn't have some sort of meaning behind them, well, I think I must be crazy.

Dream 1: (spontaneous pediatric combustion) You can't save the innocents.
Dream 2: (dead friend whispers) You can't save your crew/friends.
Dream 3: (Shep n' Kid BBQ) You can't save yourself/If you side with the kid, you're dead.

[Unschuld]

HYR 2.0  
Typical Anti-IT drop-in-and-post wrote...

IT is fanfiction that clearly has flaws which I won't bother mentioning to strengthen my argument but I'll still state my opinion as fact.

Yeeeeees?

Modifié par Unschuld, 02 mai 2012 - 05:02 .

[balance5050]

Simon_Says wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Whispers, hints that the kid is evil, symbology that if you side with the kid you will be consumed in flames, and manipulation of dreams is part of indoctrination as well.

What's the actual precedent for this? I'm not denying it's plausible but I don't recall it ever being mentioned before, other than the rachni queen's "oily shadows" line, which doesn't directly relate to dreams.

Both the derelict reaper and Rho scientists talk of dream manipulation.

[SubAstris]

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.

Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?

[balance5050]

llbountyhunter wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I think IT is the confused response from the fandom to the reality that the game doesn't offer a happily-ever-after ending with SPACE HUSBANDO!!!! or WAIFU!!!! It's pretty clear that the main problem most people have with the ending is that it's not feel-good. Also, that it's ill-explained and poorly presented, and that I can agree with. But that's where this theory is clearly just a popular and widely-accepted headcanon between your average ME fans, and nothing more. No one who subscribes to this wants to accept anything but beating the Reapers, so it's reasoned here that this is all a ploy by the Reapers.

At the end of the day, this is just as much a speculation as any other interpretation, but it has glaring holes.What hints does the narrative itself make about the Catalyst being untrustworthy? The answer is none. There can always be interpretations from here and there, but no concrete/black-and-white example. Not like ME2 where everyone and their grandmother tells you "don't trust Cerberus, don't trust the Illusive Man" (for which you saw why in ME3). Also, if ReaperBieber is trying to trick you, why is Destroy the default option? Why are Control and Synthesis only unlocked with a stronger fleet?

There are clear flaws with this thing, and I'm sure I'd find more if I cared enough to read up more on this headcanon than the mere skimming I've done. But that's my opinion on IH (Indoctrination Headcanon). Sorry if people don't like it, but I'm free to voice my opinion on things here, so deal with it.

*very forced calm voice*  can you please elaborate? point out the flaws, please, help us understand....

He won't, doesn't sound like the type that likes to read.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

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.

Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?

Casey Huson: "It won't just be an ABC ending."

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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.

Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?

Casey Huson: "It won't just be an ABC ending."

Think it was Casey Hudson as well who said: "The Rachni choice will have a major impact."

Granted both of those statements can still reach to be true in EC, but until then those are contradictions.

[llbountyhunter]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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.

Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?

Casey Huson: "It won't just be an ABC ending."

well.... you could argue that this wasnt contradictory at all.

it was in fact "RBG" 

[Simon_Says]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

At the end of the day, this is just as much a speculation as any other interpretation, but it has glaring holes.What hints does the narrative itself make about the Catalyst being untrustworthy? The answer is none. There can always be interpretations from here and there, but no concrete/black-and-white example. Not like ME2 where everyone and their grandmother tells you "don't trust Cerberus, don't trust the Illusive Man" (for which you saw why in ME3). Also, if ReaperBieber is trying to trick you, why is Destroy the default option? Why are Control and Synthesis only unlocked with a stronger fleet?

These have already been discussed in depth. Why is the Catalyst untrustworthy? Because it's a character we have no knowledge about, who's associated with the enemy, who's entire argument pins on the listener not analyzing it too closely. Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.

Also, destroy is the default option only when the collector base has been destroyed. Otherwise it's control. And with low EMS, it's obvious that it's probably the case that the reapers already have the upper hand. They've already won. Let Shepard break free of indoc, he/she and their entire species are as good as dead already.

You also seem to forget that the ending that requires the most work to unlock is... the destroy ending where Shepard survives. That Shepard even survives is even an argument agains the Catalyst, as it had explicityl claimed that Shepard would die if they picked destroy.

If you're going to bash IT, at least be a little informed. We've had several dozen people pouring over this. It may not be right in the end, but we're confident it's at the very least plausible.

[His Name was HYR!!]

llbountyhunter wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I think IT is the confused response from the fandom to the reality that the game doesn't offer a happily-ever-after ending with SPACE HUSBANDO!!!! or WAIFU!!!! It's pretty clear that the main problem most people have with the ending is that it's not feel-good. Also, that it's ill-explained and poorly presented, and that I can agree with. But that's where this theory is clearly just a popular and widely-accepted headcanon between your average ME fans, and nothing more. No one who subscribes to this wants to accept anything but beating the Reapers, so it's reasoned here that this is all a ploy by the Reapers.

At the end of the day, this is just as much a speculation as any other interpretation, but it has glaring holes.What hints does the narrative itself make about the Catalyst being untrustworthy? The answer is none. There can always be interpretations from here and there, but no concrete/black-and-white example. Not like ME2 where everyone and their grandmother tells you "don't trust Cerberus, don't trust the Illusive Man" (for which you saw why in ME3). Also, if ReaperBieber is trying to trick you, why is Destroy the default option? Why are Control and Synthesis only unlocked with a stronger fleet?

There are clear flaws with this thing, and I'm sure I'd find more if I cared enough to read up more on this headcanon than the mere skimming I've done. But that's my opinion on IH (Indoctrination Headcanon). Sorry if people don't like it, but I'm free to voice my opinion on things here, so deal with it.

*very forced calm voice*  can you please elaborate? point out the flaws, please, help us understand....

I just did. Again, if it's a ploy, why is his "bait" (synthesis/control) not available to the player at all by default whilst Destroy always is? You need a strong fleet to unlock those paths to begin with. If he knows anything about Shepard, being as he/she is hell-bent on destroying them, why offer it at all? Also, no hints at the Catalyst being a liar. The Reapers may be trecherous, but the Catalyst is telling you everything behind the Reapers (as much as the writers cared to, anyway) and there's little reason to believe any of it is falsehood, it's pretty consistent with what we know already. That's even before presenting the paths to end it.

Those are flaws from skimming through this. I'm sure I'd find more if I read carefully, but I don't need to. In the end, there's little reason to believe you're being "led" to anything.

[llbountyhunter]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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.

Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?

Casey Huson: "It won't just be an ABC ending."

 

[balance5050]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I just did. Again, if it's a ploy, why is his "bait" (synthesis/control) not available to the player at all by default whilst Destroy always is? You need a strong fleet to unlock those paths to begin with. If he knows anything about Shepard, being as he/she is hell-bent on destroying them, why offer it at all? Also, no hints at the Catalyst being a liar. The Reapers may be trecherous, but the Catalyst is telling you everything behind the Reapers (as much as the writers cared to, anyway) and there's little reason to believe any of it is falsehood, it's pretty consistent with what we know already. That's even before presenting the paths to end it.

Those are flaws from skimming through this. I'm sure I'd find more if I read carefully, but I don't need to. In the end, there's little reason to believe you're being "led" to anything.

if it's a ploy, why is his "bait" (synthesis/control) not available to the player at all by default whilst Destroy always is


-Why would Harby want to indoctrinate someone who sucks at putting together armies? You need a high EMS for Synthesis but you need an even HIGHER EMS to live in the destruction scene. "Shepard Alive" is the hardest ending to attain.

Also, no hints at the Catalyst being a liar. 

-Except that the whole game contradicts him. He also says that your synthetics will fail if you choose destroy, Shep can't live without synthetics yet, he can survive after choosing destroy. Also, EDI can walk out of the Normandy if you choose destroy according to Pat Weekes unofficial interview. Several clear signs you are being lied to.

Those are flaws from skimming through this. I'm sure I'd find more if I read carefully, but I don't need to. In the end, there's little reason to believe you're being "led" to anything. 

I will gladly address your concerns if you see anything else.