384 réponses à ce sujet

[Forgomoth]

CavScout wrote...

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....

Your misunderstanding of the internet is staggering....  Sarcasm doesn't exist here without clear markings, such as... [sarcasm] I totally saw what you did there... [sarcasm/]

Side note:  Saren's theme from the ME1 sounds very Baldur's Gate esque...

[CavScout]

kathic wrote...
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.

What's important is that is the eventuality that they will come to conflict that is being referred to. Just because peace was established now doesn't mean that it will be everlasting. Organics evolve and change and so to do the AIs in the synthetics.

France, the UK and Germany signed a peace agreement in 1918. It didn't mean they wouldn't be fighting again in the near future.

[Peer of the Empire]

Once again.  Indoc theory not disproven

[kathic]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Once again.  Indoc theory not disproven

Disprove Thor. Oh wait, you can't. That must mean he is real.

[atheimetal]

Seriously, I have two words that force me to refuse the indoctrination theory:

OCCAM'S RAZOR

I do not put certain truth in things in real life that cannot be proven and require insane amounts of assumptions. I do not necessarily count these things out as being possible, but if you cannot prove something it is hard to believe it. And the further you go down the assumption line to validate something you can't prove, the less sense it tends to makes. This is why, unless Bioware steps up and answers questions definitively for us, it simply makes no sense to me to believe the indoctrination theory at this point in time.

Modifié par atheimetal, 20 mars 2012 - 10:00 .

[CavScout]

ULS 980 wrote...

CavScout wrote...
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.

Yes it is. You don't like it but that doesn't make it any less of 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.

Unexplained =/= Indoctrination

[CavScout]

Forgomoth wrote...
Your misunderstanding of the internet is staggering....  Sarcasm doesn't exist here without clear markings, such as... [sarcasm] I totally saw what you did there... [sarcasm/]

LOL!

You really think sarcasm doesn't exist if there is no tag?

[CavScout]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Once again.  Indoc theory not disproven

That's not how theories work.

[ULS 980]

CavScout wrote...

Unexplained =/= Indoctrination

You're right, unexplained might not necessarily mean it's indoctrination. Could be something else.
But indoctrination DOES explain it. You can't deny that, regardless of whether or not you subscribe to the theory.

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 10:12 .

[Forgomoth]

CavScout wrote...

Forgomoth wrote...
Your misunderstanding of the internet is staggering....  Sarcasm doesn't exist here without clear markings, such as... [sarcasm] I totally saw what you did there... [sarcasm/]

LOL!

You really think sarcasm doesn't exist if there is no tag?

I've tried tagless sarcasm on the internet.  It doesn't work very well... at all.  Italics work rather well.  Of course, there are times when it's just so obvious it doesn't need tags.

[Vromrig]

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

Disingenuous and demeaning. Overlooking situation, assigning term "mistakes". If consistent, hard to call mistakes. In order to classify as mistake, must understand original intent. If original intent isn't available, cannot classify as mistake. Can only assume. Leads you further away from Okham's Razor.

Not calling them mistakes. Highlighting sequence of events. Illogical to refer to them as mistakes. Least likely.

Ultimately I must disagree that the incompetence is impossible or that the plot holes are deliberate

Absurd to rule out possibility of incompetence. Do not disagree. Very unlikely. More likely that gravity theory is wrong.

I do not put certain truth in things in real life that cannot be proven and require insane amounts of assumptions. I do not necessarily count these things out as being possible, but if you cannot prove something it is hard to believe it. And the further you go down the assumption line to validate something you can't prove, the less sense it tends to makes. This is why, unless Bioware steps up and answers questions definitively for us, it simply makes no sense to me to believe the indoctrination theory at this point in time. 

Fail to understand Okham's Razor.  Use it because heard it once on the internet.  Saddening, great philosophy, misapplied.

Modifié par Vromrig, 20 mars 2012 - 10:14 .

[Ross42899]

Well, if Shepard wasn't indoctrinated completely at this point or if Shepard was not indoctrinated  before London (Shepard is seriously wounded, loses blood and doesn't have the strenght to fight the influence of nearby Harbinger), the VI would not have been able to detect it at this point, I guess.

[soundhole]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Once again.  Indoc theory not disproven

Appeal to Ignorance

Indoc hypothesis supporters don't seem to understand that, especially in literary theories, one needs positive evidence to support their assertions.  Speculations are not answers.

Modifié par soundhole, 20 mars 2012 - 10:15 .

[pattywagon]

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 whole point of the indoctrination theory is the Reapers attempt to indoctrinate him. Shepard isn't indoctrinated until the end when he picks synthesize or controlling the Reapers. But when Shepard destroys the Reapers, he is shown to take a breath in the rubble. That is the theory that the Reapers were attempting to indoctrinate him the entire time, not believing he was indoctrinated since the beginning.

Modifié par pattywagon, 20 mars 2012 - 10:14 .

[TornadoADV]

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.

Burning up on re-entry and being little more then your brain inside your N7 helmet is not what I would call "fantasical survival". There is no way, in-game or reality wise, that Shepard can survive the utter destruction of the Citadel in Earth orbit, re-enter the Earth's atmosphere for rentry, and then magicially come to under a pile of concrete rubble (not a whole lot of that on the Citadel) with their armor in the same scorched state as when just hit by Harbinger's beam while their N7 Alliance tags hang casually out of their armor without so much as a burn mark.

[PrimarchGarrus]

kunzite wrote...

yumesama wrote...

The Theory is that the ending is the actual indoctrination attempt, and IF you wake up in the rubble of londin after it (the "best" ending in the strategy guide"), then you beat the indoctrination. 

If you don't wake up, you've succumbed to the indoctrination illusion, and you let the reaper illusion control your actions from there on out.

The VI says that Shepard isn't indoctrinated because he isn't. He still controls his own actions. Until the indoctrination attempt at the end.

So....if you wake up in the rubble, you beat indoctrination, and nothing in the Citadel/Crucible happened. But if you chose the other endings, then you failed, and the illusion is real, and you still do the exact same things you did in the 'beating indoctrination', yet you chose the final option differently. Then....how do you end up back in your body in london, if you still did all the same stuff you did if you failed indoctrination?

No actually no matter what choice you made (i think) its all an illusion. If you choose destroy, you overcame indoc, but if you chose synth or control, you failed to overcome indoc. Either way, its all an illusion in your dream. I believe that no matter what choice you made you would wake up in London either indoctrinated or not, based on your decision. They only decided to show the waking up scene if you got the best ening. But that's just me.

[Vromrig]

Indoc hypothesis supporters don't seem to understand that, especially in literary theories, one needs positive evidence to support their assertions. Speculations are not answers.

Someone sat in on literature class once. Thinks they're Hawthorne. Unsurprising. Not. Cute though.

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

Ultimately I must disagree that the incompetence is impossible or that the plot holes are deliberate

Absurd to rule out possibility of incompetence. Do not disagree. Very unlikely. More likely that gravity theory is wrong.

Why is it very unlikely?

[lex0r11]

soundhole wrote...

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Once again.  Indoc theory not disproven

Appeal to Ignorance

Indoc hypothesis supporters don't seem to understand that, especially in literary theories, one needs positive evidence to support their assertions.  Speculations are not answers.

i don't believe the majority calls it fact, that would negate the idea of calling it theory, right?
at least that is what i read from most people discussing the topic.

[Forgomoth]

soundhole wrote...

Indoc hypothesis supporters don't seem to understand that, especially in literary theories, one needs positive evidence to support their assertions.  Speculations are not answers.

So?  Were just speculating, are we not?  As certain as some of us are on what the true outcome will be, BioWare are the ones with the answers so all we can do is speculate.  There's nothing wrong with that.

They way I see it, the Contentments could be right, the Ending Haters could be right, or the ID Theorerists could be right.  Or maybe we're all right, or maybe none of us are right.  We're just speculating.

[CavScout]

Vromrig wrote...

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

Disingenuous and demeaning. Overlooking situation, assigning term "mistakes". If consistent, hard to call mistakes. In order to classify as mistake, must understand original intent. If original intent isn't available, cannot classify as mistake. Can only assume. Leads you further away from Okham's Razor.

Don't be mad.

PS: Circular logic is bad... "Can't know their mistakes, therefore they're not mistakes, therefore proof of indoctrination, because it's indoctrination they are not mistake...."

[Vromrig]

Why is it very unlikely?

Cumulative errors and narrative show too much intent. Not big believer in coincidence, don't believe in it happening over several parts. Not simply case of bad ending, could have lived with that. Case of no ending, with plot that leads to other direction.

All build up, no resolution, no climax, no release. Literary epididymal hypertension. Not ruling out possibility of incompetence, but would be spectacular show of incompetence. Like Episodes I through VI of Star Wars existing. But somehow, Vader not Luke's father.

Don't be mad.

PS: Circular logic is bad... "Can't know their mistakes, therefore they're not mistakes, therefore proof of indoctrination, because it's indoctrination they are not mistake...." 

No one is upset.  Your logic is simply off.  Nothing circular about pointing out, correctly, that without knowing answer, cannot conclusively declare incorrect.  

Appreciate that you wish to give me my argument for me.  Can handle on my own though.

Has to be me.

Someone else would get it wrong.

Modifié par Vromrig, 20 mars 2012 - 10:30 .

[ULS 980]

soundhole wrote...

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Once again.  Indoc theory not disproven

Appeal to Ignorance

Indoc hypothesis supporters don't seem to understand that, especially in literary theories, one needs positive evidence to support their assertions.  Speculations are not answers.

Speculation is exactly what you're doing as well.
Speculating that Bioware screwed up to this degree and with no proof other than "They screwed up because there's a plot hole here and here, and here".  For all you know, the plot holes could have been intentional.
Not saying they are, just saying they COULD be.

That's like saying someone being in posession of a gun that was used to murder someone means they're the killer. It does not. It just means they are in posession of the gun.
Much in the same way that plot holes do not necessarily mean someone screwed up. Just that there are plot holes.

The question then becomes which one you think to be the easier explanation.
You think Bioware screwing up is the easier explanation. I don't.
So let's agree to disagree there.

Either way, my point is, whether or not you subscribe to the theory and regardless of "how far out there" it is, it, at the very least, does explain the ending.
It may not be the explanation. But it is an explanation.

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 10:31 .

[CavScout]

Forgomoth wrote...

soundhole wrote...

Indoc hypothesis supporters don't seem to understand that, especially in literary theories, one needs positive evidence to support their assertions.  Speculations are not answers.

So?  Were just speculating, are we not?  As certain as some of us are on what the true outcome will be, BioWare are the ones with the answers so all we can do is speculate.  There's nothing wrong with that.

They way I see it, the Contentments could be right, the Ending Haters could be right, or the ID Theorerists could be right.  Or maybe we're all right, or maybe none of us are right.  We're just speculating.

False equivalents are bad.

[CrasVox]

Unlikely, wrong, false? Maybe. That is certainly a possibility.


Stupid? No, it most certainly is not. There are huge indepth diagrams of it, pulled from all sorts of parts of the trilogy to make it come together. It may not jive, but it most certainly is not a stupid theory. It is quite intelligent, it is quite comprehensive, and those qualities should not surprise you, nor should you discount them, because after all, it appears that is the route the devs were going at one point.

A stupid theory would be that Shepard was a reaper all along, or that it was all a dream, or shepard has been dead since ME1, and the entire experience of ME2 and 3 was a dream/indoctrination. that would be stupid, sloppy, and not worth the time level of thoery.

Just because you don't like it, or dont buy in to it, does not mean it is lacking of any merit at all.