384 réponses à ce sujet

[Koolgool]

Holiday wrote...

 Do you remember the Prothean VI on Thessia that Kai Leng took to the Cerberus station? If you do, then you'd also remember that it was able to discern between people who were indoctrinated and people who weren't. It stated that both the Illusive Man and Kai Leng were indeed indoctrinated, while at the same time, stated that Shepard wasn't indoctrinated. There you go. Indoctrination theory disproven.

Shepard wasn't Indoctrinated at that point, as you clearly have full control over him and his decisions. The reapers are attempting to control him, but they don't until the very end (if you choose control or synthesis). Kai Leng and TIM both were fully under the control and were trying to carry out their will.

It's not so hard to understand. :B

Let's pretend that the Prothean VI could detect if someone has a sandwich. TIM and Kai Leng are the equivalent of having made a sandwhich, while Shepard at that point just has the bread in his back pocket and doesn't know about it. The Prothean VI would be like "Oh look, TIM and Kai Leng have a sandwich, but Shepard doesn't." It's not built to detect bread by itself.

Yay silly analogies!

[RedShft]

CavScout wrote...

RedShft wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Video is horrible.. presenting presumptions as facts...

I was pointing to the trees. 

If the end sequence is to be taken literally, why do trees pop up after being hit by the blast?

Again, how are trees proof of indoctrination?

READ my POST. I NEVER SAID THEY WERE.

[Forgomoth]

ULS 980 wrote...


Pretty much. Given how good the writing team has been through two games and 99% of the third game, it's hard to believe that they simply just screwed up.

The ending isn't just bad.
It's uncharacteristically bad.

Maybe the indoctrination theory is right, maybe it's wrong.
But we can't just simply say it's supposed to be taken at face value when it's quite clearly supposed to be ambiguous (Bioware have even said this) and there's quite clearly something else going on under the hood, so to speak.

I've also statement by BioWare saying that they wanted people to have strong opinions about it.

Such as this quote from an IGN article, (xbox360.ign.com/articles/122/1220712p1.html)

      [In an interview with Digital Trends, Hudson said, "I didn't want the game to be forgettable, and even right down to the sort of polarizing reaction that the ends have had with people–debating what the endings mean and what's going to happen next, and what situation are the characters left in.

"That to me is part of what's exciting about this story. There has always been a little bit of mystery there and a little bit of interpretation, and it's a story that people can talk about after the fact."]

This does, however, support that BioWare meant to leave it that way, but as Vromrig said.  They, "Did not anticipate backlash. Did not calculate it while crafting, did not have proper planning in place to respond. Near certain this not intended as complete ending"

[kathic]

"Can cite example as we speak. Abundance of evidence exists that you are not reading my posts. Only that you are scanning. Will not conclude you are stupid individual, therefore rule out the possibility that you cannot comprehend what I am saying. Therefore, only logical that you are not reading my posts in their entirety. If were, would see that I specifically said "not smoking gun". Accusing me of calling smoking gun indicates skimming, and not reading.

If so, what is the point of posting? Demonstrates further you are not interested in facts of situation. Instead, want simply to argue, ignoring of evidence. Perfectly acceptable. But not worth derailment of thread."


If you want to resort to ad hominem attacks and evasion then
that’s fine. You should at least admit that the evidence is inconclusive at
best. Indoc theory has come nowhere close to the burden of proof required to be
taken seriously. You simply dismiss the possibility that the ending was simply
poorly written in favor of a more complex theory that is based on circumstantial
evidence. You argue that the bad writing theory requires more assumptions and
has less evidence but do not expound beyond your assertion. Again you ignore
the actions of scientific inquiry for the rhetoric.

Modifié par kathic, 20 mars 2012 - 07:13 .

[CavScout]

RedShft wrote...

CavScout wrote...

RedShft wrote...

Fair enough but why exactly are there random trees that pop up after you get hit by the beam?

How are "random trees" proof of indoctrination?

Never in my post I said they are proof of indoctrination. They are proof that the ending should not be taken in a literal sense. 

You are most certainly saying they are evidence for it....

[Vromrig]

Again, how are trees proof of indoctrination?

Poster is attempting to create logic of evidence. Creating argument out of smaller arguments. Indoctrination Theory acts as "meta-argument", composed of smaller pieces of evidence. In this case, trees not proof that Shepard is Indoctrinated. Instead, trees proof that situation is something akin to hallucination.

Once concluded, creates new piece of evidence that can be affixed to overall argument. Once conceded that situation is hallucination, can use hallucination as evidence to support Indoctrination.

The poster is attempting to establish timelines and a string of evidence. To answer question.

Personally do not put much credit in trees.

[ArkkAngel007]

CavScout wrote...

moater boat wrote...

On Ilos, Vigil explains how indoctrinated Protheans betrayed the remaining survivors. If Protheans, (or Prothean VI's) could detect indoctrination with 100% accuracy, this never would have happened. The only logical conclusion is that there is varying levels of indoctrination, and that they can only detect those that are fully indoctrinated.

There you go. Indoctrination theory disproof disproven.

One VI detecting an indoctrinated individual is not proof of wide spread use of VIs to detect indoctrinated individuals.

There are various "logical" conclusions that can be made and Shepperd being partially indoctrinated is not one of them.

There is no partial indoctrination though.  Either you are or you aren't.  There are degrees to the severity, but indoctrination is what it is.  It can be resisted though, and that's what IT perceives the ending as: a indoctrination attempt to break Shepard's resistance.

[ArkkAngel007]

Vromrig wrote...

Again, how are trees proof of indoctrination?

Poster is attempting to create logic of evidence. Creating argument out of smaller arguments. Indoctrination Theory acts as "meta-argument", composed of smaller pieces of evidence. In this case, trees not proof that Shepard is Indoctrinated. Instead, trees proof that situation is something akin to hallucination.

Once concluded, creates new piece of evidence that can be affixed to overall argument. Once conceded that situation is hallucination, can use hallucination as evidence to support Indoctrination.

The poster is attempting to establish timelines and a string of evidence. To answer question.

Personally do not put much credit in trees.

Considering the trees are one of the weaker elements of the theory, I wouldn't put much credit on them either.  There are larger issues with far more probability of supporting that theory than 2 random trees that aren't even the exact ones in the dreams.

[Vromrig]

If you want to resort to ad hominem attacks and evasion then
that’s fine. You should at least admit that the evidence is inconclusive at
best. Indoc theory has come nowhere close to the burden of proof required to be
taken seriously. You simply dismiss the possibility that the ending was simply
poorly written in favor of a more complex theory that is based on circumstantial
evidence. You argue that the bad writing theory requires more assumptions and
has less evidence but do not expound beyond your assertion. Again you ignore
the actions of scientific inquiry for the rhetoric.

No ad hominem, nor dismissive. Ad hominem is: "You are a cheater, therefore your argument is wrong". But this cannot be the case. Because cheater can still make valid argument. Makes principle of refutation flimsy, illogical.

Also not evading, consistently clarifying. Have answered every question posed to me. Only one approaching situation scientifically in discussion. Looking at preponderance of evidence. Being told committing logical fallacies when not. Demonstrate how not.

Complexity of theory has no impact on likelihood of theory.  Evidence only thing that does so.  Subtle invocation of Okham's Razor.  Attempted use of this tool already refuted.  Okham's Razor supports Indoctrination Theory.

Modifié par Vromrig, 20 mars 2012 - 07:17 .

[ULS 980]

Here. Let's just start from square one.
We know the ending is supposed to be ambiguous ("Lot's of speculation for everyone"), although I'd argue poorly executed.
So the ending isn't supposed to be quite as it seems. So we can pretty much chuck out the idea that "The ending is supposed to be taken at face value and Bioware just screwed up massively", can we not? Because if the ending is taken at face value, then there's absolutely nothing to speculate about.

So even if you don't believe in the indoctrination theory, what do you think was Bioware's intention for the ending? What exactly are we supposed to be speculating about?

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 07:17 .

[RedShft]

CavScout wrote...

RedShft wrote...

CavScout wrote...

RedShft wrote...

Fair enough but why exactly are there random trees that pop up after you get hit by the beam?

How are "random trees" proof of indoctrination?

Never in my post I said they are proof of indoctrination. They are proof that the ending should not be taken in a literal sense. 

You are most certainly saying they are evidence for it....

NO IM NOT. Can you read? I asked you a simple question. 

Why do trees suddenly pop up after you get hit by the beam? It's an innocent question. I'm asking for your explanation. 

Not once, in this thread have I said "Random trees are proof of indoctrination." 

Modifié par RedShft, 20 mars 2012 - 07:17 .

[CavScout]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

moater boat wrote...

On Ilos, Vigil explains how indoctrinated Protheans betrayed the remaining survivors. If Protheans, (or Prothean VI's) could detect indoctrination with 100% accuracy, this never would have happened. The only logical conclusion is that there is varying levels of indoctrination, and that they can only detect those that are fully indoctrinated.

There you go. Indoctrination theory disproof disproven.

One VI detecting an indoctrinated individual is not proof of wide spread use of VIs to detect indoctrinated individuals.

There are various "logical" conclusions that can be made and Shepperd being partially indoctrinated is not one of them.

There is no partial indoctrination though.  Either you are or you aren't.  There are degrees to the severity, but indoctrination is what it is.  It can be resisted though, and that's what IT perceives the ending as: a indoctrination attempt to break Shepard's resistance.

Why do they need to bother with indoctrinating Shepperd once he'd been blasted by the beam?

[Vromrig]

Why do they need to bother with indoctrinating Shepperd once he'd been blasted by the beam?

Final cutscene proves conclusively, Shepard survives the blast.

[CavScout]

RedShft wrote...

CavScout wrote...

You are most certainly saying they are evidence for it....

NO IM NOT. Can you read? I asked you a simple question. 

Why do trees suddenly pop up after you get hit by the beam? It's an innocent question. I'm asking for your explanation. 

Not once, in this thread have I said "Random trees are proof of indoctrination." 

Yes you are. You keep posting to a 20 minute video of INDOCTRINATION theory for crying out loud.

You're not asking an "innocent" question, you're asking a leading question so you can say "gotcha!"

[CavScout]

Vromrig wrote...

Why do they need to bother with indoctrinating Shepperd once he'd been blasted by the beam?

Final cutscene proves conclusively, Shepard survives the blast.

Only if one meets certain requirements. Shepard can possibly survive in some endings but not all.

[Lambda Diamond]

This is a dumb topic because Harbinger comes at end of game thus it wouldnt matter.
also like everyone said why do they keep getting infiltrated from indoct people?

[Vromrig]

Only if one meets certain requirements. Shepard can possibly survive in some endings but not all.

Interesting, considering this ending is the only one to conclusively state Shepard will die.

[RedShft]

CavScout wrote...

RedShft wrote...

CavScout wrote...

You are most certainly saying they are evidence for it....

NO IM NOT. Can you read? I asked you a simple question. 

Why do trees suddenly pop up after you get hit by the beam? It's an innocent question. I'm asking for your explanation. 

Not once, in this thread have I said "Random trees are proof of indoctrination." 

Yes you are. You keep posting to a 20 minute video of INDOCTRINATION theory for crying out loud.

You're not asking an "innocent" question, you're asking a leading question so you can say "gotcha!"

You're a fool. I'm asking for your explanation, I'm trying to have a discussion. I want to know what you think of the trees. I don't give a flying **** what you think about indoc. theory. Stop being paranoid and stubborn. 

If you want to use another video as a reference than fine, I don't care. 

[ULS 980]

CavScout wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

moater boat wrote...

On Ilos, Vigil explains how indoctrinated Protheans betrayed the remaining survivors. If Protheans, (or Prothean VI's) could detect indoctrination with 100% accuracy, this never would have happened. The only logical conclusion is that there is varying levels of indoctrination, and that they can only detect those that are fully indoctrinated.

There you go. Indoctrination theory disproof disproven.

One VI detecting an indoctrinated individual is not proof of wide spread use of VIs to detect indoctrinated individuals.

There are various "logical" conclusions that can be made and Shepperd being partially indoctrinated is not one of them.

There is no partial indoctrination though.  Either you are or you aren't.  There are degrees to the severity, but indoctrination is what it is.  It can be resisted though, and that's what IT perceives the ending as: a indoctrination attempt to break Shepard's resistance.

Why do they need to bother with indoctrinating Shepperd once he'd been blasted by the beam?

Who's to say Harbinger sat there and decided to finish indoctrinating Shepard once (and if) he realized he was unconscious?

More likely scenario. Harbinger thought he killed Shepard and flew off or something.
Shepard being unconscious and mentally weakened (we know Shepard's breaking down, especially after his percieved failure on Thessia) to the point where the indoctrination (the process which started for Shepard long before the ending) is able to start controlling Shepard to a noticable degree rather than before where he was just second guessing himself.

It doesn't make much sense that Harbinger sat there and decided to indoctrinate Shepard.
Makes more sense that this ending scene is a culmination of a process that started long before this point in time.

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 07:24 .

[danistrad]

Yeah! Lots of speculation!

[Rusty0918]

Yes...why is it that with high enough EMS and the Destroy option, you get Shepard waking up from the rubble and not with the other options regardless of EMSes? That's a big fat clue right there. And not to mention its on Earth and NOT on the Citadel. The concrete around him just proves it right dab smack there.

There's NO WAY he could survive an explosion in his condition if that explosion was real. Yeah we know he died once was brought back, but he was just spaced. Not to mention the citadel pieces burning up in the atmosphere, and even then of course you have to factor in the gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2 which would undoubtedly be fatal on impact for Shepard.

[SimonM72]

False and stupid?... a certain reaper doesn't seem to think its so far fetched;

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

SimonM72 wrote...

Harby seems to insinuate so;

Vi@Asenza wrote...

How many reapers does it take to stop Commander Shepard?

Harbythereaper wrote...

SIX HUNDRED AND ONE. SIX HUNDRED FIGHT HIS INTERGALACTIC ARMADA AND ONE PRETENDS TO BE A KID AND TALKS HIM INTO SUICIDE

I ****ing lost it

New tweet from Harby;

Harbythereaper wrote...
ORGANICS KEEPS ASKING ME - DID YOU TRIED TO INDOCTRINATE SHEPARD, DID IT INFLUENCED ENDING? HERE'S STRAIGHT ANSWER FOR YOU: MAYBE.

[Forgomoth]

I know many think it's silly, but I'm still on the "extreme meta-game indoctrination" boat. This goes beyond just the ending of the "game" and in-fact, we as people have been indocrinated. You may think I'm insane, and you are right, because I'm indoctrinated and thus can not see the truth.

[DrowNoble]

Holiday wrote...

 Do you remember the Prothean VI on Thessia that Kai Leng took to the Cerberus station? If you do, then you'd also remember that it was able to discern between people who were indoctrinated and people who weren't. It stated that both the Illusive Man and Kai Leng were indeed indoctrinated, while at the same time, stated that Shepard wasn't indoctrinated. There you go. Indoctrination theory disproven.

The Indoctrination Theorists are probably just trying to desperately rationize the horrible ending.  I've post quite a few times other reasons why Shephard can't be indoctrinated.  Your's is pretty much the most simple explanation.

Remember people:  HOLD THE LINE

[Mr Indivisible]

False yes, stupid no. They are well thought out, but clearly due to Final Hour, the ending of ME3 wasn't.