367 réponses à ce sujet

[noobcannon]

KevShep wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

Then explain that to the rest of the IT people because they make it sound like it is what has already happened to Shep.

We did...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbghjn7_Byc

that is the old one. he made a new version. anyone who does not believe the IT should at least watch this first.
 

Modifié par noobcannon, 25 mars 2012 - 03:23 .

[Vromrig]

It requires no explination other than: Shepard was indoctronated in the last few seconds of their fight on earth the end, and that is a worse ending then what we have already.

Injection of own theory onto Indoctrination Theory. Holding believers accountable. Or supporters, either way.

Not position of Indoctrination Theory. Therefore, unnecessary to refute.

[Dreogan]

Please answer one thing: With what is currently in the game, with the way it is told, why is this theory relevant?

Modifié par Dreogan, 25 mars 2012 - 03:26 .

[Apollo-XL5]

kylie, just watch "mass effect 3 shepards indoctrination (new) on youtube plz. IT will answer all the questions that you dont want answered.

[noobcannon]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

kylie, just watch "mass effect 3 shepards indoctrination (new) on youtube plz. IT will answer all the questions that you dont want answered.

[wheelierdan]

Vromrig wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

You have me laughing.

Then explain that to all the other people who beleive that Shep is indoctronated because that is how it comes across when they explain it.

Unable to determine source of argument.

Majority of Indoctrination Theory adherents do not argue successful Indoctrination?

the point i try to make is i dont even touch the theory itself, im not complaining about the quality of the evidence behind it. the inherrent problem with the theory is that it REQUIRES a post end dlc to work, surely everyone who believes in the theory agrees with that?

the problem is bioware has stated all the planned dlc is pre ending not post ending.  the only exception is the UNPLANNED dlc in response to fan backlash that doesnt change the ending, only clarifies.  meaning best case scenario they say,(for your theory)"yup it was indoctrination and heres why"

i love your mordin impression, but do you really think mordin would keep with the theory when the one thing it depends on does not exist. they have said no post game dlc is planned.

now lets say, hey they change their minds and decide to adopt the theory and say, "hell why not lets make a new end."   it would still mean they adopted the theory after the fact.

[Apollo-XL5]

Vromrig wrote...

It requires no explination other than: Shepard was indoctronated in the last few seconds of their fight on earth the end, and that is a worse ending then what we have already.

Injection of own theory onto Indoctrination Theory. Holding believers accountable. Or supporters, either way.

Not position of Indoctrination Theory. Therefore, unnecessary to refute.

HEy mate, i love your impression of mordin there. Thumbs up

[Vromrig]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

kylie, just watch "mass effect 3 shepards indoctrination (new) on youtube plz. IT will answer all the questions that you dont want answered.

Unnecessary appeal.  Videos often times made by hardest supporters, believers.  More or less unnecessary.

Claims made also inconsistent with argument placed.

[noobcannon]

wheelierdan wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

You have me laughing.

Then explain that to all the other people who beleive that Shep is indoctronated because that is how it comes across when they explain it.

Unable to determine source of argument.

Majority of Indoctrination Theory adherents do not argue successful Indoctrination?

the point i try to make is i dont even touch the theory itself, im not complaining about the quality of the evidence behind it. the inherrent problem with the theory is that it REQUIRES a post end dlc to work, surely everyone who believes in the theory agrees with that?

the problem is bioware has stated all the planned dlc is pre ending not post ending.  the only exception is the UNPLANNED dlc in response to fan backlash that doesnt change the ending, only clarifies.  meaning best case scenario they say,(for your theory)"yup it was indoctrination and heres why"

i love your mordin impression, but do you really think mordin would keep with the theory when the one thing it depends on does not exist. they have said no post game dlc is planned.

now lets say, hey they change their minds and decide to adopt the theory and say, "hell why not lets make a new end."   it would still mean they adopted the theory after the fact.

would it still bother you if it is free? i think i'd only be pissed if they charged me for it.

[Apollo-XL5]

noobcannon wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

kylie, just watch "mass effect 3 shepards indoctrination (new) on youtube plz. IT will answer all the questions that you dont want answered.

???????????????
DId you like my post?

[Apollo-XL5]

Vromrig wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

kylie, just watch "mass effect 3 shepards indoctrination (new) on youtube plz. IT will answer all the questions that you dont want answered.

Unnecessary appeal.  Videos often times made by hardest supporters, believers.  More or less unnecessary.

Claims made also inconsistent with argument placed.

Relax Mordin, watch the video and become a believer.

[Babyberry]

The problem with the Indoctrination theory is I would have thought by now Bioware would have at least said something to quell all of this anger about the ending if it was true. I personally think the theory is sound, but the idea that the game was released with a bunk ending so we have to buy DLC to truly finish the game makes me angry. I don't like the idea of having an unfinished product go into production on purpose just so there can be some money-making later on.

We won't know until April anyways (maybe, hopefully), so all we can do is SPECULATE!!!

[Kylie Nightbreeze]

Dreogan wrote...

Please answer one thing: With what is currently in the game, with the way it is told, why is this theory relevant?

There isn't a single thing to prove. People just getting little pieces of information here and there, like the Arrival DLC and saying that Shep was indoct because of it, and they expect everyone to buy it as fact. Sorry but no dice there. As stated rapid Indoc which is what that would have been would have killed Shep in a few weeks. ME3 Last for atleast half a year. So....

[Apollo-XL5]

Sorry MOrdin, didnt see the IDT banner below your posts, I retract my last post.
Still great impression man.

[Vromrig]

Relax Mordin, watch the video and become a believer.

Point apparently lost. Already am believer. Staunchest supporter.

Believe so strongly that I find videos unnecessary.

[Tovanus]

This game will have plotholes no matter what. People can find them in things before the ending. They can find them in things before ME 3 even. These writers weren't super careful when it came to such things, but for the most part, we all have a tolerance to it.

The ending exceeded the general audiences tolerance levels though. Whatever plotholes the indoctrination theory creates, they are minor and inconsequential compared to the plot holes it removes. The idea that the authors need to avoid "cliche" endings is a poor place to start from when designing one. The fact is that a good story's "original, unique" elements don't need to all come from the ending. When that becomes your goal rather than telling a good story, you become M. Night Shyamalan. In some stories it works, but it's bad to force it in if you didn't carefully plan for it from the start. It's really obvious they didn't plan for anything past the first ME when they released it. They're making it up as they go along. Would it have been nice to see the Reapers have a really deep, thoughtful, discussion-worthy motivation? Yeah. But it's probably not easy to make one up at the tail end of the game without stepping on the foot of something that came before. If an ending fix requires them to have some simple explanation that's not deep, that's fine. As long as it makes sense. There is a lot that makes the Mass Effect universe a well developed, interesting universe - one that took a lot of ideas together and gave them a good, unique flavor without an ending put a twist on it.

I almost wish "indoctrination" theory wasn't called a "theory" - it makes it sound like everyone suspects the developers planned it. We all know they didn't, or most of us do anyway. They did such a poor job writing, though, that they stumbled into too many plotholes to fix without a hallucination. Amazingly, they stumbled into something that's easy to explain based on what came before (the indoctrination video is impressive, anyone who denies it isn't giving the guy who edited it and uploaded it enough credit). Indoctrination is only a "bad" ending if it doesn't get additional material put on the end. Bioware oughto to adopt it and instead of calling what they plan to do a "clarification," just admit it's a change, a "fix" that actually fixes their worst problems and gives them a second chance to do it right. They need that second chance, and it will show a warped sense of writing standards if they show they don't believe that.

Of course, what we're all expecting is a clarification that doesn't adopt it. It's too bad though.Might as well "clarify it" by just having the Starchild break the fourth wall and tell the audience, "Yes, we didn't know what we're doing, we made this up at the last minutes, there is no further explanation, but at least now you won't speculate."

[noobcannon]

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Please answer one thing: With what is currently in the game, with the way it is told, why is this theory relevant?

There isn't a single thing to prove. People just getting little pieces of information here and there, like the Arrival DLC and saying that Shep was indoct because of it, and they expect everyone to buy it as fact. Sorry but no dice there. As stated rapid Indoc which is what that would have been would have killed Shep in a few weeks. ME3 Last for atleast half a year. So....

 

[Hunter_Wolf]

Dreogan wrote...
...and we do not have access to the entire story...

That's my point. Nobody, excluding Bioware, knows what direction they were (or could have been) heading in. They did say in their first answers regarding the outcry that they wanted lots of speculation. 

Now that's not to say IT is fact but it doesn't mean it's not viable nor irrrelevent. Just as much as you are asking others to prove it, you can't disprove it either. Even if the following DLC didn't focus on IT what so ever, you don't have the means to obtain that evidence to support your argument. We'd never know until we experienced it for ourselves.

[Apollo-XL5]

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Please answer one thing: With what is currently in the game, with the way it is told, why is this theory relevant?

There isn't a single thing to prove. People just getting little pieces of information here and there, like the Arrival DLC and saying that Shep was indoct because of it, and they expect everyone to buy it as fact. Sorry but no dice there. As stated rapid Indoc which is what that would have been would have killed Shep in a few weeks. ME3 Last for atleast half a year. So....

HAve you read the reaper indoctrination on the ME codex, because i think you should since it says that if done lightly and subtly, it can last Months or YEARS.

[Dreogan]

noobcannon wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Please answer one thing: With what is currently in the game, with the way it is told, why is this theory relevant?

There isn't a single thing to prove. People just getting little pieces of information here and there, like the Arrival DLC and saying that Shep was indoct because of it, and they expect everyone to buy it as fact. Sorry but no dice there. As stated rapid Indoc which is what that would have been would have killed Shep in a few weeks. ME3 Last for atleast half a year. So....

 

I'm aware of the theory's circumstantial evidence. What I don't see is its relevance to the plot as the plot is presented.

Modifié par Dreogan, 25 mars 2012 - 03:37 .

[MrRiadon]

What would be so bad about it?  You resist your attempted indoctrination (everything that happens after the laser hits you) and then proceed to do some **** that actually makes sense with the crucible.

There would still be a lot of plotholes but not even close to as bad as there are now.

Modifié par MrRiadon, 25 mars 2012 - 03:36 .

[Hunter_Wolf]

noobcannon wrote...
would it still bother you if it is free? i think i'd only be pissed if they charged me for it.

I'll be brutally honest and say I'd still be a bit pissed. Because lets think about that, if there wasn't outrage... whose to say they wouldn't try to charge us for it?

[Apollo-XL5]

OH and ME3 timeline is afew weeks, not months.

[Vromrig]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

OH and ME3 timeline is afew weeks, not months.

Uncertain.  Some dialogue suggests months.

[wheelierdan]

i think there needs to be a distinction between those who feel this is all a master plan, and those who have supported the ending because it makes more sense then the offical ending recognizing that it is fan made.
fan edit versus bioware plan because i can understand those that would rather believe it. i dont understand those who believe that was always intended, when the real life out of game evidence is against it.