384 réponses à ce sujet

[ULS 980]

CavScout wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Rusty0918 wrote...
The big clue is Shepard's breathing amongts the rubble if you have high enough EMS and you choose the Destroy option. You don't get this clip at all with the Control or Syntehsis options.

That's not a clue for indoctrination, it's simply the fact that only in the destroy option do you not sacrifice your body.

So...Shepard survives the entire station being blown apart?  Since you want us to take everything at face-value, after all.

Wouldn't be Shep's first fantastical survival... also, unexplained does not equate to indoctrinated.

At least his other "survivals" made sense.
There's no reason to believe he'd survive a massive explosion, the vaccuum of space without a helmet, reentry into Earth, and the crash landing.
Last time that happened he was "nothing but meat and bones" according to Jacob.

[CavScout]

Rusty0918 wrote...
And what makes you the expert on indoctrination, Mr. CavScout? The point is the indoctrination theory is the only logical theory that could explain those last 5-20 minutes. If not, then what the heck was it?

The same thing that makes you an expert.

PS: The indoctrination theory is not the only "logical" explanation to the ending. Hell, it's not even logical in and of itself. It's mostly made up of one circular argument after the other.

[DextroDNA]

Eh, you do realise it says "Security Protocols Breached" or something like that. TIM could use it while he was indoctrinated because he broke the security firewalls. Your argument is automatically rendered invalid, someone lock this thread.

[Forgomoth]

CavScout wrote...

Forgomoth wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Forgomoth wrote...

Rusty0918 wrote...
...Think about it. What would make more sense? The indoctrination theory, or space magic?

Hey!  Don't make fun of my Space Magic...

What's funny is indoctrination is simply more space magic... D&D would just call it a Charm Spell....

Yes, but Space Magic whose existense has already been established within the game's setting.  This isn't a new concept.

So you don't mind space magic then.

Would you think it's a good idea if the Force was taken out of Star Wars? (Midichlorians not included)

[CavScout]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

I really don't get the people flat out calling this theory stupid.

The evidence is all there throughout the game. If you REALLY think that BioWare are THAT stupid to put all that crap there and have it NOT mean anything then there's just nothing else I can say to you. A lot of people in this thread are seriously under the impression that the devs just aren't smart enough to think of this, which is just utterly ridiculous to think.

In short, if you want to hate the ending and take them at face value, then do so, but don't trash the people who are looking into this belief, because from everything we have right now, this theory is looking a hell of a lot more likely than BioWare just being "stupid."

There is no evidence for the indoctrination theory just heaps and heaps of speculation driven by fan nerd-rage.

What is stupid is pretending their is evidence for it. What is stupid is pretending like it's the only thing that BW could have been doing.

[CavScout]

Forgomoth wrote...
Would you think it's a good idea if the Force was taken out of Star Wars? (Midichlorians not included)

Wouldn't that just be Star Trek?

Modifié par CavScout, 20 mars 2012 - 09:31 .

[Doctoglethorpe]

I believe the indoctrination part comes along after that... so... unless I'm getting my timeline screwed up here and you visit Thessia after returning to Earth then uh... well.. yeah.

Thread claiming but failing to disprove Indoc #180453 confirmed.  Move along folks. 

[ArkkAngel007]

ULS 980 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Rusty0918 wrote...
The big clue is Shepard's breathing amongts the rubble if you have high enough EMS and you choose the Destroy option. You don't get this clip at all with the Control or Syntehsis options.

That's not a clue for indoctrination, it's simply the fact that only in the destroy option do you not sacrifice your body.

So...Shepard survives the entire station being blown apart?  Since you want us to take everything at face-value, after all.

Wouldn't be Shep's first fantastical survival... also, unexplained does not equate to indoctrinated.

At least his other "survivals" made sense.
There's no reason to believe he'd survive a massive explosion, the vaccuum of space without a helmet, reentry into Earth, and the crash landing.
Last time that happened he was "nothing but meat and bones" according to Jacob.

Adding compromised armor and that it took 2 years for Cerberus to play Potato-head with the body to get it to work.

[CavScout]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

I believe the indoctrination part comes along after that... so... unless I'm getting my timeline screwed up here and you visit Thessia after returning to Earth then uh... well.. yeah.

Thread claiming but failing to disprove Indoc #180453 confirmed.  Move along folks. 

Those promoting a theory need to prove it not demand others disprove it.

[ArkkAngel007]

CavScout wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

I really don't get the people flat out calling this theory stupid.

The evidence is all there throughout the game. If you REALLY think that BioWare are THAT stupid to put all that crap there and have it NOT mean anything then there's just nothing else I can say to you. A lot of people in this thread are seriously under the impression that the devs just aren't smart enough to think of this, which is just utterly ridiculous to think.

In short, if you want to hate the ending and take them at face value, then do so, but don't trash the people who are looking into this belief, because from everything we have right now, this theory is looking a hell of a lot more likely than BioWare just being "stupid."

There is no evidence for the indoctrination theory just heaps and heaps of speculation driven by fan nerd-rage.

What is stupid is pretending their is evidence for it. What is stupid is pretending like it's the only thing that BW could have been doing.

You're confusing evidence and speculation.  The theory itself is speculation, driven by "evidence".

But assumptions like space magic, devs aren't smart enough, writers are rubbish, etc are much more solid and factual.

[ArkkAngel007]

CavScout wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

I believe the indoctrination part comes along after that... so... unless I'm getting my timeline screwed up here and you visit Thessia after returning to Earth then uh... well.. yeah.

Thread claiming but failing to disprove Indoc #180453 confirmed.  Move along folks. 

Those promoting a theory need to prove it not demand others disprove it.

And vice-versa.  

[CavScout]

ULS 980 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Wouldn't be Shep's first fantastical survival... also, unexplained does not equate to indoctrinated.

At least his other "survivals" made sense.
There's no reason to believe he'd survive a massive explosion, the vaccuum of space without a helmet, reentry into Earth, and the crash landing.
Last time that happened he was "nothing but meat and bones" according to Jacob.

Are you ready to drop the "I am not supporting the indoctrination theory" cover-story?

In any case, he is shown alive. Why would I believe he wasn't? Unexplained is not proof of indoctrination.

[ULS 980]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

But assumptions like space magic, devs aren't smart enough, writers are rubbish, etc are much more solid and factual.

Uh... not really?
There's no concrete proof that they screwed up either.
It's just an assumption to explain why there are so many plotholes and whatnot.

[ULS 980]

CavScout wrote...

ULS 980 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Wouldn't be Shep's first fantastical survival... also, unexplained does not equate to indoctrinated.

At least his other "survivals" made sense.
There's no reason to believe he'd survive a massive explosion, the vaccuum of space without a helmet, reentry into Earth, and the crash landing.
Last time that happened he was "nothing but meat and bones" according to Jacob.

Are you ready to drop the "I am not supporting the indoctrination theory" cover-story?

In any case, he is shown alive. Why would I believe he wasn't? Unexplained is not proof of indoctrination.

Then explain it.
Why does he survive after an ending that clearly states he will die?

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 09:49 .

[Forgomoth]

CavScout wrote...

Forgomoth wrote...
Would you think it's a good idea if the Force was taken out of Star Wars? (Midichlorians not included)

Wouldn't that just be Star Trek?

Your misunderstanding of Science Fiction series is.... Staggering....

On a fundamental level Star Trek is about the discovery of the new, and how it interacts with the old.  While Star Wars is more about telling the stories of people in a different, but established world.

Basically, Star Trek is the scientist and Star Wars is the historian.  Then you add the diffrences in technology, the differences in setting (Star Wars: In a different Galaxy, thousands of years ago.  Star Trek: Milky Way, a few hundred years in the future.), and on and on...

[Mcjon01]

I didn't inject all those tons of Palladium into my body so I could go around not surviving atmospheric reentry. Shepard is more weave than man.

Besides, is it really that much more outrageous than surviving a shot from the main gun of a Reaper capital ship?

[CavScout]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
There is no evidence for the indoctrination theory just heaps and heaps of speculation driven by fan nerd-rage.

What is stupid is pretending their is evidence for it. What is stupid is pretending like it's the only thing that BW could have been doing.

You're confusing evidence and speculation.  The theory itself is speculation, driven by "evidence".

There is no evidence for indoctrination. At best you have a pile of speculation with heaps of circular logic thrown in to "support" it. "Evidence" of indoctrination that require indoctrination to be true to be "evidence" is not evidence at all.

But assumptions like space magic, devs aren't smart enough, writers are rubbish, etc are much more solid and factual.

Space magic is an invention by the very same people who support indoctrination (of course indoctrination is just a charm spell in and of itself).

As for the writers and their quality, if you don't like the ending as it is, who else would be at fault for it?

[CavScout]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Those promoting a theory need to prove it not demand others disprove it.

And vice-versa.  

What theory are you refering to?

[CavScout]

ULS 980 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Are you ready to drop the "I am not supporting the indoctrination theory" cover-story?

In any case, he is shown alive. Why would I believe he wasn't? Unexplained is not proof of indoctrination.

Then explain it.
Why does he survive?

Same reason he survived the beginning of ME2, they (game designers) wanted him to.

Is this where you stop pretending to not be a Indoctrination Theory supporter?

Modifié par CavScout, 20 mars 2012 - 09:49 .

[Vromrig]

Could you explain how the plot holes are consitent?

Each hole is done so in such a way that only two possibilities exist: impossible incompetence, or deliberate placement. Happening once, can rule out as accident. Multiple times? Impossible.

Necessitates break down of director, designers, and voice actors. Soldier calls down no one survived blast. Shepard in clear view. Flaw? Possibly, if taken in isolation. No sign of Anderson anywhere. Yet still allegedly arrives "after" you. Still no mention from soldiers below, despite being on comm with them. Hackett mysteriously knowing your status. Followed by presentation of three choices that have existed since the beginning of Mass Effect 1.

Too deliberately placed for coincidence. Pattern. Intentional.

One could argue incompetence. Possible. Not ruled out. Would be greatest incompetence in writing history. Inadvertently leave connected plot points to nowhere.

Hard to believe. Does not stack up with history.

[kathic]

ULS 980 wrote...
One thing I want to ask though is, what do you think the true nature of the AI Child is if not some sort of manifestation of indoctrination?
Why is he lying to us about us dying in the destroy ending? Why does he say synthetics and organics will never get along despite Shepard proving him wrong with the Geth/Quarians?
You can't make those kind of "mistakes" unless you actively ignore them. These aren't just oversights. They are massive contradictions that a four year old would be able to pick out.

I think he was an AI who created the Reapers to preserve some sort of balance between organics and snythetics.

I do not think he was lying about organics and snythetics never getting along. I think that in his exp it was something that would not happen or would not last long. It is the same way people can hold different opinions.

[CavScout]

Forgomoth wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Forgomoth wrote...
Would you think it's a good idea if the Force was taken out of Star Wars? (Midichlorians not included)

Wouldn't that just be Star Trek?

Your misunderstanding of Science Fiction series is.... Staggering....

On a fundamental level Star Trek is about the discovery of the new, and how it interacts with the old.  While Star Wars is more about telling the stories of people in a different, but established world.

Basically, Star Trek is the scientist and Star Wars is the historian.  Then you add the diffrences in technology, the differences in setting (Star Wars: In a different Galaxy, thousands of years ago.  Star Trek: Milky Way, a few hundred years in the future.), and on and on...

Your misunderstanding of sarcasm is.... staggering....

[CavScout]

Vromrig wrote...

Could you explain how the plot holes are consitent?

Each hole is done so in such a way that only two possibilities exist: impossible incompetence, or deliberate placement. Happening once, can rule out as accident. Multiple times? Impossible.

Necessitates break down of director, designers, and voice actors. Soldier calls down no one survived blast. Shepard in clear view. Flaw? Possibly, if taken in isolation. No sign of Anderson anywhere. Yet still allegedly arrives "after" you. Still no mention from soldiers below, despite being on comm with them. Hackett mysteriously knowing your status. Followed by presentation of three choices that have existed since the beginning of Mass Effect 1.

Too deliberately placed for coincidence. Pattern. Intentional.

One could argue incompetence. Possible. Not ruled out. Would be greatest incompetence in writing history. Inadvertently leave connected plot points to nowhere.

Hard to believe. Does not stack up with history.

Nothing better than "the more mistakes made the more proof there was no mistakes!"

[ULS 980]

CavScout wrote...

ULS 980 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Are you ready to drop the "I am not supporting the indoctrination theory" cover-story?

In any case, he is shown alive. Why would I believe he wasn't? Unexplained is not proof of indoctrination.

Then explain it.
Why does he survive?

Same reason he survived the beginning of ME2, they (game designers) wanted him to.

Is this where you stop pretending to be a Indoctrination Theory supporter?

That's not an explanation.
Even ME2 explained how they brought him back to life (they threw a bunch of credits at him and science). And that's after him dying in a way that you are saying he manages to live now.
Give me an explanation of how he survives.

Do ponies come in and rescue him before the Citadel blows up?
Does his implants allow him to breathe in space?

I dunno. You tell me.

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 09:55 .

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

Could you explain how the plot holes are consitent?

Each hole is done so in such a way that only two possibilities exist: impossible incompetence, or deliberate placement. Happening once, can rule out as accident. Multiple times? Impossible.

Necessitates break down of director, designers, and voice actors. Soldier calls down no one survived blast. Shepard in clear view. Flaw? Possibly, if taken in isolation. No sign of Anderson anywhere. Yet still allegedly arrives "after" you. Still no mention from soldiers below, despite being on comm with them. Hackett mysteriously knowing your status. Followed by presentation of three choices that have existed since the beginning of Mass Effect 1.

Too deliberately placed for coincidence. Pattern. Intentional.

One could argue incompetence. Possible. Not ruled out. Would be greatest incompetence in writing history. Inadvertently leave connected plot points to nowhere.

Hard to believe. Does not stack up with history.

Ultimately I must disagree that the incompetence is impossible or that the plot holes are deliberate. Multiple plot holes can occur when one must deal with a liviathan of a narrative. If you examine something like Battlestar Galactica you can see how a well written work can end poorly because the narrative did not connect with the audience or because the authors may not have been as great as previously believed. I do not see a pattern nor do I see the greatest incompetence in writing history.