57139 réponses à ce sujet

[BastiSito]

thelightofspeed wrote...

Calling the claims "weak" is an oppinion.

Not particularly. The evidence for IT is made up of many, many tidbits that can be viewed as supporting indoctrination. For instance:

- Infinite ammo pistol
- Shepard bleeding on left side
- Files named 'Dream'
- TIM able to control Shepard

The issue I have with each of those points is that they have many alternate explanations. The pistol could be an artistic/gameplay choice, Shepard's bleeding all over, assets are reused or even just named strangely all the time, TIM could have put in a mind control device anyway... etc.

Well - THANK you! Counter-arguments!

Can we agree on the fact that the writers didn't got nuts or lost several dozens of IQ points since ME2? That they didn't go on a long trip with several drugs, alcohol-abuse and that they were not lobotomized? To be blunt: That they are capable of designing a story as they have proven with ME1 + ME2?

Good.

Counter-Argument 1: "Unlimited Ammo is an artistic choice". Unlikely, as they explicitly defied the "unlimited ammo"-gameplay with ME2 (ME1 still had it!). They specifically decided to limit ammo with a "cooling-technique"-explanation within the game. There is no clear reason why it should be dropped at the end of ME3 - and furthermore, dropped without any explanation, not even the shadow of a shadow of a shadow of an explanation.

Counter-Argument 2: "Shepard bleeds not just on the left, but everywhere". Right. But the bleeding on the left was explicitly shown. Not just "Oh, look, blood, didn't notice until now" but letting go Shepards left hand from the lower left of the abdomen and showing "Damn, there is a specific point where I loose blood". A gesture, I might add, that is used a trillion times in movies as a sign of a specific gunshot fired by a villian. Leads back to the point that the writers didn't use that for the sake of funny little drugs circulating their systems.

Counter-Argument 3: "Files named Dream - they are named all sort of names". Yeah. I don't see that as an argument either. Hell, names of files, who cares? I don't.

Counter-Argument 4: "TIM could have implanted control-devices". At the beginning of ME2 Miranda Lawson explained that she planned to implant control devices, but was stopped by TIM. He wanted "Shepard as unchanged as possible". That does contradict your "implanting devices"-argument. Unless TIM didn't trust Miranda, his right hand, first lieutenant, his masterpiece he raised after she fled her father, his most loyal soldier. Doesn't sound plausibel.

Your turn with argument 1, 2 and 4.
Number 3 we agree on.

Modifié par BastiSito, 28 mars 2012 - 06:52 .

[Dance Craze]

[quote]Rifneno wrote...

[quote]Dance Craze wrote...

in splinter cell double agent when you have to shoot lambert there is no ammo count... must have been dreaming.[/quote]

Super Mario Brothers 2 (US) was a dream, so this must be too. See how hard you can hit logic in the face with a shovel when you use situations from other games by other companies as evidence of something for this one? Good thing I was saying it in jest at least.
[quote]


I was just joking that the pistol having no ammo argumnet is possibly the weakest for indoctrination theory. 

Modifié par Dance Craze, 28 mars 2012 - 06:53 .

[IronSabbath88]

Actually, I think the pistol having unlimited ammo is one of the BEST.

It's a Carniflex. Carniflex has less capacity than most pistols because of it's power. It's very suspect.

[Dance Craze]

sorry. I have no idea what happened to that post

Modifié par Dance Craze, 28 mars 2012 - 06:56 .

[Denvian]

byne wrote...

BubbleDncr wrote...

Sorry if I'm behind on this discussion, but...

Doesn't the fact that the worst possible ending only lets you pick the destroy option, kind of completely debunk the indoctrination theory? Shepard who completely fails, automatically gets to break indoctrination, but Shepard who tried hard to save the galaxy has a 2 out of 3 chance of being indoctrinated?

You also dont live in the worst possible ending. Could just be the Reapers deciding not to bother with you, and leaving you to die.

I always thought that the Lower your EMS the less hope you have and your brain comes up with a much worse scenario because of that lack of hope.

And of course if you get control or destroy depends on what choices you made before with the Reaper base... Did you opt to destroy or control it?

Modifié par Denvian, 28 mars 2012 - 06:56 .

[ChuckieJ]

BubbleDncr wrote...

Sorry if I'm behind on this discussion, but...

Doesn't the fact that the worst possible ending only lets you pick the destroy option, kind of completely debunk the indoctrination theory? Shepard who completely fails, automatically gets to break indoctrination, but Shepard who tried hard to save the galaxy has a 2 out of 3 chance of being indoctrinated?

Not at all.

Destroy is what you originally came to accomplish. If your fleet is very low strength, then the Reapers have no need to negotiate with / indoctrinate you. The fleet will easily be defeated.

The bigger point is that the stronger the fleet is, the more options the Reapers give you. They push Synthesis hard as the "neutral" option when in fact it means turning everyone into Husks.

[MasterDracoStoc]

thelightofspeed wrote...

Calling the claims "weak" is an oppinion.

Not particularly. The evidence for IT is made up of many, many tidbits that can be viewed as supporting indoctrination. For instance:

- Infinite ammo pistol
- Shepard bleeding on left side
- Files named 'Dream'
- TIM able to control Shepard

The issue I have with each of those points is that they have many alternate explanations. The pistol could be an artistic/gameplay choice, Shepard's bleeding all over, assets are reused or even just named strangely all the time, TIM could have put in a mind control device anyway... etc.

Furthermore, a good deal of the 'evidence' can be explained simply by bad writing or a rushed effort. Most of it is weak, and when you add multiple pieces of weak evidence together, they do not get stronger.

In this sense, it is perfectly valid to call evidence 'weak'.

Some of the evidence presented in this thread has been half decent, or hard to explain otherwise. Shepard waking up in rubble, controlling Anderson, etc. These can still be explained away by a poor writing effort, internal feedback and possibly a rushed game, but it's a little stronger than "I didn't need to reload my pistol, must've been dreaming."

As a whole, given the sheer number of alternate explanations that could apply, and a basic application of Occam's Razor... the 'proof' for IT seems fairly weak. It 'fits', but it is not strongly proven whatsoever.

Which is why IT is a theory. Its a strong theory with lots of SUPPORTING evidence, but no proof. Until Bioware goes one way or another, IT should be treated like a theory.  The primary reason why I feel it has to be IT is because Bioware is brilliant. You are correct in saying the evidence can be explained through things not IT, but the evidence fits well enough in IT to spur us forward to find PROOF.

[thelightofspeed]

For a rebuttal to the counterarguments to my points... refer to my first post. You'll see exactly what I mean.

Done here now.

[Dance Craze]

Pistols having unlimited ammo happens in so many other games.... Like COD. The developers wanted unlimited ammo incase you used all of it and didnt have enough left to choose the "renegade" destroy option.

[Dance Craze]

Denvian wrote...

byne wrote...

BubbleDncr wrote...

Sorry if I'm behind on this discussion, but...

Doesn't the fact that the worst possible ending only lets you pick the destroy option, kind of completely debunk the indoctrination theory? Shepard who completely fails, automatically gets to break indoctrination, but Shepard who tried hard to save the galaxy has a 2 out of 3 chance of being indoctrinated?

You also dont live in the worst possible ending. Could just be the Reapers deciding not to bother with you, and leaving you to die.

I always thought that the Lower your EMS the less hope you have and your brain comes up with a much worse scenario because of that lack of hope.

And of course if you get control or destroy depends on what choices you made before with the Reaper base... Did you opt to destroy or control it?

Why would your military strength decide how much mental resistence shepard has?

Modifié par Dance Craze, 28 mars 2012 - 06:58 .

[Kyzee]

MasterDracoStoc wrote...

thelightofspeed wrote...

Calling the claims "weak" is an oppinion.

Not particularly. The evidence for IT is made up of many, many tidbits that can be viewed as supporting indoctrination. For instance:

- Infinite ammo pistol
- Shepard bleeding on left side
- Files named 'Dream'
- TIM able to control Shepard

The issue I have with each of those points is that they have many alternate explanations. The pistol could be an artistic/gameplay choice, Shepard's bleeding all over, assets are reused or even just named strangely all the time, TIM could have put in a mind control device anyway... etc.

Furthermore, a good deal of the 'evidence' can be explained simply by bad writing or a rushed effort. Most of it is weak, and when you add multiple pieces of weak evidence together, they do not get stronger.

In this sense, it is perfectly valid to call evidence 'weak'.

Some of the evidence presented in this thread has been half decent, or hard to explain otherwise. Shepard waking up in rubble, controlling Anderson, etc. These can still be explained away by a poor writing effort, internal feedback and possibly a rushed game, but it's a little stronger than "I didn't need to reload my pistol, must've been dreaming."

As a whole, given the sheer number of alternate explanations that could apply, and a basic application of Occam's Razor... the 'proof' for IT seems fairly weak. It 'fits', but it is not strongly proven whatsoever.

Which is why IT is a theory. Its a strong theory with lots of SUPPORTING evidence, but no proof. Until Bioware goes one way or another, IT should be treated like a theory.  The primary reason why I feel it has to be IT is because Bioware is brilliant. You are correct in saying the evidence can be explained through things not IT, but the evidence fits well enough in IT to spur us forward to find PROOF.

+1

[byne]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

Actually, I think the pistol having unlimited ammo is one of the BEST.

It's a Carniflex. Carniflex has less capacity than most pistols because of it's power. It's very suspect.

I find it more odd TIM killed himself with a Predator pistol, the same type Saren used.

Its pretty clearly shown that TIM takes the pistol from Anderson, which seems kind of odd since according to the description of the pistol:

"A reliable, accurate sidearm. Manufactured by Elanus Risk Control, the Predator is valued as a powerful, deadly, and relatively inexpensive weapon. While it is not generally deployed in the military, it's still very popular in the Terminus Systems."

Seems odd Anderson would have a Predator.

[BastiSito]

Dance Craze wrote...

sorry. I have no idea what happened to that post

Edit: Pistols having unlimited ammo happens in so many other games.... Like COD. The developers wanted unlimited ammo incase you used all of it and didnt have enough left to choose the "renegade" destroy option.

There was a hallway FULL with corpses. I suppose it would be more plausible to plant some clips there instead of changing the basic gameplay out of the blue. I find the turn of  "Ah, what the frack, let's get back to unlimited ammo" more disturbing then spare clips or - also possible - choosing the red option (wouldn't call it "renegade") with something spectacular like an omniblade.

[Hitokiri83]

I wonder

What will you do as it turns out that the theory of indoctrination is just fiction and you'll get only a few weak answers to the plotholes in the story and illogical threads

[Dance Craze]

Hitokiri83 wrote...

I wonder

What will you do as it turns out that the theory of indoctrination is just fiction and you'll get only a few weak answers to the plotholes in the story and illogical threads

I would most likely do nothing

[mooney6023]

Dance Craze wrote...

Over the past day, I have been feeling a strong inclination that the ending is not indoctrination. I was once a true believer and then a doubter and then a true believer once more but now I'm a doubter once again. I feel that it is obvious that the starchild is not a hallucination. The catalyst is a true necessity that is introduced in the very beginning of the game as being crucial to the crucible. If he is not the catalyst, then what would be? It cannot just be the citadel because it is just a space station. This thought has swayed me to the other side once more... Any thoughts as to what else the catalyst would be and what not?

Throughout all three games various NPCs remark that the citadel has never been completely explored, that parts of it are unreachable/unknown.  That they still do not know where the keepers are born/created, that for some reason the number of keepers are kept at a static number at all times and only replaced when one is dead, etc.

The Citadel is not "simply" a space station - it's a gigantic piece of reaper tech sitting in the middle of galactic civilation of unknown purpose.

[ChuckieJ]

My guess is that the Catalyst, Crucible, Citadel combo actually does nothing. Or at worst it kills organic life (like the Halos) and has no ability to touch the Reapers. Why would the Reapers allow this information to be passed down between cycles? Was it really hidden that well?

That would leave the result of the battle up to the strength of your fleet and perhaps a few final missions & choices.

Modifié par ChuckieJ, 28 mars 2012 - 07:03 .

[Dance Craze]

mooney6023 wrote...

Dance Craze wrote...

Over the past day, I have been feeling a strong inclination that the ending is not indoctrination. I was once a true believer and then a doubter and then a true believer once more but now I'm a doubter once again. I feel that it is obvious that the starchild is not a hallucination. The catalyst is a true necessity that is introduced in the very beginning of the game as being crucial to the crucible. If he is not the catalyst, then what would be? It cannot just be the citadel because it is just a space station. This thought has swayed me to the other side once more... Any thoughts as to what else the catalyst would be and what not?

Throughout all three games various NPCs remark that the citadel has never been completely explored, that parts of it are unreachable/unknown.  That they still do not know where the keepers are born/created, that for some reason the number of keepers are kept at a static number at all times and only replaced when one is dead, etc.

The Citadel is not "simply" a space station - it's a gigantic piece of reaper tech sitting in the middle of galactic civilation of unknown purpose.

then if ghost child is fake, what would the catalyst be?

[Denvian]

BastiSito wrote...


Counter-Argument 1: "Unlimited Ammo is an artistic choice". Unlikely, as they explicitly defied the "unlimited ammo"-gameplay with ME2 (ME1 still had it!). They specifically decided to limit ammo with a "cooling-technique"-explanation within the game. There is no clear reason why it should be dropped at the end of ME3 - and furthermore, dropped without any explanation, not even the shadow of a shadow of a shadow of an explanation.

I don't understand why people defend unlimited ammo as evidence.  Really the same argument could be made with the rest of the game when you do not have the same gun you equipped.  

There are so many better bits of evidence that is silly to worry about this.  

I think the best way to argue for IT is to simply concede this point and move on because you really should focus on stronger evidence becuase really defending weak evidence is just going to convice people that we do indeed wear tin foil hats... My hat is made of cotton thank you! 

[schubacca]

When players have to explain away the ending that was given....... it is surely a sign of a weak ending.

[Dance Craze]

ChuckieJ wrote...

My guess is that the Catalyst, Crucible, Citadel combo actually does nothing. Or at worst it kills organic life (like the Halos) and has no ability to touch the Reapers. Why would the Reapers allow this information to be passed down between cycles? Was it really hidden that well?

Why would the reapers allow organics to go to the citadel anyway!? Why not just drag it with them out to their controlled area if it is so crucial to their being??

Modifié par Dance Craze, 28 mars 2012 - 07:04 .

[ChuckieJ]

schubacca wrote...

When players have to explain away the ending that was given....... it is surely a sign of a weak ending.

When forum users explain away clear clues and subtle clues from Bioware's PR that IT is true, it is a sign the users are not paying attention or simply don't care as much as they think they do.

[BastiSito]

thelightofspeed wrote...

For a rebuttal to the counterarguments to my points... refer to my first post. You'll see exactly what I mean.

Done here now.

Ah. So you refer to the ultimative "The writers just f**ked up" argument.
Well, can't argue that, since neither you nor me can prove or disprove it.

Which leaves you at a disadvantage, because you claim it and therefore you have to prove your claim. And that you can not, unless you are an employee of Bioware.

Your former arguments, especially the implanted control devices, were quite good. But I won't force you into a discussion.

It was a - fairly short, but nonetheless - pleasure, thank you.

[Denvian]

Dance Craze wrote...

Denvian wrote...

byne wrote...

BubbleDncr wrote...

Sorry if I'm behind on this discussion, but...

Doesn't the fact that the worst possible ending only lets you pick the destroy option, kind of completely debunk the indoctrination theory? Shepard who completely fails, automatically gets to break indoctrination, but Shepard who tried hard to save the galaxy has a 2 out of 3 chance of being indoctrinated?

You also dont live in the worst possible ending. Could just be the Reapers deciding not to bother with you, and leaving you to die.

I always thought that the Lower your EMS the less hope you have and your brain comes up with a much worse scenario because of that lack of hope.

And of course if you get control or destroy depends on what choices you made before with the Reaper base... Did you opt to destroy or control it?

Why would your military strength decide how much mental resistence shepard has?

Because throughout the game the more people you help and the more progress you make the more you hope that you will succeed... If you have just a dude with a gun going, "DIE REAPER DIE!!" then your dream of success will probably be considerably darker.

[JustAidan]

Dance Craze wrote...

JustAidan wrote...

Dance Craze wrote...

Over the past day, I have been feeling a strong inclination that the ending is not indoctrination. I was once a true believer and then a doubter and then a true believer once more but now I'm a doubter once again. I feel that it is obvious that the starchild is not a hallucination. The catalyst is a true necessity that is introduced in the very beginning of the game as being crucial to the crucible. If he is not the catalyst, then what would be? It cannot just be the citadel because it is just a space station. This thought has swayed me to the other side once more... Any thoughts as to what else the catalyst would be and what not?

This question is actually very interesting.

FYI: the Citadel is a massive Mass Effect relay (did it also regulate the Mass relays as well?) not a space station, that's just what the current civilisations use it for.

We learn from the Prothean VI that the Catalyst is the Citadel and that TIM is over there right now and that he has informed the Reapers likewise.

Question is: Can we trust the *hacked* Prothean VI? Is the Catalyst actually something completely different? Is th Crucible a Reaper trap? etc etc. All speculation and no way to figure this out from what is given in the game.

There is a lot to suggest and indicate that the ending is not real, far too much has been diliberately put in throughout the game. Most likely you are just worried about being disappointed. Same here.

Haha, I really am worried about being disapointed. I feel like waiting a month and finding out nothing is too depressing. I just want to get the grieving process over with.. if I have to....

Hehe, isn't there a (pre-booked in advance of ME3 getting released no less) panel at PAX on the 6th?