Darthdac2 wrote...
MassEffected555 wrote...
PROOF! I found the most compelling argument for the Indoc Theory yet!
So you proved you're just a troll.....
But they wouldn't need Shepard for that would they?, It would make more sense to capture the engineers who worked and built the thing rather then focusing on one soilder who had nothing to do with it other then helping gather the people and resorces to build it. If I was a reaper my main target would be the escort ships of the crucible and the crucible itself.dreman9999 wrote...
The crucible...The rason why they want to control Shep is to stop the crusible and find all info about it so they can make sure the info does not get into future races hands.CrisisOne wrote...
I still don't see the point in indoctrinating Shepard, when the reapers had the galaxy practically under their control, had the citadel, and Shepard's assembled fleets now in one place ready to be picked off. And even if the fleets actually manage to take out most of them the reapers would just call in more to come in through the relay behind them. To me indoctrinating at this point seems like a waste of time.
Modifié par CrisisOne, 21 mars 2012 - 05:50 .
MassEffected555 wrote...
Did you see this tweet?
@[/s]socrates92[/b] Both Casey and Ray's statements say we will release additional content to address questions, not necessarily alter anything.
Did you read the statements?
Geez you need to get a grip on reality. Remember reality?
RedShft wrote...
What I don't understand is why people have to be such ****s:Arokel wrote...
I'm just going to watch as this thread devolves into the worst flame war since the endings.DESTRAUDO wrote...
The indoc theory burns. ha . HAHA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Delighted.
Are you kidding me? What happened to A CIVIL discussion? Maybe you should go back to elementary school since you're as mature as a 5 year old.
Just curious. Do you ever talk like that IRL?
And if you do, how many people know what you are doing? I'm not making fun of you, just curious.
Modifié par Vromrig, 21 mars 2012 - 05:49 .
Vromrig wrote...
Those weak arguments are listed and taken from the indoc bible that people have been linking left right and centre. If you have strong arguments lets see them.
Observations. Easily dismissed. As said, some people take comfort in community over facts. Frustrating, undermines community as whole. Community strength built by affirmation of data, not by affirmation of community.
Primary data contradictory statements made by Catalyst, overtly obvious "mistakes" made in dialogue by NPCs. Ending contradicts self, inconsistent with in-game dialogue, consistent with Indoctrination Theory. Choices laid consistent with choices put before Saren and Illusive Man.
These are meat of argument, not "unlimited ammunition". Silly course to take.
dreman9999 wrote...
Just because you think a bonus ending has no merit does not discredit the reat of the points to the theory. Even then it makes sense for that to happen at max ems anyways.
But it would be best to have an infiltrator as effective as Shepard. Also, they don't have a way to get to an engineer any way. How would they if for the entire game the engineers have been away from reaper tech? They don't just magicly indoctrinate someone.CrisisOne wrote...
But they wouldn't need Shepard for that would they?, It would make more sense to capture the engineers who worked and built the thing rather then focusing on one soilder, If I was a reaper my main target would be the escort ships of the crucible and the crucible itself.dreman9999 wrote...
The crucible...The rason why they want to control Shep is to stop the crusible and find all info about it so they can make sure the info does not get into future races hands.CrisisOne wrote...
I still don't see the point in indoctrinating Shepard, when the reapers had the galaxy practically under their control, had the citadel, and Shepard's assembled fleets now in one place ready to be picked off. And even if the fleets actually manage to take out most of them the reapers would just call in more to come in through the relay behind them. To me indoctrinating at this point seems like a waste of time.
v0rt3x22 wrote...
Sure - this whole thing still could have been planned - I supported that stance for as long as I could - but after seeing two official responses from BioWare - none of which discussed that it was their original intend to continue the series - it seems a bit unlikely that the InDoc theory was planned.
His arguement and proof is based on this...DESTRAUDO wrote...
Please by all means outline your actual arguments and proof. Listen i get it, you like mordin. I like mordin too. If you are going to outline your arguments properly please please type normal. If you have some persona thing going and it means you have to do it by pm to do it normally then do it my pm.Vromrig wrote...
Those weak arguments are listed and taken from the indoc bible that people have been linking left right and centre. If you have strong arguments lets see them.
Observations. Easily dismissed. As said, some people take comfort in community over facts. Frustrating, undermines community as whole. Community strength built by affirmation of data, not by affirmation of community.
Primary data contradictory statements made by Catalyst, overtly obvious "mistakes" made in dialogue by NPCs. Ending contradicts self, inconsistent with in-game dialogue, consistent with Indoctrination Theory. Choices laid consistent with choices put before Saren and Illusive Man.
These are meat of argument, not "unlimited ammunition". Silly course to take.
Explain how the statement by catalyst contradict. Explain these npc dialogue mistakes. etc etc.
Modifié par dreman9999, 21 mars 2012 - 05:52 .
MassEffected555 wrote...
RavenEyry wrote...
Baelyn wrote...
In addition to the fact that they neither confirmed, nor denied, that the ending interpretation is or is not indoctrination. They are happy with the current endings, which, in IT, is indoctrination, and for others the metaphysical explanation the star child gives.
All this confirms is that they are happy with the ending, not what the ending really was.
I agree with this.
Did you see this tweet?
@[/s]socrates92[/b] Both Casey and Ray's statements say we will release additional content to address questions, not necessarily alter anything.
Did you read the statements?
Geez you need to get a grip on reality. Remember reality?
Baelyn wrote...
KroganShields wrote...
DESTRAUDO wrote...
KroganShields wrote...
Can anyone please explain to me how you guys managed to figure out from Ray's respone that the indo. theroy is wrong? Just because he didn't mentioned it or I missed something?
They were heartbroken that people did not like ending. They were trying to resolve it without compromising their artistic integrity. Therefore for better or worse, the endings as presented were real and depicted actual events.
Alright. Thank you for the explanation.
In addition to the fact that they neither confirmed, nor denied, that the ending interpretation is or is not indoctrination. They are happy with the current endings, which, in IT, is indoctrination, and for others the metaphysical explanation the star child gives.
All this confirms is that they are happy with the ending, not what the ending really was.
Modifié par Capeo, 21 mars 2012 - 05:52 .
Please by all means outline your actual arguments and proof. Listen i get it, you like mordin. I like mordin too. If you are going to outline your arguments properly please please type normal. If you have some persona thing going and it means you have to do it by pm to do it normally then do it my pm.
Explain how the statement by catalyst contradict. Explain these npc dialogue mistakes. etc etc.
Modifié par Vromrig, 21 mars 2012 - 05:53 .
dreman9999 wrote...
That part of the story has yet to be told. Remeber even Saren was able to resist it in some way after words.
Turran wrote...
MassEffected555 wrote...
RavenEyry wrote...
Baelyn wrote...
In addition to the fact that they neither confirmed, nor denied, that the ending interpretation is or is not indoctrination. They are happy with the current endings, which, in IT, is indoctrination, and for others the metaphysical explanation the star child gives.
All this confirms is that they are happy with the ending, not what the ending really was.
I agree with this.
Did you see this tweet?
@[/s]socrates92[/b] Both Casey and Ray's statements say we will release additional content to address questions, not necessarily alter anything.
Did you read the statements?
Geez you need to get a grip on reality. Remember reality?
I still don't get your point MassEffected555.
It doesn't say anywhere that Indoc Theory is wrong, along with that, it doesn't say anywhere that it is right. Along with all the statements and such.
It says they arn't changing the ending? Indoc isn't about a new ending it is about reading into the current one and waiting for them to possible expand upon it, not alter it. So that almost makes you sound a little silly.
I don't know, I might of missed something, but I can't see anyone saying Indoc Theory is right or wrong, so the theory still stands as a valid theory.
No they did not. All they said is they know people are upset with the ending and they are doing more things they'll talk about later.Capeo wrote...
Baelyn wrote...
KroganShields wrote...
DESTRAUDO wrote...
KroganShields wrote...
Can anyone please explain to me how you guys managed to figure out from Ray's respone that the indo. theroy is wrong? Just because he didn't mentioned it or I missed something?
They were heartbroken that people did not like ending. They were trying to resolve it without compromising their artistic integrity. Therefore for better or worse, the endings as presented were real and depicted actual events.
Alright. Thank you for the explanation.
In addition to the fact that they neither confirmed, nor denied, that the ending interpretation is or is not indoctrination. They are happy with the current endings, which, in IT, is indoctrination, and for others the metaphysical explanation the star child gives.
All this confirms is that they are happy with the ending, not what the ending really was.
They confirmed the endings happen as shown. What is depicted is what happens. All three choices are equally real in the game world. None of them are indoctrination.
Vromrig wrote...
Please by all means outline your actual arguments and proof. Listen i get it, you like mordin. I like mordin too. If you are going to outline your arguments properly please please type normal. If you have some persona thing going and it means you have to do it by pm to do it normally then do it my pm.
Explain how the statement by catalyst contradict. Explain these npc dialogue mistakes. etc etc.
Unsure how position is unclear.
Catalyst says Shepard will die if choosing option most harmful to Reapers. Shepard in fact only lives if choosing this option. NPC looking in direction of Shepard states that Shepard is not alive, despite showdown with Marauder Shields. Anderson fails to visibly react to being shot in gut. Death suspicious. Not hard evidence, but curious.
Choices not detrimental to Reapers align with goals given to previous Indoctrination victims. Catalyst argument that Reapers are in fact saviors contradictory to Reaper testimony and previous actions. Promises of destruction, annihilation. Arrogance and near hatred, not goal to defend from synthetics.
Also contradictory. Synthetics shown more compassionate than organics throughout series. Further, Reapers enlist aid of synthetics for destruction of organics. Contradiction too blatant to ignore.
But he did not say that their not more coming to the ending. If the indoctrination theory is right, they are just going to start the rest of the story for Shep by having him.her wake up from the dream. That all that's need to add more to the story.Capeo wrote...
Turran wrote...
MassEffected555 wrote...
RavenEyry wrote...
Baelyn wrote...
In addition to the fact that they neither confirmed, nor denied, that the ending interpretation is or is not indoctrination. They are happy with the current endings, which, in IT, is indoctrination, and for others the metaphysical explanation the star child gives.
All this confirms is that they are happy with the ending, not what the ending really was.
I agree with this.
Did you see this tweet?
@[/s]socrates92[/b] Both Casey and Ray's statements say we will release additional content to address questions, not necessarily alter anything.
Did you read the statements?
Geez you need to get a grip on reality. Remember reality?
I still don't get your point MassEffected555.
It doesn't say anywhere that Indoc Theory is wrong, along with that, it doesn't say anywhere that it is right. Along with all the statements and such.
It says they arn't changing the ending? Indoc isn't about a new ending it is about reading into the current one and waiting for them to possible expand upon it, not alter it. So that almost makes you sound a little silly.
I don't know, I might of missed something, but I can't see anyone saying Indoc Theory is right or wrong, so the theory still stands as a valid theory.
Apparently you did miss something. Ray clearly stated these are the real endings. Thus, no IT. The most we'll get is "clarification" which will probably be a comic or something or, if we're lucky, some epilogues.
Modifié par dreman9999, 21 mars 2012 - 06:00 .
Vromrig wrote...
Just curious. Do you ever talk like that IRL?
And if you do, how many people know what you are doing? I'm not making fun of you, just curious.
Sometimes. Among close friends. Some don't get it. Implications unpleasant.
Better at Garrus impression. Voice too deep for this character.
Capeo wrote...
Apparently you did miss something. Ray clearly stated these are the real endings. Thus, no IT. The most we'll get is "clarification" which will probably be a comic or something or, if we're lucky, some epilogues.
Exactly.Leafs43 wrote...
Indoctrination theory is not in any way debunked by today's statements.
In fact the indoctrination theory requires the endings to stay the same.
Retour en haut