57139 réponses à ce sujet

[llbountyhunter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.

only 2 *flaws? 


1. if shepard becomes a bigger threat is it not logical to try harder to make him lose?
2. edi can survive at the end of destroy. liar.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 02 mai 2012 - 05:21 .

[SubAstris]

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."

And IT solves this problem how?

[blooregard]

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?

Just look at Merizan's tweets she says countless things that "prove" the indoc theory to be correct just to go on to say something that"disproves it" (their are links to these tweets all over the ME3 forums).

The only twitters (IMO) are worth watching for info on the indoc theory are Gamble's and of course Mac and Casey's but since one of them has already made a vague comment on the IT and the other two have gone into hiding in their secret bunker we'll just have to wait and see.

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

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."

And IT solves this problem how?

he just pointing out contradictions..... like you asked him to?

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?

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

And IT solves this problem how?

C'mon man keep up! You asked "Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?" and I answered.

*snap* *snap*, stay awake!

Modifié par balance5050, 02 mai 2012 - 05:24 .

[Rosewind]

Why dose Casey Hudson look like he guy from Hero's and Star Trek there?

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?

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

And IT solves this problem how?

C'mon man keep up! You asked "Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?" and I answered.

*snap* *snap*, stay awake!

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

[blooregard]

SubAstris wrote...

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."

And IT solves this problem how?

IT may not solve the A, B, or C ending problem and to be honest that is the least of my worries. I don't care if Casey Hudson lied about the endings or if everyone at bioware lied about how great the ending would be I only care that they took their universe and ended it on some namby pamby plot hole riddled cliff hanger.

I don't want the "widely different endings" or a "happy ending" hell I can honestly say at this point I don't even want "Multiple endings" I just want an ending(s) that make sense and gives me the closure I was promised.

[Tirian Thorn]

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.

Low EMS & Destroyed Collector Base = Destory is only option

Low EMS & Preserved Collector Base = Control is only option

High EMS - you can pick between Control, Synthesis or Destroy.

Very High EMS (over 4 or 5k) and you pick Destroy = it appears Shepard lives.

Destroy is not the default option selected. 

[balance5050]

Rosewind wrote...

Why dose Casey Hudson look like he guy from Hero's and Star Trek there?

Sylar, he wants our power.

[Rosewind]

balance5050 wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

Why dose Casey Hudson look like he guy from Hero's and Star Trek there?

Sylar, he wants our power.

Slyar can do what ever he wants to me lol

[DirtyPhoenix]

The first dream had two parts. The first part had the kid laughing, then you find hima nd the 2nd part starts, where you hear the kid crying. What can be the implications?

[Simon_Says]

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Would have to be from someone high-up in the BW food chain but yes.

Except they're not because true or false they don't want to alienate a significant portion of the fanbase.

[blooregard]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?

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

And IT solves this problem how?

C'mon man keep up! You asked "Where have exactly BW been contradictory in their messages?" and I answered.

*snap* *snap*, stay awake!

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

(sorry for possible double post)


I think if somebody that's actually involved in the ME3 creation like Gamble, Weekes, Walters, or Hudson were to come out and disprove IT on the spot no questions asked then it would be dead in the water and 99% of the IT supporters would be upset but understand and give up.


But so far every chance bioware has had to prove or deny the IT they've dodged the subject all together. The only BW dev saying anything at all on the IT is Jessica Merizan and she's been shown to post contradictory/vague/speculative tweets.

[Tirian Thorn]

Unschuld wrote...

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?

Pretty much. 

Or they'll focus in on one particular part of IT, bash it, then say that because of that one thing IT is false. 

The key points of IT can be dissected individually and it could be said of them that it's coincidence, etc.  But take those pieces all together and the odds of coincidence, laziness and sloppiness diminish greatly. 

[Tirian Thorn]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Ultimately with IT; if proven true, it is going to come down to less than 10 major plot points. There isn’t going to be a 5 minute explanation of how it all fit together. If memory serves, in KOTOR, Bastilla summed up the plot twist in less than 1 min and highlighted about 5 different sentences/instances that confirmed what she said. 

This would be a much larger plot twist than Bioware did in KOTOR, but I think they’re going to keep it simple. I don’t think the trees, or the music, or sound effects would be part of their explanation.  

I think they would highlight the following:

1)       Control & Synthesis were ideas put forth by indoctrinated antagonists. (TIM & Saren) Why would you believe they were ever right?


2)      Anderson gets shot, while Shepard is the one clutching and grabbing his side


3)      Harbinger can easily target others and instantly vaporizes them, but the blast hits in front of Shepard – which only wounds, instead of killing. 


4)      The Reapers has said time and time again that their purpose is unfathomable to organics. They said they have no beginning and no end. Yet the Star Kid sums up their purpose simply and says it’s his plan, making the reapers part of his plan. Plus the idiocy of the plan. We don’t want organics whipped out by synthetics, so we’re going to use synthetics to kill you, but not all of you. Why not just kill the other synthetics instead? 


5)      TIM is able to control both Shepard and Anderson? How? The reapers have never shown that kind of influence over someone who wasn’t indoctrinated. How could TIM use reaper-tech better than the reapers?


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. 


7)      When Shepard chooses Control or Synthesis his/her eyes change to become like TIM’s. 

What I wrote earlier about IT. 

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

Modifié par balance5050, 02 mai 2012 - 05:35 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Simon_Says wrote...

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.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Simon_Says wrote...

Also, destroy is the default option only when the collector base has been destroyed. Otherwise it's control.

Interesting. I assumed incorrectly then. My mistake.

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.

How does this make sense, would the Reapers not would to continue into other cycles after this one, given the Catalyst's diatribes?

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.

No, he says that Shepard is partly synthetic. Not that he/she will die. Just went back and watched destroy-only bad ending on youtube to double-check:  

Up to this point, the headcanon's plausibility remains to be seen.

[Simon_Says]

Unschuld wrote...

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.

This. This so very much.

[MaximizedAction]

pirate1802 wrote...

The first dream had two parts. The first part had the kid laughing, then you find hima nd the 2nd part starts, where you hear the kid crying. What can be the implications?

Since it's the first dream, one obvious explaination is PTSD: We as Shep saw the kid the first time playing with the toy = laighing. Then the Reapers attacked and that Destroyer shot down the shuttle where Shepard saw the kid boarding = crying.

Maybe at this point in the game, this is also the only explaination. Maybe the purpose of the first dream IS to convince the player that this is just PTSD. But also, maybe not...I don't see why the very first dream should start implying something. Otherwise the other dreams wouldn't add much to some revelation of indoctrination.

So, I took the first dream at face value. Only the others start twisting things.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 02 mai 2012 - 05:38 .

[SubAstris]

blooregard wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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."

And IT solves this problem how?

I don't want the "widely different endings" or a "happy ending" hell I can honestly say at this point I don't even want "Multiple endings" I just want an ending(s) that make sense and gives me the closure I was promised.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Dwailing]

 Someone, please find Arian's script again!

[blooregard]

I've notice the anti IT guys have been showing up saying pro IT guys can't disprove *tweet or paraphrased answer in interview* yet they can't think of any reason why that can be seen running into the building that gets lasered by a reaper and the kid is just fine in the ventilation shaft or TIM's sudden shift in goals from controlling the Reapers to trying to convince you to accept his line of thinking.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

blooregard wrote...

I don't want the "widely different endings" or a "happy ending" hell I can honestly say at this point I don't even want "Multiple endings" I just want an ending(s) that make sense and gives me the closure I was promised.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Again, this is all fixed with I.T.

[Tirian Thorn]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

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.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics.