384 réponses à ce sujet

[soundhole]

Vromrig 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.

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

Thank you, person who acts like a Salarian.

[CavScout]

Vromrig wrote...

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.

Poor debate skills even when wrapped up in cute character speak are still poor debate skills.

[Forgomoth]

CavScout wrote...

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.

....  ....  I don't get it...

[Vromrig]

Poor debate skills even when wrapped up in cute character speak are still poor debate skills.

Eminently qualified to debate. Been debating just fine. Tragic you have yet to post argument while criticizing arguments. Did not expect you to be swayed in any case. Still, respect right to disagree even if not founded on evidence. Is your right, will not fight about it.

But, will hold the line.

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

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.

*Jokingly: I think you need a hug. It'll be OK man. The ending was bad but we will get through this.

On a serious note: Ultimately I must disagree. I believe that poor writing and/or artistic differences do a much better job explaining the story than a hidden plot. I do not find the evidence for a hidden plot to be compelling.

[DarthSyphilis59]

TarielMaeda wrote...

IMO he doesn't become indoctrinated, he just gets hit with it and is resisting it. An "indoctrinated" individual is one that has given in. If Shep hasn't given in yet, he's not indoctrinated. The closest he comes to being indoctrinated is on the Citadel with Anderson and TIM.

Exactly, some people just don't get it though. Lets' not feed the TROLLS!!!

[soundhole]

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.

No.  The Indoc hypothesis is a speculation.  

Look, I'm never going to make a thread that says "Indoc supporters are stupid" (and more to the fact, the thread title here is unconstructive).  You're free to believe whatever you want and I'm not going to spam your inbox with insults.  But if we're going to use this public forum to discuss an ending, then I'm going to hold everyone to the same standards of evidence.  You don't get a free pass to be taken seriously just because you have a right to your opinion.  

I will only follow evidence.  When the story says that Shepherd was indoctrinated, then I'll believe it.  Until then, it's just speculation, and I will continue being skeptical.

[Vromrig]

On a serious note: Ultimately I must disagree. I believe that poor writing and/or artistic differences do a much better job explaining the story than a hidden plot. I do not find the evidence for a hidden plot to be compelling.

Understandable if one believes Bioware has no long term plans for product. Not likely, data doesn't support. But no definitive answer yet to point to, so cannot state conclusively. Can only say what is likely.

[Forgomoth]

kathic wrote...

On a serious note: Ultimately I must disagree. I believe that poor writing and/or artistic differences do a much better job explaining the story than a hidden plot. I do not find the evidence for a hidden plot to be compelling.

If there's no hidden plot, why does BioWare keep saying that there's more in store for us?  If BioWare wanted it to finish this way, they would have said, "Suck it n00b.  That's all there is for this story arc," but that's not what they say.  They keep telling us that there's more to it.

However, while I think the ID Theory is on the right track, I'm quite positive that BioWare has a different vision than us fans.

[Forgomoth]

soundhole wrote...

I will only follow evidence.  When the story says that Shepherd was indoctrinated, then I'll believe it.  Until then, it's just speculation, and I will continue being skeptical.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Phearmonger]

"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."

True enough, but I don't think everything is negative evidence. Sure, it fills plotholes, but there also appear to be deliberate artistic choices meant to convey Indoctrination, or at least a dream state rather than true reality. The dreamlike movement, being able to take down a marauder with two shots instead of the usual five clips or so, Shepard noticing an inconsistency when she notes that she can't see Anderson and he comes up with a response that seems a bit pat, the lack of a helmet when the citatel arms are open, the devil and angel on the shoulder nature of TIM and Anderson's arguments toward Shepard, graphical elements like dark tendrils at the edge of the screen, Shepard receiving the same wound Aderson receives, Space-boy's very appearance, since he appeared in actual dreams beforehand. These are all positive evidences, not "that explains away a plot hole." There are other possible explanations, but that hardly qualifies as negative evidence. WHY those elements were used in the way they were is speculation, but the elements themselves are evidence, and my human experience tells me that it would be near impossible to include so many elements that go along with the stated characteristics of indoctrination in a tightly-packed sequence without a deliberate attempt to do so. That last part is speculation, too, but it's based on experience and hopefully rational logic.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether you buy into the theory or not. The point of this thread was that the VI didn't catch Shepard's idoctrination and that definitively proves that the indoc theory is flat out wrong and those who believe it are stupid. THAT is indeed the use of negative evidence to attempt to prove a point. There is plenty of positive evidence. It's not definitive, and it never will be until we get a definitive answer from Bioware about what the whole sequence was about. But to say there is no positive evidence is, I think, absurd.

BTW, sorry for all the pontification. I just sometime like to get involved in these discussions. It's fun.

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

On a serious note: Ultimately I must disagree. I believe that poor writing and/or artistic differences do a much better job explaining the story than a hidden plot. I do not find the evidence for a hidden plot to be compelling.

Understandable if one believes Bioware has no long term plans for product. Not likely, data doesn't support. But no definitive answer yet to point to, so cannot state conclusively. Can only say what is likely.

Poor writing or artistic differences does not intentionally deminish the possibility for long term IP use in any way. They still plan to do more with the IP but they executed this poorly. Additionally making fans pay for DLC ending would harm any future plans for the IP.

[N-Seven]

kathic wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

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.

*Jokingly: I think you need a hug. It'll be OK man. The ending was bad but we will get through this.

On a serious note: Ultimately I must disagree. I believe that poor writing and/or artistic differences do a much better job explaining the story than a hidden plot. I do not find the evidence for a hidden plot to be compelling.

I agree with the bolded completely.   They unintentionally dropped the ball on the ending.  Accidental fumble.  An 'intentional fumble' would be something like selling us an intentionally incomplete game, which is what we have if you go with this 'indoctrination theory'.  Like it or not, with all the bugs and bits of polish this game needs, it is 'complete'.

That's not to say it can't be expanded upon, with alternate endings.   But the current endings must remain valid as endings.  Some people like them and are fine with them.  (I am not.)  The indoctrination theory invalidates the endings for those people, and you just can't do that.

[Vromrig]

Poor writing or artistic differences does not intentionally deminish the possibility for long term IP use in any way. They still plan to do more with the IP but they executed this poorly. Additionally making fans pay for DLC ending would harm any future plans for the IP.

Debatable. Question of ethics. Divergent loyalties. Too many variables.

Would pay for ending DLC.

Would like to see how it ends.

That's not to say it can't be expanded upon, with alternate endings.   But the current endings must remain valid as endings.  Some people like them and are fine with them.  (I am not.)  The indoctrination theory invalidates the endings for those people, and you just can't do that. 

Indoctrination Theory wishes to do no such thing.  Utilize current final scenes, use that to propel to ending.  Not replace or remove them.

Modifié par Vromrig, 20 mars 2012 - 10:49 .

[ULS 980]

soundhole wrote...

I will only follow evidence.  When the story says that Shepherd was indoctrinated, then I'll believe it.  Until then, it's just speculation, and I will continue being skeptical.

Then, by your logic, you can't believe Bioware screwed up until someone comes out stating that they screwed up, no?

Point is, the "Bioware screwing up" idea is also speculation.
The difference comes from whether you believe Bioware capable of making these kinds of mistakes.
Personally, I can't see how writers of Bioware's pedigree could make mistakes such as these. They are far too obvious to miss. It just doesn't make sense. It'd be like a swordmaster waking up one day and forgetting how to hold a sword.

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 10:51 .

[ULS 980]

N-Seven wrote...

That's not to say it can't be expanded upon, with alternate endings.   But the current endings must remain valid as endings.  Some people like them and are fine with them.  (I am not.)  The indoctrination theory invalidates the endings for those people, and you just can't do that.

The indoctrination theory does not invalidate other theories.
It is an explanation, not the explanation.

[Forgomoth]

ULS 980 wrote...
 ...It'd be like a swordmaster waking up one day and forgetting how to hold a sword.

Not impossible.

[soundhole]

Phearmonger 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."

True enough, but I don't think everything is negative evidence. Sure, it fills plotholes, but there also appear to be deliberate artistic choices meant to convey Indoctrination, or at least a dream state rather than true reality. The dreamlike movement, being able to take down a marauder with two shots instead of the usual five clips or so, Shepard noticing an inconsistency when she notes that she can't see Anderson and he comes up with a response that seems a bit pat, the lack of a helmet when the citatel arms are open, the devil and angel on the shoulder nature of TIM and Anderson's arguments toward Shepard, graphical elements like dark tendrils at the edge of the screen, Shepard receiving the same wound Aderson receives, Space-boy's very appearance, since he appeared in actual dreams beforehand. These are all positive evidences, not "that explains away a plot hole." There are other possible explanations, but that hardly qualifies as negative evidence. WHY those elements were used in the way they were is speculation, but the elements themselves are evidence, and my human experience tells me that it would be near impossible to include so many elements that go along with the stated characteristics of indoctrination in a tightly-packed sequence without a deliberate attempt to do so. That last part is speculation, too, but it's based on experience and hopefully rational logic.

In the end, it doesn't matter whether you buy into the theory or not. The point of this thread was that the VI didn't catch Shepard's idoctrination and that definitively proves that the indoc theory is flat out wrong and those who believe it are stupid. THAT is indeed the use of negative evidence to attempt to prove a point. There is plenty of positive evidence. It's not definitive, and it never will be until we get a definitive answer from Bioware about what the whole sequence was about. But to say there is no positive evidence is, I think, absurd.

BTW, sorry for all the pontification. I just sometime like to get involved in these discussions. It's fun.

I agree, discussion is fun, and an important thing for people who enjoyed the series to do.  And I also agree that the OP is also speculation.  I mean, maybe indoctrinated Prothean sleepers had to sabotage VI sensors to do damage; maybe the VIs can only sense extreme indoctrination; maybe the VIs did work as the should have and the sleepers were prevented from doing as much damage as they could have.  All speculation.  But the evidence you presented, while I won't argue with its existence, doesn't point directly to indoctrination.  Think about everything you wrote and ask yourself, "How do I know that Shepard is indoctrinated and not sleeping or dead?".  In everything I have seen and read, no one has made that clear.  Regardless of what the ending actually is, I think Bioware did a poor job articulating it.  

[Forgomoth]

soundhole wrote...
Regardless of what the ending actually is, I think Bioware did a poor job articulating it.  

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

[ULS 980]

Forgomoth wrote...

ULS 980 wrote...
 ...It'd be like a swordmaster waking up one day and forgetting how to hold a sword.

Not impossible.

No, but extremely improbable.

Therefore, like I said, it comes down to which you think is more improbable.
Bioware forgetting how to write a story.
Or the ending being intentional and not to be taken at face value.

[KiroKatashi]

Lots of speculation from everyone!

[ULS 980]

Forgomoth wrote...

soundhole wrote...
Regardless of what the ending actually is, I think Bioware did a poor job articulating it.  

I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Definitely not.
I think it's clear they meant for the ending to be ambiguous. Just did a poor job of executing it.
But I still can't accept that they let massive plot holes like the ones in the ending slip. The plot holes are just too obvious.

[JamesMoriarty123]

I agree with the OP, its a REDICULOUS theory this Indoctrination nonsense.

Having said that, just thinking about it, maybe at the end Anderson (he appears under control although I don't know how) is the part of Shepards mind that resists the indoctrination, and the TIM is the Reaper...no...that's stupid.

My bad, it's a bad theory fullstop and Bioware would be stupid to change the ending to this. Unless they could validate it completely. Hard to do when as the OP said, the Thessia Beacon didn't key on anything with Shep, yet it sensed the indoctrination in others.

[soundhole]

ULS 980 wrote...

soundhole wrote...

I will only follow evidence.  When the story says that Shepherd was indoctrinated, then I'll believe it.  Until then, it's just speculation, and I will continue being skeptical.

Then, by your logic, you can't believe Bioware screwed up until someone comes out stating that they screwed up, no?

Point is, the "Bioware screwing up" idea is also speculation.
The difference comes from whether you believe Bioware capable of making these kinds of mistakes.
Personally, I can't see how writers of Bioware's pedigree could make mistakes such as these. They are far too obvious to miss. It just doesn't make sense. It'd be like a swordmaster waking up one day and forgetting how to hold a sword.

No, that's not my logic.   I think that they screwed up is pretty obvious.  Why they screwed up is speculative. They could have run out of resources to finish the ending as Casey Maley originally intended.  EA could have placed constraints on them that prevented the team from finishing the game.  Or both.  And those issues could be compounded if the ending they had planned wasn't exactly great to begin with.  I don't know, I have insufficient evidence to make any assertion.

You placing Bioware on a pedestle is not a good argument.  There were large chunks of Dragon Age that I thought were as poorly executed, or even worse than, the ME3 ending.  Jade Empire was kind of clunky in parts (from what I remember - yeesh, years ago).  I agree that they've made some great stories, and that screwing up ME3 was out-of-character, but I'm not going to assume it's impossible just because they're Bioware.

I don't want to believe it, either.  But use Occam's Razor.  Bioware are just people, sometimes they screw up, whether with writing or logistics.  

[Forgomoth]

soundhole wrote...

I don't want to believe it, either.  But use Occam's Razor.  Bioware are just people, sometimes they screw up, whether with writing or logistics.  

Just look at the fact that they made the latest KotOR game an MMO...

Never going to forgive them for that...  That's more of a personal grudge though.