564 réponses à ce sujet

[DESTRAUDO]

Did you get around to explaining why plot conveniences earlier in the game are not considered important but are the foundation of indoc when they happen at the end? Like the reaper not blowing up the second thannix launcher when it watched the first ones attempt to hit it yet could track shepard with a beam? Like how said beams could rip through ships but only throw up chips of rock when they ran across the ground instead of cutting 200 ft deep trenches? Like an infinite ammo pistol at the start of the game being nothing but one that does not have to reload being a point in indoc theory.

Indoc is a result of one of the most integral abilities human beings have. Pattern perception. It lets you see a man on the moon and a lion in the bushes and we owe it a lot. It is also the cause of indoc theory.

 

RavenEyry wrote...

DESTRAUDO wrote...


It is because Indocs have declared that those who do not believe are not true fans, and is based around the idea of telling everyone who selected the control and synth endings that they were duped, and tricked by bioware into not selecting the one true ending which sees you commit genocide and should be considered the best ending.  

Please don't make such generalisations. There are jerks and morons on both sides of the argument. There are also polite and intelligent people on both sides of the argument.

[Vromrig]

Hey FAKE FAN

If you were a real fan of the game you would know the indoc theory is impossible because simply put you can not beat indoc. Once it happens you are screwed

Especially if it happens that fast, like you say it did to Shep.

Indoctrination that would happen that fast to bring on a full blown hallucination would have turned Shep's brain to oatmeal.

Good job, we pick up with Shep the husk. There is NO other possibility the games and books state what I wrote as fact.

Fans? You are not fans if you don't know anything about the game which you obviously don't if you support this stupid theory.

Also - BW shot it down. Again. So really, stop already.

Hostility, lack of support or evidence, ridicule, trolling. Common responses by people uninterested in dialogue. Expected outcome. Tragic.

Nothing fake about Indoctrination Theory or fandom of those possessing it. Rift you are attempting to create also unnecessary. Recommend alternate course. Civil discussion?

[dreman9999]

Shayuri wrote...

I've never subscribed to the whole "there's only one way to survive" notion of indoctrination theory.

The cutscene of Shepard breathing is a cookie crumb, a tool to spark debate and point people towards questioning their assumptions. I very much doubt that the actual end will be so open and shut.

I also think there's a lot of confusion stemming from the way things are termed. "Indoctrination Theory" is not a theory. It's not really subject to proof or disproof short of Bioware coming out with a direct statement of intent. It is at BEST a hypothesis, but even that is shaky. I'd call it more a "speculation based on circumstantial evidence." That's not to denigrate it though. Speculations based on circumstantial evidence are all ANYONE has right now.

Not really. Most of the bases of the theory is from this video...
 

[Capeo]

dreman9999 wrote...

Exolyps wrote...

Okay, so the boy was real. Now the Theory is false? It's true even if the boy is real.

Nothing dispoves the theory..The boy is fake.

So the picture of the boy on the memorial wall is fake too?  Wow.  And when Shep tells the story about the boy to Garrus in the beginning of the game he's already indoctrinated?  Wow.  That's odd considering how the VI doesn't detect it given that, by lore, there is no "part way" indoctrination.  You either are or your not.

[lodgik]

pro5 wrote...

 Again, it does not disprove the indoc theory any more than Hudson's earlier response did (i.e. it doesn't). If their plan was to announce it in April on PAX (one month from the first release date, makes sense), they're simply sticking to it and doing their best to keep the player base calm (relatively speaking).

"Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey. You’ll hear more on this in April.

Trust that we are doing our damndest, as always, to address your feedback."

- those are the key words in the whole message. 

So if you WANT to believe in the theory, there is no less reason for you to continue than before.

Bump to this guy, nothing in this comments refute the idea that they planed this all-along but didn't expect the core fans reaction. you've got to admit it really boomed. Check the dev twitter they int at it but can say anything because they will be fired if they do. I can't believe a company as awesome as bioware would consider this good writing and just rip off the original Deus Ex ending. I will wait till they make an official statement until then i Will hold the line and stick with the indoc theory

[dreman9999]

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

OMG.  Are you dense?  That IS retconning the ending.  It invalidates the other two choices millions of people have made.  You IT people are so blind you can't see that.  It invalidates the ENTIRE ending.  TIM.  Anderson.  Everything.

No, It's not. Based on the theory, Shep is still on earth in rubble dreaming this and then wakes up when be over comes indoctrination or as a reaper sleeper agent. It retcons nothing.

It retcons the current non-Indoctrination ending.

No it dos not. If he resist, he's a free mind that can stop the reapers. If he does not, he a sleeper agent working for the reapers...It retcons nothing.

You're locked into a circular argument fallacy.

No, you haven't proven How an ending from Shepard waking up after the dream is a retcon.

[Jaze55]

Vromrig wrote...

Hey FAKE FAN

If you were a real fan of the game you would know the indoc theory is impossible because simply put you can not beat indoc. Once it happens you are screwed

Especially if it happens that fast, like you say it did to Shep.

Indoctrination that would happen that fast to bring on a full blown hallucination would have turned Shep's brain to oatmeal.

Good job, we pick up with Shep the husk. There is NO other possibility the games and books state what I wrote as fact.

Fans? You are not fans if you don't know anything about the game which you obviously don't if you support this stupid theory.

Also - BW shot it down. Again. So really, stop already.

Hostility, lack of support or evidence, ridicule, trolling. Common responses by people uninterested in dialogue. Expected outcome. Tragic.

Nothing fake about Indoctrination Theory or fandom of those possessing it. Rift you are attempting to create also unnecessary. Recommend alternate course. Civil discussion?

Wrong. I gave evidence. The games lore.
AND BW

I really don't need to sit there and prove to you how crazy it is to be looking at a blob on the screen and saying why its not this or that.

Game lore.
Biowares statement.

Thats is THE only proof I need.


If you are asking why I called you a fairweather fan it's because a real fan would't want them breaking all the games lore for the last 5 minutes of the game. 

[dreman9999]

Capeo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Exolyps wrote...

Okay, so the boy was real. Now the Theory is false? It's true even if the boy is real.

Nothing dispoves the theory..The boy is fake.

So the picture of the boy on the memorial wall is fake too?  Wow.  And when Shep tells the story about the boy to Garrus in the beginning of the game he's already indoctrinated?  Wow.  That's odd considering how the VI doesn't detect it given that, by lore, there is no "part way" indoctrination.  You either are or your not.

Who took that picture or put that picture there? Everyone at that site die.
Also, Shep is not indoctrinated yet. He is in the process of it. The sutle start of it that is not detected. What ever counters you have have already been awnsered in this video...
 

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 mars 2012 - 05:15 .

[Vromrig]

Wrong. I gave evidence. The games lore.
AND BW

I really don't need to sit there and prove to you how crazy it is to be looking at a blob on the screen and saying why its not this or that.

Game lore.
Biowares statement.

Thats is THE only proof I need.


If you are asking why I called you a fairweather fan it's because a real fan would't want them breaking all the games lore for the last 5 minutes of the game.

Lore not broken. Indoctrination Theory never presupposes conclusive Indoctrination. Misnomer caused by name. Necessary, however. Would be too cumbersome to call "Indoctrination Attempt At Chance of Near Defeat But Possibly Overcome Theory". Indoctrination Theory works.

You inject opinion of what theory states. Is incorrect. Believe that Shepard is in battle of wills. Battle of wills consistent theme throughout Mass Effect universe. Hope. Uplifting, suggest that Shepard is able to resist, not give in.

Premise of your thesis is wrong.

[Amaranthy]

The problem with ME 3 ending was that it left so many important plotholes. You simply do not leave these huge mistakes in the game and not correct them.

No DLC will fix that because people already have seen the ending and also figured out the plotholes.

I believe that all of the gaps at the end were utter laziness by the writers. Also, reviews aren't based on ending alone, yes the whole journey was quite amazing but that doesn't give you an excuse to ignore the mistakes and then call it "space magic".

[Jaze55]

dreman9999 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Exolyps wrote...

Okay, so the boy was real. Now the Theory is false? It's true even if the boy is real.

Nothing dispoves the theory..The boy is fake.

So the picture of the boy on the memorial wall is fake too?  Wow.  And when Shep tells the story about the boy to Garrus in the beginning of the game he's already indoctrinated?  Wow.  That's odd considering how the VI doesn't detect it given that, by lore, there is no "part way" indoctrination.  You either are or your not.

Who took that picture or put that picture there? Everyone at that site die.

LOLOL NO not everyone died. You ONLY see the 2 shuttles getting shot down. There were people still on the floor. 

WOW you guys seriously need to stop leaving stuff out to support your data.

YOU ONLY SEE THE 2 SHUTTLES IN THE AIR GETTING BLOWN UP NOT THE GROUND TROOPS. 

ANY one of the ground troops could have taken that pic. ANY ONE OF THEM.

[Baelyn]

Vromrig wrote...

Hostility, lack of support or evidence, ridicule, trolling. Common responses by people uninterested in dialogue. Expected outcome. Tragic.

Nothing fake about Indoctrination Theory or fandom of those possessing it. Rift you are attempting to create also unnecessary. Recommend alternate course. Civil discussion?

You are my new hero.

[RavenEyry]

DESTRAUDO wrote...

Did you get around to explaining why plot conveniences earlier in the game are not considered important but are the foundation of indoc when they happen at the end? Like the reaper not blowing up the second thannix launcher when it watched the first ones attempt to hit it yet could track shepard with a beam? Like how said beams could rip through ships but only throw up chips of rock when they ran across the ground instead of cutting 200 ft deep trenches? Like an infinite ammo pistol at the start of the game being nothing but one that does not have to reload being a point in indoc theory.

Indoc is a result of one of the most integral abilities human beings have. Pattern perception. It lets you see a man on the moon and a lion in the bushes and we owe it a lot. It is also the cause of indoc theory.

I wasn't trying to argue the theory and I'm not going to now. I was just asking you to not assume all indoctrinationists want to shove it down your throat. You don't believe it and that's fine. You even make several sensible points against it. It doesn't change my belief the same as nothing I could say would change yours. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine, I just wish everyone would respect that.

[Shayuri]

The video follows a trail of bread crumbs.

What it can't do is verify whether those crumbs were scattered intentionally, or just fell out through a hole in the writer's pocket as he walked.

It is evidence, but it is circumstantial. Understand that I say this as a nominal ally...I also think the ending reflects more of a vision or dream than real events...but I refuse to term this belief of mine as something that it is not. Ultimately, doing so only weakens my position.

What I have is not a theory. It is at best an educated guess. Speculation based on circumstantial evidence. The human mind is very good at selectively picking elements and building patterns from them. Sometimes it's SO good that it invents the pattern itself.

I don't believe this is the case this time...but I must understand that it remains a possibility if I am o be honest with myself.

[Skyline45]

pro5 wrote...

 Again, it does not disprove the indoc theory any more than Hudson's earlier response did (i.e. it doesn't). If their plan was to announce it in April on PAX (one month from the first release date, makes sense), they're simply sticking to it and doing their best to keep the player base calm (relatively speaking).

"Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey. You’ll hear more on this in April.

Trust that we are doing our damndest, as always, to address your feedback."

- those are the key words in the whole message. 

So if you WANT to believe in the theory, there is no less reason for you to continue than before.

^This

But we wont know till April anyway so why even point fingers and make assumption on whos wrong and who isnt?

[BigBubbaBacon]

Vromrig wrote...

Strokes chin.

And so the fantasy evolves from being the true ending to being the ending the team had wanted but were prevented from having. I swear, indocs is like watching the birth of a religion.

Incorrect. Theory revolves around experience, knowledge, variables that can be confirmed, observed, repeated. Nothing concluded without corroborative data

As I read this post, I heard it in my mind in Mordin's voice.


That is all.

[Vromrig]

LOLOL NO not everyone died. You ONLY see the 2 shuttles getting shot down. There were people still on the floor.

WOW you guys seriously need to stop leaving stuff out to support your data.

YOU ONLY SEE THE 2 SHUTTLES IN THE AIR GETTING BLOWN UP NOT THE GROUND TROOPS.

ANY one of the ground troops could have taken that pic. ANY ONE OF THEM.

Awkward suggestion. Troops in Apocalyptic battle. See child. Decide perfect time to take photograph. Remember moment before he dies. More important than saving Earth. Or not being turned into DNA paste.

Strange.

[KroganShields]

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?

[dreman9999]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

Hey FAKE FAN

If you were a real fan of the game you would know the indoc theory is impossible because simply put you can not beat indoc. Once it happens you are screwed

Especially if it happens that fast, like you say it did to Shep.

Indoctrination that would happen that fast to bring on a full blown hallucination would have turned Shep's brain to oatmeal.

Good job, we pick up with Shep the husk. There is NO other possibility the games and books state what I wrote as fact.

Fans? You are not fans if you don't know anything about the game which you obviously don't if you support this stupid theory.

Also - BW shot it down. Again. So really, stop already.

Hostility, lack of support or evidence, ridicule, trolling. Common responses by people uninterested in dialogue. Expected outcome. Tragic.

Nothing fake about Indoctrination Theory or fandom of those possessing it. Rift you are attempting to create also unnecessary. Recommend alternate course. Civil discussion?

Wrong. I gave evidence. The games lore.
AND BW

I really don't need to sit there and prove to you how crazy it is to be looking at a blob on the screen and saying why its not this or that.

Game lore.
Biowares statement.

Thats is THE only proof I need.


If you are asking why I called you a fairweather fan it's because a real fan would't want them breaking all the games lore for the last 5 minutes of the game. 

Remeber the Arrival dlc mission, when Shep finds object rho the first time? Did he have a vision then?

[Jaze55]

Vromrig wrote...

Wrong. I gave evidence. The games lore.
AND BW

I really don't need to sit there and prove to you how crazy it is to be looking at a blob on the screen and saying why its not this or that.

Game lore.
Biowares statement.

Thats is THE only proof I need.


If you are asking why I called you a fairweather fan it's because a real fan would't want them breaking all the games lore for the last 5 minutes of the game.

Lore not broken. Indoctrination Theory never presupposes conclusive Indoctrination. Misnomer caused by name. Necessary, however. Would be too cumbersome to call "Indoctrination Attempt At Chance of Near Defeat But Possibly Overcome Theory". Indoctrination Theory works.

You inject opinion of what theory states. Is incorrect. Believe that Shepard is in battle of wills. Battle of wills consistent theme throughout Mass Effect universe. Hope. Uplifting, suggest that Shepard is able to resist, not give in.

Premise of your thesis is wrong.

You are only INDOCTRINATED. There is no such thing as half indoctrinated. A quarter indoctrinated. It's like cancer, you have it and it spreads. That's it. 

IF you knew that game lore you would know this. You obviously don't therfor to me you are just a fairweather fan. 

[booboo645]

I don't think this changes anything at all for me personally. They skirt around the outside as usual and haven't said why none of it makes sense. If it's not indoctrination I am totally done with BioWare though, cause the cheap fix ending just... ugh.

But I still think they planned for Shepard to be indoctrinated and what we see is what we got. I just think they wanted the ending to be that you never actually saw the ending. Games deserve the right to be considered art, as much as film. Good art doesn't just mean you cut something in half so people can discuss though..

[Ukjack44]

Capeo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Exolyps wrote...

Okay, so the boy was real. Now the Theory is false? It's true even if the boy is real.

Nothing dispoves the theory..The boy is fake.

So the picture of the boy on the memorial wall is fake too?  Wow.  And when Shep tells the story about the boy to Garrus in the beginning of the game he's already indoctrinated?  Wow.  That's odd considering how the VI doesn't detect it given that, by lore, there is no "part way" indoctrination.  You either are or your not.

Stupid is stupid...

The reapers don't just click their fingers and indoctrinate you, it is a long process which can be beaten as samara says to her surviving daughter, concerning the daughter that held off indoctination to blow the reapers up. The boy is a subtle hint in the game. He probably was real at the start of the game but who is to say that he didnt die when the reapers hit. When shepard see's him in the ventalation shaft it is like Shep is the only one aware of the boy. Even when the boy is evacuating no one helps the boy onto the shuttle everyone just ignores him.

[Myskal1981]

dreman9999 wrote...

That's a story for another time.

Think of it this way...The ending part is a battle of wills. The reaper, with you having high ems, want to change you mind.
What happens after is story for only BW to tell.
Also, takea notice of the meaning of crucible.....

1. A vessel made of a refractory substance such as graphite or porcelain, used for melting and calcining materials at high temperatures.2. A severe test, as of patience or belief; a trial. See Synonyms at trial.3. A place, time, or situation characterized by the confluence of powerful intellectual, social, economic, or political forces

You do realize that basically you are saying: if you chose control or synthesis, you as a player lost, because you failed the trial? You know, there is a trial in the end, it is the trial against TIM.

I don't want to defend the current endings cause I don't like them, to short, to generic and full of inconsistencies.
But to go and invalidate two choices and with it all the players that picked those choices, well, doesn't feel right. And saying that those players failed the trial is pretentious.

The breathing scene is only available with at least 4000 EMS, something that can only be achieved by playing Multiplayer. So all those pure singleplayer can never see it. How is that supposed to be fair?
Not everyone wants to play MP. --> ah, well, we dismissed that claim...

Please, ask yourself this: if you never saw the breathing scene, would you still believe so adamantly that the indoc theory is correct?

[van Zero]

I really like the video www.youtube.com/watch , because it fits everything perfectly! Watch and learn

Modifié par van Zero, 21 mars 2012 - 05:19 .

[dreman9999]

Shayuri wrote...

The video follows a trail of bread crumbs.

What it can't do is verify whether those crumbs were scattered intentionally, or just fell out through a hole in the writer's pocket as he walked.

It is evidence, but it is circumstantial. Understand that I say this as a nominal ally...I also think the ending reflects more of a vision or dream than real events...but I refuse to term this belief of mine as something that it is not. Ultimately, doing so only weakens my position.

What I have is not a theory. It is at best an educated guess. Speculation based on circumstantial evidence. The human mind is very good at selectively picking elements and building patterns from them. Sometimes it's SO good that it invents the pattern itself.

I don't believe this is the case this time...but I must understand that it remains a possibility if I am o be honest with myself.

No it does not. Saren argument is exactly like the star childs argument about systhisis...How can you not see it.