57139 réponses à ce sujet

[BastiSito]

DreamTension wrote...

Yes there is.  ID is control over somebody's consciousness.  Dream(ing) indicates your (sub)conscious is in control and it's fighting over its own self. 

And that leads to a direct "Indoctrination vs. PTSD".
And do seperate those, we have not enough information.

But who claims it to be PTSD is just supporting IT - well, slightly different, but basically it is the same theory: It was not real.

[IronSabbath88]

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE MAAAAAAAGIIIIIIIIC!

Should've covered all your ground.

[BastiSito]

NikolaiShade wrote...

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

Can I try something with Anderson being a "human shield"?

[byne]

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

It only really makes any sense if you go by indoctrination theory, saying Anderson represent Shep's resolve.

But you said no IT, so Space Magic™

[Rob_K1]

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

Cheap game mechanic to try and make you get the best score?

Seriously, no idea.

What's funny as well is that Anderson can't be saved no matter what in the ending sequence. I suppose, if an answer had to be given though, it could be that having the Illusive Man blow his brains out has a more positive effect on Shepard, therefore giving him more of a reason to live or something like that.

Honestly, I doubt that though. No real explanation I can think of. Just seems a gamey system/feature to me.

[NikolaiShade]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE MAAAAAAAGIIIIIIIIC!

Should've covered all your ground.

Sorry, I should have added the "space magic" argument among the not accepted, to be honest for me it's the same as "bad writing"

Edit: to clarify why the aforemention arguments are not accepted:

"Rushed game" - it could have been easier to not  put the scene and the mechanics to get it in the first place

"Bad writing" - one answer for all questions is too easy

"Space magic" - see "bad writing"

"Indoctrination Theory" - explains this but I'd like a different explanation

Modifié par NikolaiShade, 28 mars 2012 - 05:27 .

[IronSabbath88]

NikolaiShade wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE MAAAAAAAGIIIIIIIIC!

Should've covered all your ground.

Sorry, I should have added the "space magic" argument among the not accepted, to be honest for me it's the same as "bad writing"

Haha, I was just messing with you, man. All in good fun.

[Orph]

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

Easy, Anderson is Superman... This is my theory, The Superman Theory. And of course, the citadel contains Kryptonite. This explain why he couldn't move and why he didn´t want to be ambassador, because he couldn't stay at the Citadel. I said... 

[DreamTension]

BastiSito wrote...

DreamTension wrote...

Yes there is.  ID is control over somebody's consciousness.  Dream(ing) indicates your (sub)conscious is in control and it's fighting over its own self. 

And that leads to a direct "Indoctrination vs. PTSD".
And do seperate those, we have not enough information.

But who claims it to be PTSD is just supporting IT - well, slightly different, but basically it is the same theory: It was not real.

PTSD is a completely different idea that has zero background information (in this series).  Indoctrination has been a major story line since ME1. 

[NS Wizdum]

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

Its a game mechanic. Saving Anderson gives a player with a 4000 EMS score enough points to get the same ending as a 5000 EMS score.

[thelightofspeed]

Yes there is.  ID is control over somebody's consciousness.  Dream(ing) indicates your (sub)conscious is in control and it's fighting over its own self. 

That is not a functional difference. It does not change the major premise of Indoc Theory which seems to be that the events of the ending were not real.

There will never be a way to disprove the assertion that this "isn't really real".

Read my posts again.

[Rob_K1]

Just posting these two links again, as they may have been missed in my big post due to the rant'ish nature of it.

Video 1 (I have watched this. Focuses on the Shepard breathing scene, as well as the tubes on the Citadel and the Rebar on Earth.)

The video tries to disprove the indoctrination theory or provide reasons as to why it may not be valid.

Modifié par Rob_K1, 28 mars 2012 - 06:58 .

[llbountyhunter]

BastiSito wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

real life is logical (...)

Sorry, had to smile.
And by "smile" I mean "burst out in laughter".

No offense.

Real life IS logical, maybe not FAIR or happy but logical? Yes.

For example.

Real life: you drop a cup it shatters on the floor
Dream: you drop a cup it floats in the air. =/= logic

Or shooting Anderson and Shepard gets wounded instead....

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 28 mars 2012 - 05:28 .

[byne]

NS Wizdum wrote...

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

Its a game mechanic. Saving Anderson gives a player with a 4000 EMS score enough points to get the same ending as a 5000 EMS score.

But either way Anderson still dies, no reason for him to be worth 1000 EMS

[NS Wizdum]

byne wrote...

NS Wizdum wrote...

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

Its a game mechanic. Saving Anderson gives a player with a 4000 EMS score enough points to get the same ending as a 5000 EMS score.

But either way Anderson still dies, no reason for him to be worth 1000 EMS

Its the thought that counts.

[IronSabbath88]

I usually like Gamermd83

But her explanations to the holes were absolutely atrocious. She's all over the place and contradicts herself many times. She's also under the impression that BioWare would make it obvious if they were planning this to be a surprise... yeah, no.

[BastiSito]

DreamTension wrote...

PTSD is a completely different idea that has zero background information (in this series).  Indoctrination has been a major story line since ME1. 

Zero background? You are really sure?

"Sole Survivor: During your service, a mission you were on went
horribly wrong. Trapped in an extreme survival situation, you had to
overcome physical torments and psychological stresses that would have
broken most people. You survived while all those around you fell, and
now you alone are left to tell the tale."

Even the very psychological profile of Shepard gives you a solid basis of PTSD .

;-)

Don't get me wrong, I do not argue against the IT. It has much more clues, hints and proofs that can be found then any PTSD scenario. I just wanted to point out that - basically - PTSD and IT start at the same point, the assumption that the entire end just happened within Shepards mind. They do not have much in common and PTSD is waaaaaaay too cliché to be taken seriously.

I still vote IT

[Rob_K1]

DreamTension wrote...

SC0TTYD00 wrote...

People are getting really agitated on these forums now, turning a bit nasty. Might tune out for a week or 2 until April.

If I'm doing that, my apologies. 

I actually enjoy discussing IDT (for or against) so I apologize for the harsh tones.

Don't think you have been. At least not since I entered the thread with my posts today. Can't speak about any posts made before that.

If anyone has, it's been me. I just dislike the term 'proof' being thrown around, as it makes it seem to me as though someone is saying they have evidence to make something a fact. And well, I also dislike being told I don't have a good grasp on what evidence is.

Edit: By the way, if the PTSD claims are true, then it can only really apply to the dreams with the child in my view. It can't really apply to the ending, because I cannot see any logical reason as to why Shepard would think of the stuff that occurs when dealing with PTSD. All my own view of course and I can't exactly say I'm familiar with PTSD.

That said, if the dreams are PTSD, then there is still too much stuff that could be taken either way. The really weird whispers, the ghostly figures (oily shadows) moving to form a wall around the child as though they're trying to stop Shepard from reaching him and the fact that Shepard sees himself burn when reaching the child.

Seeing himself burn could be likened to wishing he'd died with the child, but it could also be seen as his subconcious warning him about the child, especially with the ghostly figures crowding the child.

Like I've been saying, there is really no 'definitive' proof for either side. Too many interpretations that are valid.

Modifié par Rob_K1, 28 mars 2012 - 05:39 .

[Tr0n01d]

DreamTension wrote...

Gernbuster wrote...

I think, ME would evolve to a Sci-Fi universe with even more space magic. And I really hate this idea. On the other hand a ME strategie game might be interesting. I would advice Bioware to take the concept of "sins of a solar empire" or "supreme commander" maybe a "battlefront" would be awsome, too.

+1 
Strategy = good.

SciFi Magic = bad

Please don't do that.  Ugh.

+1000 for a strategy game.




a few years from now...


Firaxis and Bioware presents a cooperative release.



Mass Effect Civilizations !


play as the Turians, the Hanar, the Humans, the Asari, Krogan, Salarians and many more while you expand your dominion trough a 50000 years time span and achieve galactic conquest !

build Technological wonders in order to gain overwhelming bonuses.

be the first to discover the citadel and win a political victory over the galaxy, or destroy your enemies by contructing the cruisible and sumon the reapers over your foes !



my dream come true !

[BastiSito]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Real life IS logical, maybe not FAIR or happy but logical? Yes.

For example.

Real life: you drop a cup it shatters on the floor
Dream: you drop a cup it floats in the air. =/= logic

Or shooting Anderson and Shepard gets wounded instead....

As I said: "No offense". I have quite an understanding of quantum physics - a field of science where you can kiss logic bye-bye. Nothing to do with games or everyones experience in reallife, it just popped into my mind and made me laugh.

[BleedingUranium]

NS Wizdum wrote...

byne wrote...

NS Wizdum wrote...

NikolaiShade wrote...

Sorry guys, it's been posted before but I think this particular point is important: the scene where Shepard is breathing.
Even assuming Shepard survives the explosion of the Citadel, even discarding the fact that he's lying on what really seems to be concrete, what really bothers me are the conditions to see this scene:

4000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson must be "saved"
5000 EMS, chosen Destroy, Anderson is uninfluential

Now please explain to me how "saving" Anderson can help Shepard survive the explosion of the Citadel, to make it funny: "bad writing", "rushed game", "indoctrination theory" arguments are not accepted.

Its a game mechanic. Saving Anderson gives a player with a 4000 EMS score enough points to get the same ending as a 5000 EMS score.

But either way Anderson still dies, no reason for him to be worth 1000 EMS

Its the thought that counts.

War Asset Aquired: Admiral Anderson +1000

[IronSabbath88]

Bottom line, this makes more sense than taking the endings literally, and WHY you would want to take them literally is honestly beyond me. So you're satisfied with what you got?

It makes NO sense to me why people are so desperate to disprove this. Okay, we get it, YOU HATE THE ENDING AND YOU AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE YOUR OPINION.

Don't try to force that on other people, we're not forcing this theory onto you.

Man, I really wish I could swear sometimes.

[Kyzee]

thelightofspeed wrote...

 IDT is not a dream...people say 'dream' because it's a whole easier to say dream than indoctrination is controlling of one's thoughts and actions.

There is no functional difference in this case. Indoctrination Theory (as I understand it) posits that a section of the game did not reflect reality. This could be from Shepard getting up in London onwards, or from the platform ascension onwards, whatever.

The point stands that there will never be a way to prove that anything around us is truly real, because within the context of a dream, or simulation, or indoctrination, or whatever the construct that allows a false portrait of reality... it can be explained as part of the 'dream' (etc).

You can compare this to our legal systems, if you want. It's ALWAYS possible that someone is guilty of any crime - their alibi is just airtight, or they paid off the police, or any number of explanations as to why they were still able to do it. For this reason, the burden of proof is laid on the prosecutor. The defendent does not necessarily have to provide proof that the suspect did not commit a crime, just illustrate that the proof offered by the prosecution isn't strong enough to convict.

Hence, it is not "guilty" and "innocent". It is "guilty" and "not guilty".

In the same way, Indoc Theorists need to stop asking people to 'disprove' their speculation. It's not about proof against IT, because there will always be a way to explain it within the metaphysical dillemma of "it's a dream/simulation/etc". Stop asking for 'counterpoints', because the debate is structured in a way that it simply does not make sense to ask for them.

Focus on providing proof instead.

But all you have done is, frankly, said 'nuh uh' and provided zero counter argument.

That is exactly the point.

I'd agree strongly with you for the most part. However, I'd say for my part, I'm not looking for people to disprove IT, but I'm not putting blinders on either. I myself have noticed some details that made me question how IT would explain them (such as what it noted in my earlier post), and some I haven't really gotten satisfactory answers to (such as the Stargazer scene). But that's the point of theories: they get tested over and over again--sometimes weakening them, and other times strengthening them. Only Laws (scientifically speaking) don't get tested, and the "Law" of ME3's ending will only come when Bioware gives it.

Indoctrination Theory is a fantastic theory, in my view, and I believe that it's okay to challenge it as well as find support for it--all of it is important and capable of being enlightening. What I do have a problem with, and have been trying to discourage, is mockery and disrespect. You can present your views and challenge other people's opinions without resorting to insults. There's absolutely no need to go that route.

Please, treat each other with respect. That's not a lot to ask for.


NOW then, a little something I noticed now that I'm replaying ME3 AGAIN (it's eaten my soul, I swear.) I've been on the fence (and still sort of am) on whether or not the kid at the beginning is real or not. So as Shepard and Anderson were running across the rooftops, I carefully looked at the building where you see the child run in right before the explosion and subsequent vent scene. The kid appers on the far right corner--where there is no ladder or any other way for an adult, let alone a seven year old, to climb up onto the balcony.

And yes, how does the kid survive the explosion, blah, blah. But I bring this particular fact up because why would Bioware include this little detail in the first place? I would've bought that the kid ran away during the initial attack to hide in the vents with no trouble, but not after seeing him spider-climb up a friggin' buliding! It just doesn't make any sense.

Could it be that the developers didn't think in that much detail? Well, they thought about showing the kid going into the building in the first place, so I would challenge that notion. So yeah, I've got one foot over on the "the kid doesn't exist" side of the fence now.

Dear lord, April can't come soon enough. 

[Martukis]

llbountyhunter wrote...

BastiSito wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

real life is logical (...)

Sorry, had to smile.
And by "smile" I mean "burst out in laughter".

No offense.

Real life IS logical, maybe not FAIR or happy but logical? Yes.

For example.

Real life: you drop a cup it shatters on the floor
Dream: you drop a cup it floats in the air. =/= logic

Or shooting Anderson and Shepard gets wounded instead....

 To be fair, the cup tends to float before it shatters, just for an instant - and of course reality is logical, as logic is developed by observing nad understanding the rules of reality. Fair, or obvious? Probably not. Sometimes the workings of reality are far too complex or simple to be properly understood until it is too late to appreciate.

 As for Anderson, obviously, if he survives long enough to have his heart-to-heart chat, a 1000 EMS morale boost is granted.

Modifié par Martukis, 28 mars 2012 - 05:39 .

[Arphee]

Orph wrote...

BastiSito wrote...

Orph wrote...

Hi all, I don't know if someone has said this before but one of the times you meet Miranda at the Citadel, she wants to emphasize that TIM can't control you, ... She wanted to put a chip in your brain but he decided not to do it. How can TIM control you if you aren't indoctrinated?

Miranda said this to you in ME2 but she (BioWare) wants you to be sure of this in ME3, in my opinion.

Ah, and sorry, I know my English is not good..

As far as I recall, it was about "keeping his (Shepard" personality intact". Didn't keep them from implanting a lot of cybernatic stuff into the body itself (as seen in the ME2-intro).

The control of TIM at the end of ME3 can be perfectly explained with a mere bodily control, not a mental/personality control (like in a technical or indoctrinated way). If I was TIM, I most definately would install a failsafe-mechanism into someone, who I plan to use as canonfodder on an Omega-4-relay and who has a reputation of destroying a towering machine-entity within the Citadel and kazoillions of its Geth worshippers.

Hell, it's been shortly after the govermental system of the galaxy hast nearly been wiped out by a single Reaper called Souvereign. And I, as TIM, am just reviving the one man who stopped the reaper.

Failsafe it is.

You are right, I didn't think about the mechanic control =S

I never knew Anderson was a Lazarus Project 2.0 candidate,  guess i didn't realize he was filled to the brim with cybernetics to be controlled like a marionette as well. Highly unlikely that even if the scene were real, it had anything to do with TIM assuming Mechanical control of anything.

Though if theyre writing really is horrible, and the design team is incompetent, and the last 10 minutes of the game is all oversights and sloppy writing i guess TIM could use some Space Magic to controll anderson through his ear piece <_<