384 réponses à ce sujet

[CavScout]

Dr_Hello wrote...

As I understand it, and logically speaking, yes the Prothean VI can detect indoctrinated people but not people going through the process of indoctrination.

Understand it from where? Where was this information relayed?

[Mcjon01]

ULS 980 wrote...

The statement was made in the context of the Destroy choice wiping out all synthetic life.
The only way to take "Even you are part synthetic" is to say "You will die because you are part synthetic".

Since it's saying that Shepard is partially synthetic, shouldn't the implication be that he'll only mostly die?

[Vromrig]

Understand it from where? Where was this information relayed?

VI on Thessia not evidence of Indoctrination Theory. Eager fans, grasping at straws. Harms argument to focus so hard on it. Refers to Kai Leng, not to Shepard. Speculation unnecessary. Indoctrination Theory assumes Shepard not yet indoctrinated at time of Thessia anyway.

Continuing argument as Indoctrination Theory supporter like Newt Gingrich campaigning in Massachusetts. Waste of resources. Outcome already determined.

[kathic]

Vromrig wrote...

None of this successfully addresses the mountain of circumstantial evidence that Indoc theory is built on. A far simpler and more likely answer is that the ending was poorly written or simply unsatisfactory for the audience. The real Mordin would not rely on such flimsy evidence.

Building false argument, getting unnecessarily emotional. Appealing to lack of what was said in context of discussion and arguing that this is a lack of evidence existing. If fault, lies in presentation, not in data.

Point remains, I am expressing the hole in your argument that all evidence is circumstantial. The Catalyst's erroneous statements are a "hard" evidence. This evidence is used to fill the story of the Indoctrination Theory.

Okham's Razor being invoked. Okham's Razor not an excuse to be lazy. Assumes most likely to be true is least unmerited assumptions made. In this case, Okham's Razor is in support of Indoctrination Theory. No assumptions necessary, impossible to read ending as anything but Indoctrination attempt. Evidence does not add up to support genuine climax. Too many assumptions necessary.

Assumption that the voice acting direction and script were erroneous after Shepard is shot. Assumption that consistency was unintentional. Assumption that Bioware suffer sudden and inexplicable story writing degradation. Assumption that surreal scene filled with plot holes further accidents. Assumption after assumption. Assumptions inconsistent with data available, too many required to invoke Okham's Razor.

Indoctrination Theory assumes little. Only assumption that the ending will be hashed on later. Only requires faith in consistency of material. Not unreasonable.

Further, circumstantial evidence, still evidence.  Invocation of term does not make it inadmissable.  Simply requires more corroberation.  Convictions have been had on circumstantial evidence.  Conclusion often that large quantities of circumstantial evidence cannot exist if they do not agree to an outcome.

Irrelevant point, simply side tidbit about logic.  Most evidence is not circumstantial, but wanted to address erroneous logic.  Circumstantial evidence still evidence.  Not lacking, only enforces conclusive evidence.

The AI child lying is not hard evidence of anything other than it lying. Indoc theory assumes that Bioeware crafted a brilliant narrative hidden in a terrible one. It is not unreasonable to reason that Bioware simply wrote a bad ending from the prespective of most fans. The Indoc theory is an extroadenary claim with only circumstantial evidence to back it. The theory needs solid evdence to be considered.

[RedShft]

MrPuschel wrote...


This is also indoctrination! Everything is indoctrinated! My head explode....*BAM*

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

[Bazedragon]

RedShft wrote...

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

Harby is really Alextrasza from WoW? His beams ACTUALLY promote the growth of non-sentient lifeforms.

[CavScout]

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?

[kathic]

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?

The Reapers are killing off all the organics because they are really eco terrorists!

[ULS 980]

kathic wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

None of this successfully addresses the mountain of circumstantial evidence that Indoc theory is built on. A far simpler and more likely answer is that the ending was poorly written or simply unsatisfactory for the audience. The real Mordin would not rely on such flimsy evidence.

Building false argument, getting unnecessarily emotional. Appealing to lack of what was said in context of discussion and arguing that this is a lack of evidence existing. If fault, lies in presentation, not in data.

Point remains, I am expressing the hole in your argument that all evidence is circumstantial. The Catalyst's erroneous statements are a "hard" evidence. This evidence is used to fill the story of the Indoctrination Theory.

Okham's Razor being invoked. Okham's Razor not an excuse to be lazy. Assumes most likely to be true is least unmerited assumptions made. In this case, Okham's Razor is in support of Indoctrination Theory. No assumptions necessary, impossible to read ending as anything but Indoctrination attempt. Evidence does not add up to support genuine climax. Too many assumptions necessary.

Assumption that the voice acting direction and script were erroneous after Shepard is shot. Assumption that consistency was unintentional. Assumption that Bioware suffer sudden and inexplicable story writing degradation. Assumption that surreal scene filled with plot holes further accidents. Assumption after assumption. Assumptions inconsistent with data available, too many required to invoke Okham's Razor.

Indoctrination Theory assumes little. Only assumption that the ending will be hashed on later. Only requires faith in consistency of material. Not unreasonable.

Further, circumstantial evidence, still evidence.  Invocation of term does not make it inadmissable.  Simply requires more corroberation.  Convictions have been had on circumstantial evidence.  Conclusion often that large quantities of circumstantial evidence cannot exist if they do not agree to an outcome.

Irrelevant point, simply side tidbit about logic.  Most evidence is not circumstantial, but wanted to address erroneous logic.  Circumstantial evidence still evidence.  Not lacking, only enforces conclusive evidence.

The AI child lying is not hard evidence of anything other than it lying. Indoc theory assumes that Bioeware crafted a brilliant narrative hidden in a terrible one. It is not unreasonable to reason that Bioware simply wrote a bad ending from the prespective of most fans. The Indoc theory is an extroadenary claim with only circumstantial evidence to back it. The theory needs solid evdence to be considered.

If an ambiguous ending is bad, that doesn't take away the fact that it's still ambiguous and open for interpretation (and we know Bioware intended for it to be ambiguous and open for interpretation).
I don't think the indoctrination theory necessarily states the ending is perfect, just that it makes sense in the context of the theory.

Modifié par ULS 980, 20 mars 2012 - 06:52 .

[Vromrig]

The AI child lying is not hard evidence of anything other than it lying. Indoc theory assumes that Bioeware crafted a brilliant narrative hidden in a terrible one. It is not unreasonable to reason that Bioware simply wrote a bad ending from the prespective of most fans. The Indoc theory is an extroadenary claim with only circumstantial evidence to back it. The theory needs solid evdence to be considered.

Beginning to overlook my positions. Not entirely fair. Put great effort into posts. You should read them. I have pointed out that specific incident is not "smoking gun". It is evidence of remiss. Indoctrination Theory not spawned from one or two pieces of evidence. Conclusion from large amounts of evidence. Very scientific.

You are not judge of what constitutes "solid" evidence, particularly since you fail to seem to understand what evidence is. It's okay, common flaw on the internet. Attempt to assist.

Assumption that ending is "terrible" also demands assumption that writers created large quantities of "coincidences". Single coincidence already statistically unlikely, reason we create special word to denote it. Consistent coincidences become pattern, cease being coincidence. As a consequence, must begin to look at it through new lens. Not feasible to argue simply "bad" ending.

You are, once again, taking small argument known as "example" and running with it. You made a claim. Claim was wrong. Not only circumstantial evidence composes Indoctrination Theory. Continue to try to argue semantics. Will still be wrong.

Thesis is sound. Air tight.

[kathic]

It may indeed be open to interpretation but that does not mean that any theory can be correct. If so I can say that Shepard wakes up on Earth and none of the three games ever happened.

[Forgomoth]

Vromrig wrote...

... Assumption that Bioware suffer sudden and inexplicable story writing degradation...

Yeah, this is the part that I have a problem with.  I mean, BioWare has constantly talking about how excited they are to work on this game and that how much effort and love they've put into.  I find it hard to believe they just gave up on the last few minutes.

[Vromrig]

kathic wrote...

It may indeed be open to interpretation but that does not mean that any theory can be correct. If so I can say that Shepard wakes up on Earth and none of the three games ever happened.

Conspiratorial in nature.  However, more likely that Shepard wakes up from dream on Eden Prime, discussing dream of Mass Effect 2 and 3 to Kaidan and Ashley, than that what we see is current ending.  Evidence too strong.

[Electric Pig]

Indoctrination theory is less stupid then the recouler endings..

[moater boat]

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.

[Vromrig]

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.

Should cease focusing on Thessian VI.  Makes situation worse, damages credibility of movement as a whole.  Unfair to rest of us.

[Rusty0918]

Vromrig wrote...

The AI child lying is not hard evidence of anything other than it lying. Indoc theory assumes that Bioeware crafted a brilliant narrative hidden in a terrible one. It is not unreasonable to reason that Bioware simply wrote a bad ending from the prespective of most fans. The Indoc theory is an extroadenary claim with only circumstantial evidence to back it. The theory needs solid evdence to be considered.

Beginning to overlook my positions. Not entirely fair. Put great effort into posts. You should read them. I have pointed out that specific incident is not "smoking gun". It is evidence of remiss. Indoctrination Theory not spawned from one or two pieces of evidence. Conclusion from large amounts of evidence. Very scientific.

You are not judge of what constitutes "solid" evidence, particularly since you fail to seem to understand what evidence is. It's okay, common flaw on the internet. Attempt to assist.

Assumption that ending is "terrible" also demands assumption that writers created large quantities of "coincidences". Single coincidence already statistically unlikely, reason we create special word to denote it. Consistent coincidences become pattern, cease being coincidence. As a consequence, must begin to look at it through new lens. Not feasible to argue simply "bad" ending.

You are, once again, taking small argument known as "example" and running with it. You made a claim. Claim was wrong. Not only circumstantial evidence composes Indoctrination Theory. Continue to try to argue semantics. Will still be wrong.

Thesis is sound. Air tight.

Thank you Vromig. Gives me more confidence in the Indoc. theory from all those who try to debunk it. Folks, I've said it once and I've said it again: Indoctrination is one of the key traits of the Reapers that make them so scary. And it'd be cool to see. The OP here on this thread gives a very compelling link to such: http://social.biowar.../index/10314135, not to mention a recent 21 minute video explaining this whole indoctrination thing. I mean, you have to discount all these conicidences  in order to discard the theory. The more I come to think about it, the more BioWare tricked the players. Obviously they miscalculated to some extent, hence the backlash, but I hear most chose Synthesis, such as those who liked the ending.

[ULS 980]

Forgomoth wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

... Assumption that Bioware suffer sudden and inexplicable story writing degradation...

Yeah, this is the part that I have a problem with.  I mean, BioWare has constantly talking about how excited they are to work on this game and that how much effort and love they've put into.  I find it hard to believe they just gave up on the last few minutes.

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.

[Vromrig]

Thank you Vromig. Gives me more confidence in the Indoc. theory from all those who try to debunk it. Folks, I've said it once and I've said it again: Indoctrination is one of the key traits of the Reapers that make them so scary. And it'd be cool to see. The OP here on this thread gives a very compelling link to such: http://social.biowar.../index/10314135, not to mention a recent 21 minute video explaining this whole indoctrination thing. I mean, you have to discount all these conicidences in order to discard the theory. The more I come to think about it, the more BioWare tricked the players. Obviously they miscalculated to some extent, hence the backlash, but I hear most chose Synthesis, such as those who liked the ending.

Most likely scenario was that Bioware thought to play coy. Release speculative ending. Watch fans argue about it. Surprise them with ending DLC.

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]

Vromrig wrote...

The AI child lying is not hard evidence of anything other than it lying. Indoc theory assumes that Bioeware crafted a brilliant narrative hidden in a terrible one. It is not unreasonable to reason that Bioware simply wrote a bad ending from the prespective of most fans. The Indoc theory is an extroadenary claim with only circumstantial evidence to back it. The theory needs solid evdence to be considered.

Beginning to overlook my positions. Not entirely fair. Put great effort into posts. You should read them. I have pointed out that specific incident is not "smoking gun". It is evidence of remiss. Indoctrination Theory not spawned from one or two pieces of evidence. Conclusion from large amounts of evidence. Very scientific.

You are not judge of what constitutes "solid" evidence, particularly since you fail to seem to understand what evidence is. It's okay, common flaw on the internet. Attempt to assist.

Assumption that ending is "terrible" also demands assumption that writers created large quantities of "coincidences". Single coincidence already statistically unlikely, reason we create special word to denote it. Consistent coincidences become pattern, cease being coincidence. As a consequence, must begin to look at it through new lens. Not feasible to argue simply "bad" ending.

You are, once again, taking small argument known as "example" and running with it. You made a claim. Claim was wrong. Not only circumstantial evidence composes Indoctrination Theory. Continue to try to argue semantics. Will still be wrong.

Thesis is sound. Air tight.

Having several incidents that are only circumstantially related does not constitute a smoking gun. If we look at other parts of indoc theory such as the plot holes like the Normandy's escape, the movement of the ground team to the ship, the suddenness of the AI Child, the sudden appearance of Anderson on the Citidel we do not see any more conclusiveness. Others may point to the strangeness of the scence with TIM or after the beam as more "evidence" of indoc but none of it is conclusive. There is no smoking gun either alone or in unison. The assumption that the writers developed a poor ending is however supported by all the the evidence above. A long series of conincidences does imply a pattern but nothing about that pattern implies indoc thoery.

[RedShft]

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?

[Vromrig]

Having several incidents that are only circumstantially related does not constitute a smoking gun. If we look at other parts of indoc theory such as the plot holes like the Normandy's escape, the movement of the ground team to the ship, the suddenness of the AI Child, the sudden appearance of Anderson on the Citidel we do not see any more conclusiveness. Others may point to the strangeness of the scence with TIM or after the beam as more "evidence" of indoc but none of it is conclusive. There is no smoking gun either alone or in unison. The assumption that the writers developed a poor ending is however supported by all the the evidence above. A long series of conincidences does imply a pattern but nothing about that pattern implies indoc thoery.

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.

[CavScout]

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.

[RedShft]

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. 

[CavScout]

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?