228 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Slaiyer wrote...

Any discussion involving Indoc is purely geusswork. I have yet to see an argument that flawlessly debunks the theory as any "evidence" from either side is purely subjective. It all boils down to whether Bioware are bad writers (Which is unlikely given their past (excluding DA2, which even wasnt this bad)), or they sold us an incomplete game for a larger profit margin.

I'm kinda struggling with the idea that they sat down and worked out a terrible ending. That they literally had people working on plot holes. And mostly that they would take that sort of gamble. Who does that with massive projects?

[KevShep]

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

Slaiyer wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Slaiyer wrote...

I don't disagree with my argument being circumstantial. I am merely stating that it would seem logical for them to do so and simply stating they didn't is equally circumstantial..

There's no point in arguing this issue beyond the fact that the betrayal didn't happen during the sequences Shepard saw on Eden Prime. Which obvious because they were already under full assault by Reaper forces. Anything beyond that, however, is circumstantial guesswork.

Any discussion involving Indoc is purely geusswork. I have yet to see an argument that flawlessly debunks the theory as any "evidence" from either side is purely subjective. It all boils down to whether Bioware are bad writers (Which is unlikely given their past (excluding DA2, which even wasnt this bad)), or they sold us an incomplete game for a larger profit margin.

That's the point of a straw man argument.

It's literally impossible to debunk every point conspiracy theorists use to "confirm" that 9/11 was an inside job, but the simple fact is that it wasn't an inside job. 

All of the 9/11 theories have been proven wrong, but the indoc theory has not. In fact there is alot pointing to it.

[Slaiyer]

Admiral H. Cain wrote...

Slaiyer wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Slaiyer wrote...

I don't disagree with my argument being circumstantial. I am merely stating that it would seem logical for them to do so and simply stating they didn't is equally circumstantial..

There's no point in arguing this issue beyond the fact that the betrayal didn't happen during the sequences Shepard saw on Eden Prime. Which obvious because they were already under full assault by Reaper forces. Anything beyond that, however, is circumstantial guesswork.

Any discussion involving Indoc is purely geusswork. I have yet to see an argument that flawlessly debunks the theory as any "evidence" from either side is purely subjective. It all boils down to whether Bioware are bad writers (Which is unlikely given their past (excluding DA2, which even wasnt this bad)), or they sold us an incomplete game for a larger profit margin.

That's the point of a straw man argument.

It's literally impossible to debunk every point conspiracy theorists use to "confirm" that 9/11 was an inside job, but the simple fact is that it wasn't an inside job. 

I'm not saying Indoc is right nor wrong. I'm only stating that with the "evidince" that has been brought up by the theorists can only be debunked with more "evidince".  No one can state which is true untill Bioware makes an official post/statement telling us outright - not the cryptic things they've given us so far; And even then we cannot fully believe what they say seeing as we have given them an outing in the form of the Indoc theory to fall back on.

[Apollo-XL5]

I still cant believe there are people trying to debunk the one theory that has nearly 100% accuracy for the endings to make sense. All the evidence is there in the trilogy, you just need to look between the lines for it. I bet that(if the IT is true, it more than likely is) Bioware meant this and they knew that we fans are a smart lot and would figure it out. WE arent ones for missing the small details, especially on multiple playthroughs.

[hex23]

I tried to read this thread but all I see is a bunch of people tossing around the term "straw man" while obviously having no idea what it means.

[Blackmind1]

hex23 wrote...

I tried to read this thread but all I see is a bunch of people tossing around the term "straw man" while obviously having no idea what it means.

Yeah, they're 4chan users. They throw it around all over the Mass Effect generals, too.

Modifié par Blackmind1, 25 mars 2012 - 01:54 .

[Slaiyer]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

I still cant believe there are people trying to debunk the one theory that has nearly 100% accuracy for the endings to make sense. All the evidence is there in the trilogy, you just need to look between the lines for it. I bet that(if the IT is true, it more than likely is) Bioware meant this and they knew that we fans are a smart lot and would figure it out. WE arent ones for missing the small details, especially on multiple playthroughs.

But the thing is that most of the points for Indoc are very circumstantial and depend on the fact the Bioware knew what they were doing. I for one wish the theory is true too, but I'm not going to blindly refuse to accept evidence that may disprove it just so I can cling to false hope.

[KevShep]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

I still cant believe there are people trying to debunk the one theory that has nearly 100% accuracy for the endings to make sense. All the evidence is there in the trilogy, you just need to look between the lines for it. I bet that(if the IT is true, it more than likely is) Bioware meant this and they knew that we fans are a smart lot and would figure it out. WE arent ones for missing the small details, especially on multiple playthroughs.

^This

The ending throws out a thousand plot holes that are nowhere near explained to a trilogy that loves to explain its lore!

[Thomas Andresen]

Slaiyer wrote...

I'm not saying Indoc is right nor wrong. I'm only stating that with the "evidince" that has been brought up by the theorists can only be debunked with more "evidince".  No one can state which is true untill Bioware makes an official post/statement telling us outright - not the cryptic things they've given us so far; And even then we cannot fully believe what they say seeing as we have given them an outing in the form of the Indoc theory to fall back on.

...which they aren't going to do, because the whole point was to leave the ending "open to interpretation".

I made a point earlier, saying that the ending isn't bad. If anything, it's misplaced.

[Ziggeh]

hex23 wrote...

I tried to read this thread but all I see is a bunch of people tossing around the term "straw man" while obviously having no idea what it means.

Your straw man is using circular logic. It's also trying to write a universal definition for art.

[Blackmind1]

Slaiyer wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

I still cant believe there are people trying to debunk the one theory that has nearly 100% accuracy for the endings to make sense. All the evidence is there in the trilogy, you just need to look between the lines for it. I bet that(if the IT is true, it more than likely is) Bioware meant this and they knew that we fans are a smart lot and would figure it out. WE arent ones for missing the small details, especially on multiple playthroughs.

But the thing is that most of the points for Indoc are very circumstantial and depend on the fact the Bioware knew what they were doing. I for one wish the theory is true too, but I'm not going to blindly refuse to accept evidence that may disprove it just so I can cling to false hope.

The things that point away from it are circumstantial, too. None of us are right. Speculation for everyone.

Modifié par Blackmind1, 25 mars 2012 - 01:56 .

[FellishBeast]

I always thought it was obvious that TIM was the one imposing the indoctrinative (not a word, but I'm using it) force on Shepard and Anderson, but it is also clearly stated that TIM himself was indoctrinated, so it is basically the same thing. He's just the Overlord to their Cerebrate (kudos if you get the reference).

Anyways, this post claimed that IDT was using a lot of logical fallacies, but it didn't really didn't damage the integrity of the theory in any way from my perspective. I'll admit there IS some reaching from people who support the theory, but everyone is looking for more evidence. Some is overwhelmingly convincing, and some is incidental.

[Slaiyer]

Blackmind1 wrote...

hex23 wrote...

I tried to read this thread but all I see is a bunch of people tossing around the term "straw man" while obviously having no idea what it means.

Yeah, they're 4chan users. They throw it around all over the Mass Effect generals, too.

I've only seen 1-2 people in this thread use the term so far (of which I have not). Please don't generalize.

[Blackmind1]

Slaiyer wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

hex23 wrote...

I tried to read this thread but all I see is a bunch of people tossing around the term "straw man" while obviously having no idea what it means.

Yeah, they're 4chan users. They throw it around all over the Mass Effect generals, too.

I've only seen 1-2 people in this thread use the term so far (of which I have not). Please don't generalize.

When did I generalise? You're a little touchy, aren't you?

[DrFrankenseuss]

Here's an argument based in reality. If Bioware makes 3.5 MILLION physical copies of a game were shipped at $60 each, and they also expect origin sales and first day DLC to sell, that's over $200 frigging million dollars of gross income that EA would expect to be coming back. If Bioware decided to release and incomplete game (ie Indoctrination Theory) and expected to finish the story as a dlc, that would be a completely CRAZY thing to do. The End. Why is there even a debate about this anymore?

[Admiral H. Cain]

Hashbeth wrote...

So you definitely put some thought into this, and I appreciate the effort. However I have a couple points to ask you to keep in mind (and I hope this makes it through, OP, as there are some epic quotes later in this thread that are eating up huge chunks of a page at a time ^ww^).

So first on the hallucination information:
1) I don't think everyone is 100% agreed amongst the Indoc community that is is a hallucination. In fact, if the destroy ending is to be believed, the indoctrination attempt occurs while you are unconscious (when the effect is amplified, as I believe it states in the codex). So on this point, the hallucination conflict is moot.

2) It's an interesting idea about TIM and biotics. Unfortunately, if this is dream-like occurrence fostered by harbinger (who is really close to you anyway), then it's hard to prove, either way, that TIM is real. I'm quite sure Harbinger would have been accurate in his portrayal.

3) The embodiment of different endings is interesting, but also somewhat stilted. We have very little prior evidence to support this. If anything, Shepard has been the most vocal proponent for destroying the reapers. For him to suddenly represent synthesis makes very little sense. Especially when, at its core, Synthesis involves mass homogenization, which Shepard is very much against.
3a) Also the only real leitmotif for any over-arching idea, embodied by any one character, is that of dreams and memory with the child.

4) On the Prothean VI: There is a strange rumor that the Indoc Theory must be based on a fact that Shepard has been indoctrinated from the beginning of the game. This need not be true. In fact, it makes more sense to think that, with Harbinger 100 yards away, it is during the final assault that any attempt to indoctrinate Shepard would be most successful.

Finally: Your theory also apparently states no disproof of the theory. The only attempt is the 'anti-hallucination' argument, which is both very interesting, and quite valid. It definitely confirms to me that, if Indoc theory is true, it is occurring while Shepard is unconscious.

Anyway, that's my two cents

Thanks for your feedback, but even more thanks for your cool headed approach. 

Let's see here.

1) No argument from me. 

2) Again, no argument. 

3) I agree, which is why I stated that Shepard was a very poor embodiment of the synthesis option. However, the Catalyst makes it clear that Shepard's "essence" is required to make synthesis work. Don't ask me why, however, because that entire scene is entirely nonsensical.

4) Agreed again.

Yes, I realize that I cannot fully disprove this theory as the theory is technically correct in regards to Shepard's indoctrination. The problem is that he isn't being indoctrinated by the Reapers, but it's the Illusive Man who is attempting to indoctrinate and control him. This is my main argument. 

[Blackmind1]

Slaiyer wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

hex23 wrote...

I tried to read this thread but all I see is a bunch of people tossing around the term "straw man" while obviously having no idea what it means.

Yeah, they're 4chan users. They throw it around all over the Mass Effect generals, too.

I've only seen 1-2 people in this thread use the term so far (of which I have not). Please don't generalize.

When did I generalise? I didn't say "EVERYONE IS FROM 4CHAN!" 

You're a little touchy, aren't you? 

Modifié par Blackmind1, 25 mars 2012 - 01:58 .

[Apollo-XL5]

Slaiyer wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

I still cant believe there are people trying to debunk the one theory that has nearly 100% accuracy for the endings to make sense. All the evidence is there in the trilogy, you just need to look between the lines for it. I bet that(if the IT is true, it more than likely is) Bioware meant this and they knew that we fans are a smart lot and would figure it out. WE arent ones for missing the small details, especially on multiple playthroughs.

But the thing is that most of the points for Indoc are very circumstantial and depend on the fact the Bioware knew what they were doing. I for one wish the theory is true too, but I'm not going to blindly refuse to accept evidence that may disprove it just so I can cling to false hope.

HAve you seen AngryJoes video on youtube about the IT, he has put up alot of biowares responses to people asking about it and it looks more that it is true and they are just waiting till most people have complete ME3 before telling us.  They are just to good writers to just mess up the story in the last 5 minutes.

[Plasma Prestige]

 You have shown your observations of the ending, but do not explain how those observations definitely discredit the indoc theory. You treat your observations and the prerequisites of the indoc theory to be mutually exclusive when in reality they need not be. 

We can agree that TIM was trying to indoctrinate Shepard. Given this, how does it discredit the indoc theory? In fact, it is more support of it. During the indoctrination process, people are meant to represent absolutist ideas in order for the person who is being indoctrinated to make easy connections. The parallel between the three characters and the three endings are trite, especially given their back-to-back execution, unless we assume it's indoctrination.

Furthermore, your point that Shepard is not a shizophrenic is irrelevant. The Reapers can indoctrinate any organic - some more easily than others granted, but there is no "mental instability" prerequisite for indoctrination to succeed.

Perhaps you see clear connections in your head of how your observations link witht he discrediting of the indoc theory, but it really isn't evident in your post.

[Admiral H. Cain]

hex23 wrote...

I tried to read this thread but all I see is a bunch of people tossing around the term "straw man" while obviously having no idea what it means.

So, you believe Indoctrination theory isn't a series of straw man arguments? 

Prove otherwise. 

[Slaiyer]

Blackmind1 wrote...

Slaiyer wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

I still cant believe there are people trying to debunk the one theory that has nearly 100% accuracy for the endings to make sense. All the evidence is there in the trilogy, you just need to look between the lines for it. I bet that(if the IT is true, it more than likely is) Bioware meant this and they knew that we fans are a smart lot and would figure it out. WE arent ones for missing the small details, especially on multiple playthroughs.

But the thing is that most of the points for Indoc are very circumstantial and depend on the fact the Bioware knew what they were doing. I for one wish the theory is true too, but I'm not going to blindly refuse to accept evidence that may disprove it just so I can cling to false hope.

The things that point away from it are circumstantial, too. None of us are right. Speculation for everyone.

I wasn't trying to state that this thread is the one with the evidence. Just that I will continue to search for evidence till I can find some for either side - till then im on the fence, leaning towards the side that gives me hope.

[Slaiyer]

Blackmind1 wrote...

Slaiyer wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

hex23 wrote...

I tried to read this thread but all I see is a bunch of people tossing around the term "straw man" while obviously having no idea what it means.

Yeah, they're 4chan users. They throw it around all over the Mass Effect generals, too.

I've only seen 1-2 people in this thread use the term so far (of which I have not). Please don't generalize.

When did I generalise? I didn't say "EVERYONE IS FROM 4CHAN!" 

You're a little touchy, aren't you? 

Sorry if I came of as such. And sorry also for being some what hypocritical in generalizing your statement.

[Iron Spetsnaz]

Anyone want some?

[Apollo-XL5]

DrFrankenseuss wrote...

Here's an argument based in reality. If Bioware makes 3.5 MILLION physical copies of a game were shipped at $60 each, and they also expect origin sales and first day DLC to sell, that's over $200 frigging million dollars of gross income that EA would expect to be coming back. If Bioware decided to release and incomplete game (ie Indoctrination Theory) and expected to finish the story as a dlc, that would be a completely CRAZY thing to do. The End. Why is there even a debate about this anymore?

IF a game needs dlc after it comes out then the devs are basically saying that product wasnt finished.  Do you say that MMORGs are finished products, becuase I notice that they get new material every few months.

[Thomas Andresen]

Blackmind1 wrote...

Slaiyer wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

I still cant believe there are people trying to debunk the one theory that has nearly 100% accuracy for the endings to make sense. All the evidence is there in the trilogy, you just need to look between the lines for it. I bet that(if the IT is true, it more than likely is) Bioware meant this and they knew that we fans are a smart lot and would figure it out. WE arent ones for missing the small details, especially on multiple playthroughs.

But the thing is that most of the points for Indoc are very circumstantial and depend on the fact the Bioware knew what they were doing. I for one wish the theory is true too, but I'm not going to blindly refuse to accept evidence that may disprove it just so I can cling to false hope.

The things that point away from it are circumstantial, too. None of us are right. Speculation for everyone.

You've seen "Final Hours of Mass Effect 3", haven't you?