384 réponses à ce sujet

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

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.

Saying things like "Will not conclude you are stupid individual" is a roundabout way of attacking someone.

Why don’t we try to reorganize this conversation a little better?
Perhaps in the form of premises and conclusions. We can start by agreeing on a
set of premises.

 

Premises:

1) The AI Child may not be factually honest with Shepard.

2) There are several logical inconstancies within the ending
scenario. Among theses are:

            The escape
of the Normandy through the relay.

            The escape
of the ground crew onto the Normandy.

            The
appearance of Anderson on the Citadel before Shepard.

3) The attempts by TIM to indoctrinate Shepard.

4) The strange characteristics of the scene after the beam
hits Shepard.

 

Would you care to add any others?

Modifié par kathic, 20 mars 2012 - 07:27 .

[Vromrig]

DrowNoble wrote...

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

Seem typical.  Argue against people who invoke trees and Thessia.

Never against someone that creates and crafts will reasoned arguments.

Disappointing.

/sniff

Keep trying anyway.

Saying things like "Will not conclude you are stupid individual" is a roundabout way of attacking someone.  

This is incorrect.  I stated truthfully that I do not believe you are stupid.  Therefore I could not logically conclude that you were unable to understand what I was saying.  Therefore, the only logical conclusion was that you were not accurately reading my posts.

This is logic.

Also, will not read rest of your post.  Too much broken code, resolve first.

Modifié par Vromrig, 20 mars 2012 - 07:28 .

[Forgomoth]

RedShft wrote...

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. 

THE INDOCTRINATION CONTINUES!

[ULS 980]

kathic wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

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.

Saying things like "Will not conclude you are stupid individual" is a roundabout way of attacking someone.

Why don’t we try to reorganize this conversation a little better?
Perhaps in the form of premises and conclusions. We can start by agreeing on a
set of premises.

 

Premises:

1) The AI Child may not be factually honest with Shepard.

2) There are several logical inconstancies within the ending
scenario. Among theses are:

            The escape
of the Normandy through the relay.

            The escape
of the ground crew onto the Normandy.

            The
appearance of Anderson on the Citadel before Shepard.

3) The attempts by TIM to indoctrinate Shepard.

4) The strange characteristics of the scene after the beam
hits Shepard.

 

Would you care to add any others?

5) The ending is meant to be ambiguous.



Adding onto that, if it's meant to be ambiguous, this is not a case of "Ending is supposed to be taken at face value and Bioware just screwed up". If it's taken at face value, there's nothing to speculate about.
So, explain what we are supposed to be speculating about if the indoctrination theory is incorrect. Explain what the ending was supposed to convey.

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 07:31 .

[Vromrig]

Premises:

1) The AI Child may not be factually honest with Shepard.

2) There are several logical inconstancies within the ending
scenario. Among theses are:

The escape
of the Normandy through the relay.

The escape
of the ground crew onto the Normandy.

The
appearance of Anderson on the Citadel before Shepard.

3) The attempts by TIM to indoctrinate Shepard.

4) The strange characteristics of the scene after the beam

5) Dialogue explaining Reaper intentions inconsistent with Reaper testimony

6) Impossible scenario to explain Shepard and Anderson's arrival on Citadel.

I believe these are a fair beginning point.

[Baihu1983]

After this im 100% Bioware will use this idea even if they never planned to.

[DJAwkwardSilence]

I'd love to believe the indoctrination theory, and I hope I'm proven wrong, but I really think it's people desperate for closure grasping at straws.

You could take virtually any 15-20 minutes of Mass Effect and point out strange inconsistencies and plot holes to the point of suggesting it's a hallucination or that Shep isn't REALLY in control, when in reality you're just pointing out the rough edges of the video game. For example, if Reapers really want to win why don't they just station a Reaper next to every ME relay and destroy each ship that passes through? Or how about why did my Shepard, for all of Mass Effect 2, agree to work with Cerberus when in the previous game they murdered a friend (Kohaku), killed my entire squad (sole survivor), and countless innocent lives? I had both moral and personal reasons to refuse to work with them, but I simply was made to accept that my Shepard is ok with it for some reason. Maybe that was indoctrination too...

There's gonna be lots of inconsistency and plot holes in a game with a staff of more than 100 people trying to coordinate with one another. Finding those incongruities isn't evidence of this theory. The only thing that makes me think it could be true are the unexplained/unresolved dream sequences and the descriptions of ghostly presences and reverence for Reapers. But everything else is pure speculation and doesn't result in any real resolution to the game.

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...


Premises:

1) The AI Child may not be factually honest with Shepard.

2) There are several logical inconstancies within the ending
scenario. Among theses are:

The escape
of the Normandy through the relay.

The escape
of the ground crew onto the Normandy.

The
appearance of Anderson on the Citadel before Shepard.

3) The attempts by TIM to indoctrinate Shepard.

4) The strange characteristics of the scene after the beam

5) Dialogue explaining Reaper intentions inconsistent with Reaper testimony

6) Impossible scenario to explain Shepard and Anderson's arrival on Citadel.

I believe these are a fair beginning point.

OK. Would you conclude that these 6 premises provide sufficient evidence to propose Reaper Indoc thoery (not prove it) and if so why?

[ULS 980]

DJAwkwardSilence wrote...

I'd love to believe the indoctrination theory, and I hope I'm proven wrong, but I really think it's people desperate for closure grasping at straws.

You could take virtually any 15-20 minutes of Mass Effect and point out strange inconsistencies and plot holes to the point of suggesting it's a hallucination or that Shep isn't REALLY in control, when in reality you're just pointing out the rough edges of the video game. For example, if Reapers really want to win why don't they just station a Reaper next to every ME relay and destroy each ship that passes through? Or how about why did my Shepard, for all of Mass Effect 2, agree to work with Cerberus when in the previous game they murdered a friend (Kohaku), killed my entire squad (sole survivor), and countless innocent lives? I had both moral and personal reasons to refuse to work with them, but I simply was made to accept that my Shepard is ok with it for some reason. Maybe that was indoctrination too...

There's gonna be lots of inconsistency and plot holes in a game with a staff of more than 100 people trying to coordinate with one another. Finding those incongruities isn't evidence of this theory. The only thing that makes me think it could be true are the unexplained/unresolved dream sequences and the descriptions of ghostly presences and reverence for Reapers. But everything else is pure speculation and doesn't result in any real resolution to the game.

Maybe, but give me another 15-20 minutes of any game in the Mass Effect series that has this many significant inconsistencies and plotholes. There isn't any.

I mean, I would totally believe Bioware screwed up if the ending actually made some sort of sense, but was just poorly executed.
As it stands the ending isn't just bad. It's uncharacteristically bad and it doesn't make any sense that a team that's been pretty much golden through two games and the majority of the third game (aside from the last ten minutes) would drop the ball this hard.

Now, I'm not saying the theory is correct.
I'm just saying it makes sense especially when the point of the ending is to be ambiguous in the first place.

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 07:37 .

[Vromrig]

OK. Would you conclude that these 6 premises provide sufficient evidence to propose Reaper Indoc thoery (not prove it) and if so why?

Disingenuous inquiry, does not frame the situation accurately. Evidence is not found in the holes, but the total sum of resolution of those holes or the manner of the holes.

Reason I used Star Child lying example. Not to accuse Star child of being smoking gun, to demonstrate one specific instance of evidence that becomes connected to further evidence. Think of evidence like brick. Need many bricks to build house. Star Child, one brick.

Conclusively, only two options available to resolve these issues. Indoctrination Theory and "as seen" theory. As seen theory explains nothing, only that inconsistencies exist, must assume Bioware allowed janitor to write ending. Indoctrination Theory supported by resolution of issues.

[cdancidhe]

It is clear is was an indoctrination attempt (illusion). There are tons of clues like the unlimited ammo, dream like voices, inverted numbers, inverted choices, the black tentacles on the screen, and many others.

Bioware wanted to test indoctrination on players… would they still destroy the reapers or let them live, hence get indoctrinated.


My only concern is that they are waiting too much to reveal the true and many gamers are returning/exchanging the game. I am also concern at how many DLCs they will use to end the game and how much $$. They may milk us for a while, although I have the feeling that if they don’t provide one big DLC, fans are simply going to drop.

[McAlternate009]

I love the idea of the indoctrination ending but I thought all this had been settled by this article:

www.gameranx.com/updates/id/5623/article/the-final-hours-of-mass-effect-3-sheds-light-on-controversial-ending/

 "And as for complaints that the game's three endings don't provide enough variety? As late as November, the developers were considering at least one drastically different ending that was eventually scrapped. The sequence would have seen the player lose control of Commander Shepard, revealing that he or she had actually been indoctrinated by the Reapers. This ending was eventually cut for technical reasons, as the team was having a hard time making the gameplay mechanic work alongside dialogue choices."

[ULS 980]

cdancidhe wrote...

It is clear is was an indoctrination attempt (illusion). There are tons of clues like the unlimited ammo, dream like voices, inverted numbers, inverted choices, the black tentacles on the screen, and many others.

Bioware wanted to test indoctrination on players… would they still destroy the reapers or let them live, hence get indoctrinated.


My only concern is that they are waiting too much to reveal the true and many gamers are returning/exchanging the game. I am also concern at how many DLCs they will use to end the game and how much $$. They may milk us for a while, although I have the feeling that if they don’t provide one big DLC, fans are simply going to drop.

I wouldn't say it is "clear" the ending was all indoctrination.
Just that the ending would make sense if it was.

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

OK. Would you conclude that these 6 premises provide sufficient evidence to propose Reaper Indoc thoery (not prove it) and if so why?

Disingenuous inquiry, does not frame the situation accurately. Evidence is not found in the holes, but the total sum of resolution of those holes or the manner of the holes.

Reason I used Star Child lying example. Not to accuse Star child of being smoking gun, to demonstrate one specific instance of evidence that becomes connected to further evidence. Think of evidence like brick. Need many bricks to build house. Star Child, one brick.

Conclusively, only two options available to resolve these issues. Indoctrination Theory and "as seen" theory. As seen theory explains nothing, only that inconsistencies exist, must assume Bioware allowed janitor to write ending. Indoctrination Theory supported by resolution of issues.

OK then try and walk me through this. Are you arguing that the reason Indoc theory is proposed is because it can explain all of these holes? Additionally I reject the defintion of "bad ending" as "as seen." Bad writing theory does not require a lack of speculation. It states that a poor writing can explain many of the logical inconsitancies observed in the premises.

[ULS 980]

kathic wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

OK. Would you conclude that these 6 premises provide sufficient evidence to propose Reaper Indoc thoery (not prove it) and if so why?

Disingenuous inquiry, does not frame the situation accurately. Evidence is not found in the holes, but the total sum of resolution of those holes or the manner of the holes.

Reason I used Star Child lying example. Not to accuse Star child of being smoking gun, to demonstrate one specific instance of evidence that becomes connected to further evidence. Think of evidence like brick. Need many bricks to build house. Star Child, one brick.

Conclusively, only two options available to resolve these issues. Indoctrination Theory and "as seen" theory. As seen theory explains nothing, only that inconsistencies exist, must assume Bioware allowed janitor to write ending. Indoctrination Theory supported by resolution of issues.

OK then try and walk me through this. Are you arguing that the reason Indoc theory is proposed is because it can explain all of these holes? Additionally I reject the defintion of "bad ending" as "as seen." Bad writing theory does not require a lack of speculation. It states that a poor writing can explain many of the logical inconsitancies observed in the premises.

So we agree the ending is not meant to be taken at face value.
So I ask again, what are we supposed to be speculating about if the indoctrination theory is incorrect?

[kathic]

ULS 980 wrote...

So we agree the ending is not meant to be taken at face value.
So I ask again, what are we supposed to be speculating about if the indoctrination theory is incorrect?

The nature of the AI Child. The end result of all our choices. The final fate of Shepard and the crew of the Normandy. The fate of the Galaxy without the Mass Relays and the Citidel. The lasting legacy of Shepard. The morality of the different choices. There are many things to speculate on.

[CavScout]

RedShft wrote...
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.

I'd be a fool if I couldn't like your belief of indoctrination to your line of questioning. The trees are background. They mean nothing.

[UrgentArchengel]

KenbroSlice wrote...

Don't feed the trolls, ladies and gentlemen. Move along.

[Emberwake]

Please read rhe codex entry for "Indoctrination". Take special notice of the last paragraph, which was added in ME2.

"Rapid indoctrination is possible..." That opens up possibilities.

It should also be noted that while rapid indoctrination and ghostly images are specifically mentioned in the codex, they do not seem to appear anywhere in the series. This doesn't prove the indoctrination theory, of course, but it certainly makes it seem possible.

Hold the line.

[Vromrig]

OK then try and walk me through this. Are you arguing that the reason Indoc theory is proposed is because it can explain all of these holes? Additionally I reject the defintion of "bad ending" as "as seen." Bad writing theory does not require a lack of speculation. It states that a poor writing can explain many of the logical inconsitancies observed in the premises.

Comes in two varieties.

First is the manner in which plot holes arrive. Too consistent. Consistently coincidental even. This means it is a pattern. Existense of these plot holes means a common thread exists that must be followed.

Each plot hole is meticulous. Unable to rationalize that plot hole is simple oversight, particularly since consistent with previous plot hole. Further, each resolved by Indoctrination Theory.

Indoctrination Theory answers both why plot holes exist and how. Quite universal. Like Canadian health care. Probably why Canadian company did it.

[Bazedragon]

Vromrig wrote...

OK then try and walk me through this. Are you arguing that the reason Indoc theory is proposed is because it can explain all of these holes? Additionally I reject the defintion of "bad ending" as "as seen." Bad writing theory does not require a lack of speculation. It states that a poor writing can explain many of the logical inconsitancies observed in the premises.

Comes in two varieties.

First is the manner in which plot holes arrive. Too consistent. Consistently coincidental even. This means it is a pattern. Existense of these plot holes means a common thread exists that must be followed.

Each plot hole is meticulous. Unable to rationalize that plot hole is simple oversight, particularly since consistent with previous plot hole. Further, each resolved by Indoctrination Theory.

Indoctrination Theory answers both why plot holes exist and how. Quite universal. Like Canadian health care. Probably why Canadian company did it.

... I'm sure Candian Health Care would LOVE being compared to a poor video game ending.
*sits down and plays "Galaxy of Fantasy"*

[CavScout]

Rusty0918 wrote...

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.

The reason Shepard can survive the destroy and not the other two endings is because it's only in destroy where he doesn't sacrifice his body. Reading much more into that is inadvisable.

[Vromrig]

... I'm sure Candian Health Care would LOVE being compared to a poor video game ending.
*sits down and plays "Galaxy of Fantasy"*

Arguable. But, debate of politics. Unnecessary here.

Instead, point out air tightness of Indoctrination Theory. Not only plausible, only explanation.

[Bazedragon]

Vromrig wrote...

... I'm sure Candian Health Care would LOVE being compared to a poor video game ending.
*sits down and plays "Galaxy of Fantasy"*

Arguable. But, debate of politics. Unnecessary here.

Instead, point out air tightness of Indoctrination Theory. Not only plausible, only explanation.

*Nods and grunts with "oh, yeah, sure"... then goes back to playing that silly game*

Rusty0918 wrote...

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.

*throws a piece of paper saying: "Other ones you watch Shep get vapourised."*

Modifié par Bazedragon, 20 mars 2012 - 08:00 .

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

Comes in two varieties.

First is the manner in which plot holes arrive. Too consistent. Consistently coincidental even. This means it is a pattern. Existense of these plot holes means a common thread exists that must be followed.

Each plot hole is meticulous. Unable to rationalize that plot hole is simple oversight, particularly since consistent with previous plot hole. Further, each resolved by Indoctrination Theory.

Indoctrination Theory answers both why plot holes exist and how. Quite universal. Like Canadian health care. Probably why Canadian company did it.

Could you explain how the plot holes are consitent?

I challenge the attempt to link all of these specific inconsistancies together for Indoc theory while other plot holes are ignored.

At the end of ME1 if Shepard is a Renegade, does not save the council and chooses Undina then it is stated that the Council is replaced with all humans. ME2 language confirms this event. ME3 retcons it. 

A player may choose to kill Ashly Williams when she is protecting Udina in ME3. Shepard then leaves her body there and there is no significant emotional moment. This is contrary to when Mordin is killed and a highly charged scence results. Williams is far more integral to the story that Mordin. The brushoff that Williams recieves is evidence of poor writing of the scence.