564 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaze55]

dreman9999 wrote...

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?

Yeah like the beacon. It was projected into his mind. Not the same. You might as well tell me that the vision he had back in ME1 - did you play ME1? - on Eden Prime was when he got indoctrinated. Or maybe when he spoke to Sovy later in the game on Virmire, he had a vision then as well. 

OH DAM! Shep has been indoctrinated since Mass Effect 1!!!!!!!!!!!

[DESTRAUDO]

Why is an infinite ammo pistol at the start of the game unimportant but one which you do not have to reload a point for indoc theory.

Why is reaper not shooting second thannix missile vehicle not considered proof of something when there was no logical reason other than plot convenience for it to do it. 

Why can you take cover behond a rock on tuchanka to shield yourself from a reaper beam when the same beams slice through starships. 

Why are all the plot conveniences in the game and games before it considered unimportant but the plot conveniences in the last 15 minutes of 3 considered proof of indoc theory. 

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

[DESTRAUDO]

And when you were arguing the theory in another topic and asked for proof indoc was wrong  i gave it and got no response which is exactly why i brought it up again now.

RavenEyry wrote...

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.

[esideras]

If the indoc theory was never planned, then they are damned lucky it fits.

[Jaze55]

Vromrig wrote...

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.

Looking at vague pictures floating around the internet saying it's meaningful. Taking things out of context in the game to support crazy theory. Ignoring all previous 3 games, and books, lore to make it look like I am right. Grasping at straws. 

Psychotic. 

[Shayuri]

I do see the similarities. I merely point out that some similarities of argumentation don't constitute factual proof. They constitute circumstantial evidence.

There's nothing bad about that. I'm not arguing against Indoctrination Interpretation. I'm just trying to keep the terminology on the straight and narrow...and be open about the limitations of any interpretation, indoc or otherwise, in the absence of factual data to back them up.

[Thornquist]

While some of you, my fellow IT-deniers are again so busy debating - I am myself sipping a beer and watching this theory drown with tears of unfathomable denial - I suggest you join me, this is internet-entertainment at its best.

[dreman9999]

Myskal1981 wrote...

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?

I doesn't mean that. Shepard never really dies in any of the endings. I having the breath scene at 4000 ems only doesn't mean Shep won't wake up over time. It just means you do get the final hint it's a dream. Remeber. No matter what, it's made clear that Shep defeat the reapers.....How he did it is unclear. That what they did not put in the game.

[DESTRAUDO]

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. 

[Ukjack44]

van Zero wrote...

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

Its the only logical conclusion. BioWare couldn't of done this without realising.

[Vromrig]

Yeah like the beacon. It was projected into his mind. Not the same. You might as well tell me that the vision he had back in ME1 - did you play ME1? - on Eden Prime was when he got indoctrinated. Or maybe when he spoke to Sovy later in the game on Virmire, he had a vision then as well.

OH DAM! Shep has been indoctrinated since Mass Effect 1!!!!!!!!!!!

Never been assertion. Never will be. Theory states that Shepard resists Indoctrination. Your premise is flawed.

Why is an infinite ammo pistol at the start of the game unimportant but one which you do not have to reload a point for indoc theory.

Why is reaper not shooting second thannix missile vehicle not considered proof of something when there was no logical reason other than plot convenience for it to do it. 

Why can you take cover behond a rock on tuchanka to shield yourself from a reaper beam when the same beams slice through starships. 

Why are all the plot conveniences in the game and games before it considered unimportant but the plot conveniences in the last 15 minutes of 3 considered proof of indoc theory.  

Weak arguments posed by fans of theory.  Not reflective of meat of argument.  Mistake for people to highlight, not looking at it scientifically.  Often finding comfort in community of like minded, rather than serious consideration.

Scrutiny valid.  Some arguments silly.  Not all.

Modifié par Vromrig, 21 mars 2012 - 05:27 .

[PrimarchGarrus]

Fingertrip wrote...

Rofl, it's funny to see people in such denial and oblivious to what is so obvious for people who are aware of the Indoctrination + Mass Effect story.

The Indoctrination "Theory" is not a theory, it's a tutorial and explanation for the oblivious CoD/BF fanboys who never touched Mass Effect until now, or they never listened to the story, or read it. It's so blatanly obvious that it's painful.

Or people are just stupid, or trolling. Take a pick.

Okay, let's be clear. I'm not stupid. I'm no troll. I hate FPS games, and I have loved ME since ME2 released in 2010. You think that because I trust BioWare, that I and many others, are stupid (or trolls)? I do believe in the Indoc theory because it makes sense, not because I'm some whiny douche who dwells on wishful thinking. So excuse me if I have faith in otherwise genius story-tellers. I don't care if you don't agree. But don't insult people for having faith in its favorite game developer.

[RavenEyry]

DESTRAUDO wrote...

And when you were arguing the theory in another topic and asked for proof indoc was wrong  i gave it and got no response which is exactly why i brought it up again now.

I apologise if I missed something you said elsewhere. I would have argued then if I had seen it but I'm not in the mood now, some of the bile coming from people (not you) in a thread spawned by a head of Bioware asking us to be civil is depressing.

[Darthdac2]

Ukjack44 wrote...

van Zero wrote...

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

Its the only logical conclusion. BioWare couldn't of done this without realising.

I agree it fits too perfectly. If they did not plan this they are lucky as hell and they should stick with it.

[AcFree]

Still too much indoctrination material and facts to simply say that its not plausible because it definitely is.

[dreman9999]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

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.

Looking at vague pictures floating around the internet saying it's meaningful. Taking things out of context in the game to support crazy theory. Ignoring all previous 3 games, and books, lore to make it look like I am right. Grasping at straws. 

Psychotic. 

You still haven't explain who took the kids picture yet. You who says the theory is based on leaps on asumptions with no real fact is using reasons to dicredit it that has not explination to be there is ironic.
Really, who took the picture of the kid and who posted the kid picture on the wall if everyone at that launch site die?

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 mars 2012 - 05:30 .

[KroganShields]

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.

[Jaze55]

Thornquist wrote...

While some of you, my fellow IT-deniers are again so busy debating - I am myself sipping a beer and watching this theory drown with tears of unfathomable denial - I suggest you join me, this is internet-entertainment at its best.

Good idea. I'll bring the chips. 

[Baelyn]

I like discussion, and both sides have their valid arguments, but guys can we please keep this civil? We are all fans of the same series right? Thats why we are here, to, you know, discuss the game series we love?

There is no need for calling people delusional, accusing people of not being "true fans" (whatever the hell that is), or anything else even remotely derogatory.

[DESTRAUDO]

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.

 

Vromrig wrote...

Yeah like the beacon. It was projected into his mind. Not the same. You might as well tell me that the vision he had back in ME1 - did you play ME1? - on Eden Prime was when he got indoctrinated. Or maybe when he spoke to Sovy later in the game on Virmire, he had a vision then as well.

OH DAM! Shep has been indoctrinated since Mass Effect 1!!!!!!!!!!!

Never been assertion. Never will be. Theory states that Shepard resists Indoctrination. Your premise is flawed.

Why is an infinite ammo pistol at the start of the game unimportant but one which you do not have to reload a point for indoc theory.

Why is reaper not shooting second thannix missile vehicle not considered proof of something when there was no logical reason other than plot convenience for it to do it. 

Why can you take cover behond a rock on tuchanka to shield yourself from a reaper beam when the same beams slice through starships. 

Why are all the plot conveniences in the game and games before it considered unimportant but the plot conveniences in the last 15 minutes of 3 considered proof of indoc theory.  

Weak arguments posed by fans of theory.  Not reflective of meat of argument.  Mistake for people to highlight, not looking at it scientifically.  Often finding comfort in community of like minded, rather than serious consideration.

Scrutiny valid.  Some arguments silly.  Not all.

[Robhuzz]

It takes a special kind of hater to use one letter that really doesn't say ANYTHING (In case you didn't notice, it's simple PR talk asking the fans to wait a bit longer) to try and disprove the indoctrination theory... Congratulations.

Seriously there is NO WAY anyone at BioWare could've thought this was a good ending, especially after all the promises they made. The reaction that they didn't expect the fans to dislike the ending is as full of crap as the actual conversation with star child. One BioWare dev (forgot which one) outright stated they knew not every fan would like the ending.

Guess what? You raise expectations with your PR and loads of promises and then create the ultimate fail ending and fans won't like that.

[dreman9999]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

While some of you, my fellow IT-deniers are again so busy debating - I am myself sipping a beer and watching this theory drown with tears of unfathomable denial - I suggest you join me, this is internet-entertainment at its best.

Good idea. I'll bring the chips. 

Anyone that thinks that has not watched this...

[Jaze55]

dreman9999 wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

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.

Looking at vague pictures floating around the internet saying it's meaningful. Taking things out of context in the game to support crazy theory. Ignoring all previous 3 games, and books, lore to make it look like I am right. Grasping at straws. 

Psychotic. 

You still haven't explain who took the kids picture yet. You who says the theory is based on leaps on asumptions with no real fact is are reason to dicredit it with something that has not explination to be there is ironic.
Really, who took the picture of the kid and who posted the kid picture on the wall if everyone at that launch site die?

Explain to me who didn't take it. That's easier. Because you know, during a way it's not like reporters would be everywhere taking pics.

That didn't happen in Vietnam or any other wars. I know I never saw any wartime pics in the last few wars we had.

Also, just for IN GAME purposes, there were a lot of people I saw running around groundside. And just for that single scene where you see the kid get blown up. 

2 shuttles on the ground. Both take off. Both get blown up in the air. There were soldiers on the ground that did NOT get in the shuttles. Any one of them could have taken the pic.

So instead, I want you to tell me everyeone that DIDN'T take the pic. 

[Myskal1981]

dreman9999 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

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?

I doesn't mean that. Shepard never really dies in any of the endings. I having the breath scene at 4000 ems only doesn't mean Shep won't wake up over time. It just means you do get the final hint it's a dream. Remeber. No matter what, it's made clear that Shep defeat the reapers.....How he did it is unclear. That what they did not put in the game.

Ok, if he is not really dead in any of the endings, what constitutes the trial and what are its effects?
As far as I understood the indoc theory you can only break out of it, if you pick destroy, because it is the only option showing Shepard breathing. So you remain indoctrinated when choosing control or synthesis, right? This has the same result --> Shepard failed, player failed.
The text describing Shepard as a legend for stopping the Reaper threat cannot be correct if you choose control or synthesis, because he remained indoctrinated and someone else had to finish his job, so why show the text in the first place?

[Legend78731]

Mr Massakka wrote...

Yes, they basically confirmed with their reactions that it was not planned after all.

If they fix the ending, I hope they really jump onto the indoctrination theory.
It would solve most of the problems they had, without even writer-work involved AND it would guarantee great fan-feedback (haven't seen many protest against the theory).

You'd still have to do "writer work" after Shepard wakes back up. If they tacked on this ending because they just couldn't figure out a way to do it on a satisfying level, which seems to me to be the case, then they will be right back in the same boat. Trying to figure out how to end the game in the way it deserves.

Modifié par Legend78731, 21 mars 2012 - 05:34 .