463 réponses à ce sujet

[Holding5Aces]

It really is a testimony to how great this series was to see people simply not come to grips with how badly this game ends.

[Zatou]

 Shut up OP, we're supposed to be speculating. O--of course it's a theory.

"Lots of Speculation from everyone!!"

[Giguelingueling]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

It's funny how the OP genuinly thinks he's right.

Sad thing is, he's not the only one.  Lots of people think that theory is true, and proven. I feel sorry for them. Those are the people who got hit the hardest by the endings, and they're just trying to make sense out of it. It's like trying to make a gourmet meal out of dirt.

-Polite

Yup, most of the time, when someone say they like the ending, if you ask why they will tell you that in reality shepard was indoctrinated. 

[Cucobr]

Nostradamoose wrote...

Oh come on, quit grasping at straws. You guys are indoctrinating yourselves with this theory.

Occam's Razor :

Bioware made a really bad ending, not this indoctrination Bull****.

yeah of course!

Magic Space is awesome! 

[Johcande XX]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Johcande XX wrote...

@Danger

I've read through a majority of the posts in this thread, and I have to say; what's up with all this arguing? Indoctrination has no DEFINITIVE proof for or against, with that being said your OP just seems like trolling to me.

I have seen you say that you are using deductive reasoning and looking for what would be the LOGICAL answers, and doing so led you to IT. The only counter I have is:

Is it logical to take a huge risk that provides zero reward? Bioware has the best sci-fi game franchise under their belt. Their fans are diehards and will buy everything; DLC, graphic novels, clothing, stuffed animals, . . . everything. In other words, they have our money; why risk the integrity of your product just as a massive punk'd on your customers. It makes no sense, and no CEO would greenlight that kinda stuff.

Other media works do have these kinds of twist endings, but they have them in order to garner public interest so as to reach more customers. ME's fanbase is pretty stable, it doesn't seem that a twist ending is going to get a lot more people to buy it who wouldn't otherwise.

Stable fanbase. Guaranteed pre-orders in the millions..

Tell me that that IT doesn't blow your fu@king mind and create one of the most memorable fictional adventures of this century so far?

I'll admit that IT would be a neat idea, where Shepard starts to hallucinate and you get see that struggle when he/she is fighting the effects;  but for an ending, that means that I paid for a story that doesn't have a final chapter.  And I'm not really cool with that.

And more on a personal note, I don't really enjoy twist endings all that much anyway.  Calling ME's end one of the most "memorable fictional adventures of this century"  may be a bit of an over statement.  

[Lexagg]

DangerDavidson wrote...
I do not FAVOR any information.

I see that there is 10000000 points on side A, and 10 points on side B.

This is called "favoring". You might be taking points from your side as evidence even if they are minor or inconclusive, and you might be dismissing points from the other side even though they might be strong.

[DangerDavidson]

Lexagg wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...
I do not FAVOR any information.

I see that there is 10000000 points on side A, and 10 points on side B.

This is called "favoring". You might be taking points from your side as evidence even if they are minor or inconclusive, and you might be dismissing points from the other side even though they might be strong.

But I'm not dismissing them. For example, here is one that I can't get my head around and is quite condusive to disproving IT:

- the entire crashed planet sequence. At this point I can't explain it as anything other than a reinforcement of the troll. I'm not sure why they would spend a lot of time rendering it, (if they did, it could be quite simple to make that in Maya or whatever, I dont know).

However, the VISUAL evidence of IT in game, the LOGICAL sense it makes, and the overall vaguess of official responses, lead me to keep believing that IT is quite likely.

Modifié par DangerDavidson, 26 mars 2012 - 12:13 .

[Nostradamoose]

I can't really quote it for you since then you'd have to buy the damn app to see it.

But eh, might help you

http://social.biowar...10578981-1.html

[DangerDavidson]

I'm going out for ~1hr, I'll be back to keep arguing then! This is fun : )

[hakwea]

DangerDavidson wrote...
(1) didn't see any trees as I was dodging harbinger's beam for the THIRD time. SS?
(2) the option that destroys them really doesn't destroy them, it lets shepard break out of the indoctrination. It is presented as red as historically, red is the renegade option. This is another troll.
(3) That would make sense. Why would we want to see Husk-Shepard controlled by Harbinger and killing everyone. We know what happens via that route already
(4) Nothing, that was some nonsense added in.
(5) Shepard apparently did, via the console after TIM sequence, but it doesn't matter because it was a dream.
(6) What is your point, this is evidence for IT
(7) Red didn't happen, the logic for shepard destroying himself is likely why it was represented as the "red" option because it was so destructive to the reapers. WHo are trying to indoctrinate you.

TL;DR, a lot of the stuff you said supports IT  : /

1)
2) But why would Shepard breaking free of indoctrination be renegarde historically? It also doesn't make sense that they would make the option that allows him to break free from indoctrination be the option that would destroy them if it was real. If they really wanted to indoctrinate them why wouldn't they trick him by having destroy be fake. Which is why its red because its "fake" and "lies" have been associated with renegade far more then "resisting corruption or the right action" has in ME.
3) All the scene shows is shepard laying in rubble and his chest moving once. How can you say that he isn't indoctrinated at that point? You don't automatically become a husk, the IM didn't and he was under reaper control.
4)But it serves no purpose. At that point Shepard would already be indoctrinated or free of reaper control. It isn't nonesense because it was added in after the pivotal act according to the Idoctrination Theory
7)But why wouldn't the reapers trick you? Its in your head, its a "dream". So red to destroy them is actually the door out? Sounds like the reapers aren't all that smart to provide the logical course of action for shepard who wants to stop the reapers actually be the way they don't control him.

And the fact that part of your defense to holes in the indoctrination theory is to call me a troll and say "well you actually prove it" just shows that there really is no point even calling for a discussion on the issue. Because you either can't listen or are unwilling to listen to anything that might disprove the theory. And that points to the biggest problem with the IT theory.

Modifié par hakwea, 26 mars 2012 - 12:20 .

[Jacobcus]

DangerDavidson wrote...

I'm going out for ~1hr, I'll be back to keep arguing then! This is fun : )

I love how you try to act as you are not mad and even try to assume we are after we tell you to calm down. Do not be such a child in the matter, it isn't a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact. The Gaming Industry today is not here for fame, they are here for money, this is a cold hard fact. Whether you want to believe it or not, it is true. Making a incomplete game does not look good on a company. If your...achmm..."theory" was correct they would of announced this before hand. Instead they responded actually protecting their work, showing this is the true ending. The risk is to big and their sales have dropped, dramatically. Not only has their sales and money went down, their ratings have dropped drastically within the few weeks. It doesn't matter how many times you read a book, the ending will always be the same.

[DangerDavidson]

Nostradamoose wrote...

I can't really quote it for you since then you'd have to buy the damn app to see it.

But eh, might help you

http://social.biowar...10578981-1.html

Just quickly, all of the points presented against IT, while valid, can be explained by IT also. He goes into somethings about schizophrenia/mental illness that are not relevant since Reaper Indoctrination is not a real-life disorder O_o. lmao.

I leave you with a nice old saying: "If the shoe fits..."

[DangerDavidson]

hakwea wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...
(1) didn't see any trees as I was dodging harbinger's beam for the THIRD time. SS?
(2) the option that destroys them really doesn't destroy them, it lets shepard break out of the indoctrination. It is presented as red as historically, red is the renegade option. This is another troll.
(3) That would make sense. Why would we want to see Husk-Shepard controlled by Harbinger and killing everyone. We know what happens via that route already
(4) Nothing, that was some nonsense added in.
(5) Shepard apparently did, via the console after TIM sequence, but it doesn't matter because it was a dream.
(6) What is your point, this is evidence for IT
(7) Red didn't happen, the logic for shepard destroying himself is likely why it was represented as the "red" option because it was so destructive to the reapers. WHo are trying to indoctrinate you.

TL;DR, a lot of the stuff you said supports IT  : /

1)
2) But why would Shepard breaking free of indoctrination be renegarde historically? It also doesn't make sense that they would make the option that allows him to break free from indoctrination be the option that would destroy them if it was real. If they really wanted to indoctrinate them why wouldn't they trick him by having destroy be fake. Which is why its red because its "fake" and "lies" have been associated with renegade far more then "resisting corruption or the right action" has in ME.
4)But it serves no purpose. At that point Shepard would already be indoctrinated or free of reaper control. It isn't nonesense because it was added in after the pivotal act according to the Idoctrination Theory
7)But why wouldn't the reapers trick you? Its in your head, its a "dream". So red to destroy them is actually the door out? Sounds like the reapers aren't all that smart to provide the logical course of action for shepard who wants to stop the reapers actually be the way they don't control him.

And the fact that part of your defense to holes in the indoctrination theory is to call me a troll and say "well you actually prove it" just shows that there really is no point even calling for a discussion on the issue. Because you either can't listen or are unwilling to listen to anything that might disprove the theory. And that points to the biggest problem with the IT theory.

The trees in dream-sequence are right next to the conduit, and black/silky/dreamy like from the dream. As you can see from that poorly recieved video (lol 2 dislikes) there are no trees anywhere on THE APPROACH path. The guy went right out of his way to find those. Going to the gymmmm!! BYE  : )

[ahandsomeshark]

Once it finally gets put to rest I really hope all the indoc theory fans get together and sue EA for pain, suffering and mental anguish.

[Nostradamoose]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Nostradamoose wrote...

I can't really quote it for you since then you'd have to buy the damn app to see it.

But eh, might help you

http://social.biowar...10578981-1.html

Just quickly, all of the points presented against IT, while valid, can be explained by IT also. He goes into somethings about schizophrenia/mental illness that are not relevant since Reaper Indoctrination is not a real-life disorder O_o. lmao.

I leave you with a nice old saying: "If the shoe fits..."

Do read the second part that is quoted

[.jpg.exe]

blackangel209 wrote...

This might be the most confusing, disjointed post I've ever read in reference to anything...

And that includes my time on 4chan.

All hail the new QUEEEEEEEEEEEN, or possibly the new cancer depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

[Jadebaby]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Torga_DW wrote...

wow, pass the bong dude. I want a hit of what you're smoking.

And some nachos.

What the hell are you trying to say?

And don't forget my sour cream and guacamole!

[Lethys1]

Okay, so let's assume you're right.  Then the ending has not been shown yet, the game is being sold with an ending for extra DLC dollars, everything past Harbinger's beam can freely be retconned, and the ending dialogue box is a lie for now.  Basically it's convenient, except that BioWare announced already that they're keeping the endings.

It's a fun theory but the idea that it has validity is wrong, and that will be proven.  BioWare wouldn't have been so surprised by backlash if the theory were a result of real writing and not just poor writing.

Ever hear of the Pink Floyd version of The Wizard of Oz?  Stranger things have happened.

[kaisterbahn]

A lot of people in this thread are talking about things way over their heads. Most that are attempting to 'disprove' IT have either not read what it is or considered the implications, or are simply just stupid. Most of you clamoring that the idea has been debunked have either never taken a logic course, or have passed with minimal requirements met. It IS fact that the idea HAS NOT been debunked, as the parameters for debunking have not been met. Let me hold your hand for a second:

For the indoctrination hypothesis to proven to be true, it must be addressed directly by BW by statements or further content (which it has not.)
For the the indoctrination hypothesis to be proven to be false, the same parameters must be met by conveying the opposite.

If it is proven false, it confirms the ****ty writer hypothesis. Simple as that.

You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. See? Simple stuff.

[ahandsomeshark]

kaisterbahn wrote...

A lot of people in this thread are talking about things way over their heads. Most that are attempting to 'disprove' IT have either not read what it is or considered the implications, or are simply just stupid. Most of you clamoring that the idea has been debunked have either never taken a logic course, or have passed with minimal requirements met. It IS fact that the idea HAS NOT been debunked, as the parameters for debunking have not been met. Let me hold your hand for a second:

For the indoctrination hypothesis to proven to be true, it must be addressed directly by BW by statements or further content (which it has not.)
For the the indoctrination hypothesis to be proven to be false, the same parameters must be met by conveying the opposite.

If it is proven false, it confirms the ****ty writer hypothesis. Simple as that.

You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. See? Simple stuff.

I think most people are responding to OP's assertion that it's not a theory anymore that it's true. 

[kaisterbahn]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

kaisterbahn wrote...

A lot of people in this thread are talking about things way over their heads. Most that are attempting to 'disprove' IT have either not read what it is or considered the implications, or are simply just stupid. Most of you clamoring that the idea has been debunked have either never taken a logic course, or have passed with minimal requirements met. It IS fact that the idea HAS NOT been debunked, as the parameters for debunking have not been met. Let me hold your hand for a second:

For the indoctrination hypothesis to proven to be true, it must be addressed directly by BW by statements or further content (which it has not.)
For the the indoctrination hypothesis to be proven to be false, the same parameters must be met by conveying the opposite.

If it is proven false, it confirms the ****ty writer hypothesis. Simple as that.

You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. See? Simple stuff.

I think most people are responding to OP's assertion that it's not a theory anymore that it's true. 

If you go back and read the thread, you'd know there are plenty that are arguing demonstrably false ideas.

[Jacobcus]

 I believe everyone here that believe's in IT is suffering from stage 3.

[Nostradamoose]

kaisterbahn wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

kaisterbahn wrote...

A lot of people in this thread are talking about things way over their heads. Most that are attempting to 'disprove' IT have either not read what it is or considered the implications, or are simply just stupid. Most of you clamoring that the idea has been debunked have either never taken a logic course, or have passed with minimal requirements met. It IS fact that the idea HAS NOT been debunked, as the parameters for debunking have not been met. Let me hold your hand for a second:

For the indoctrination hypothesis to proven to be true, it must be addressed directly by BW by statements or further content (which it has not.)
For the the indoctrination hypothesis to be proven to be false, the same parameters must be met by conveying the opposite.

If it is proven false, it confirms the ****ty writer hypothesis. Simple as that.

You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. See? Simple stuff.

I think most people are responding to OP's assertion that it's not a theory anymore that it's true. 

If you go back and read the thread, you'd know there are plenty that are arguing demonstrably false ideas.

What I just posted about the ending as IT being debunked was to answer OP's statement that it's not a theory anymore, that it's real.


Now, no need to be so ****ing condescending...

[hakwea]

DangerDavidson wrote...
The trees in dream-sequence are right next to the conduit, and black/silky/dreamy like from the dream. As you can see from that poorly recieved video (lol 2 dislikes) there are no trees anywhere on THE APPROACH path. The guy went right out of his way to find those. Going to the gymmmm!! BYE  : )

So tell me then what was the symbolism of adding two destroyed tanks on either side of shepard? What were the reapers trying to accomplish there? Cause dream tanks are so "I'm gonna control you". Wouldn't the fact that there is no gunship wreckage point out to shepard that its not real? Cause one was shot down when you charge.

Why wouldn't reaper forces, or harbringer, just kill Shepard? Instead the try to indoctrinate him? What purpose would that server really serve them? Again how do you know that shepard breathing at the end wasn't just him coming back to life as a indoctrinated servant?

It just doesn't stand to reason that after all the effort but into trying to kill shepard. After all the effort of trying to complete the cycle and cull sentient life that the Reapers don't just kill shepard. As long as he is alive and that close to the beam, if it was all a dream, then he is liability. Because he could still open the Citadel.

And it still doesn't explain why the reapers would create a happy ending for the Normandy and its crew when shepard breaks free or is indoctrinated. Still doesn't explain why the Reapers would show the Mass Relays exploding or whatever that "color coded energy wave" was. If the Reapers didn't add that stuff then why did the writers? Why would the add something in that never happened when its very existence confirms that it did happen.

[kaisterbahn]

Nostradamoose wrote...

kaisterbahn wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

kaisterbahn wrote...

A lot of people in this thread are talking about things way over their heads. Most that are attempting to 'disprove' IT have either not read what it is or considered the implications, or are simply just stupid. Most of you clamoring that the idea has been debunked have either never taken a logic course, or have passed with minimal requirements met. It IS fact that the idea HAS NOT been debunked, as the parameters for debunking have not been met. Let me hold your hand for a second:

For the indoctrination hypothesis to proven to be true, it must be addressed directly by BW by statements or further content (which it has not.)
For the the indoctrination hypothesis to be proven to be false, the same parameters must be met by conveying the opposite.

If it is proven false, it confirms the ****ty writer hypothesis. Simple as that.

You may disagree, but you'd be wrong. See? Simple stuff.

I think most people are responding to OP's assertion that it's not a theory anymore that it's true. 

If you go back and read the thread, you'd know there are plenty that are arguing demonstrably false ideas.

What I just posted about the ending as IT being debunked was to answer OP's statement that it's not a theory anymore, that it's real.


Now, no need to be so ****ing condescending...

If you aren't claiming that the idea is debunked or proven true, then I'm not addressing you.