463 réponses à ce sujet

[warrior256]

Sorry, but I will still take a skeptics position regarding the IT theory. I realize that many of you are clinging to this theory in the hopes that it may somehow be the truth, but I feel that there is not enough evidence to support this theory. Most of it is just basic assumptions. That's not to say that I would not want the IT theory to be real as I feel that it would provide closure without forcing Bioware to change the endings. Lets not tear the retake movement apart by having those of us who reject the IT theory seperated into some sort of distinct catagory and insulted. Lets still fight for the ending that we loyal fans deserve.

[Bloodhound66]

I'd like the indoctrination theory to be true, but I don't believe it. If Shepard was fighting off indoctrination at the end, than it would have been made more apparant. After watching the IT, and redoing the end, I can easily see how it makes sense. But the meer fact that I, as well as pretty much everyone else, had to watch a fanmade video on the internet to pick up on it, says to me that IT was never a part of BW plan. They wanted to think that everyone would be happy with a "forced synthesis of all DNA, that is also the final evolutionary step," (totally deafeating Legions dialogue about "each species must find it's own way...") and space magic lights that don't follow the laws of the ME universe.

[DangerDavidson]

Hi Guys! I'm back from the GYM, Ive read some responses and I will address them quickly!

[KingDan97]

Nostradamoose wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

 This is OP and his view on BioWare & the ****ty ending. 

 

That is great...

It really is though isn't it? I even believe that Indoctrination theory(I tefuse to call it "IT", sounds like the same of a club a complete douchebad owns) has some very valid arguments(as well as some very weak ones to be fair), I'm just waiting to see what Bioware is planning, I wouldn't bother claiming anything as fact till then.

[DangerDavidson]

Jacobcus wrote...

kaisterbahn wrote...

You've done nothing. If you weren't a complete idiot, you'd realize this. But you are, so you don't.  You aren't an intelligent person, so stop trying to act like it. It's ugly and unbecoming.

I just love people who join a thread without reading the previous posts.Try not to act like a child, I have posted quotes by Casey and other Bioware employee's disproving your theory. Their is no IT, stop being so childish and reading between lines that don't exist, their has been an official statement where Bioware states this is the ending they wanted.

Sorry Jacobus, no you haven't. We've already addressed why those quotes don't exactly mean what you think they do. Please try again.

[Jacobcus]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Hi Guys! I'm back from the GYM, Ive read some responses and I will address them quickly!

Lol why did you capitalize "gym?" I am sure more then half the people here go to one. Though I am just guesstimating based on how many people are here.

[-Skorpious-]

The indoctrination theory is more than an idea - it is the hope of an entire fanbase. (yes, yes corny statement, I know)

[DangerDavidson]

hakwea wrote...

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.

Yeah I question the addition of two destroyed tanks as well. Again this goes back to the argument that it is a manipulative dream sequence that attempts but slightly fails to retain realistic elements.

An indoctrinated shepard, as stated before, would be an excellent weapon against the already demoralized galactic republic. Or whatever it is lol.

I think that they don't think he's a liability at the moment, because Harbinger is standing right on top of him.

[KingDan97]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Hi Guys! I'm back from the GYM, Ive read some responses and I will address them quickly!

OP writes gym in all caps people, time to pack up he clearly isn't going to hear any logic.(Protip: You put acronyms in all caps, when you shorten a word it's lower case, so unless you just got back from the gyroscopic yodelling monkey, it's gym)

Modifié par KingDan97, 26 mars 2012 - 01:19 .

[DangerDavidson]

KingDan97 wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Megachaz wrote...

You're right. It's not a theory because it's been proven false.

Not even once has it been PROVEN false....

Burden of proof has and will always lie with those in the affirmative position, regardless of how much evidence may lend itself to the theory it can all be torn down with arguments equating to laziness(bad writing, asset reuse, etc.) There is simply no proof, undeniable, immovably strong proof.

Just because it has not been explicitly stated as false does not mean it has implicitly been proven as true.

Sorry I really disagree. I'd argue that the majority of the proof is AGAINST lazy writing, as the inclusion of various visual elements leads credence to the theory, (Framework!!!).

[DangerDavidson]

FemmeShep wrote...

 This is OP and his view on BioWare & the ****ty ending. 

 

I don't know what it is about Alison Brie but I don't find her funny.I liked her on mad men.

[wheelierdan]

every time someone posts how they feel about the end and some IT person posts a a youtube link i instantly think of the "hello" song from the musical. just smacks of a religious person going door to door with religious tracts saying, "have you heard the good news of indoctrination? a savior is coming and his name is DLC."

[Jacobcus]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Jacobcus wrote...

kaisterbahn wrote...

You've done nothing. If you weren't a complete idiot, you'd realize this. But you are, so you don't.  You aren't an intelligent person, so stop trying to act like it. It's ugly and unbecoming.

I just love people who join a thread without reading the previous posts.Try not to act like a child, I have posted quotes by Casey and other Bioware employee's disproving your theory. Their is no IT, stop being so childish and reading between lines that don't exist, their has been an official statement where Bioware states this is the ending they wanted.

Sorry Jacobus, no you haven't. We've already addressed why those quotes don't exactly mean what you think they do. Please try again.

Are you honestly stating that you read something "between" the lines of what they clearly stated? They made a official statement that this is the ending they wanted. Why are you making such childish assumptions about something that has been proven false? Imagine if everyone saw things like you, Joker: Commander Shepard! The Reaper's have destroyed earth! Shepard: No they didn't.

[DangerDavidson]

manjikengo wrote...

I'm pretty certain there are a couple of papers and quotes where Bioware was going to end the game with indoctrination or the possible indoctrination of Shepard but "cut" it because they couldn't figure out the game mechanics right.


Which means the entirety of the game had hints to back this ending choice up. Sadly, if the current ending ISNT an indoctrination attempt by Harbinger, Bioware wasn't able to edit the rest of the story to remove these subtle hints.

I honestly think the LIE is "we cut the indoctrination ending."

Or at least cut it temporarily. I speculate that they had some last minute changes that made it hard to meet the deadline so they decided to split it as, lets face it, a large majority of their fan base would probably take about a month or at least a few weeks to complete the game.

[DangerDavidson]

Jacobcus wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Hi Guys! I'm back from the GYM, Ive read some responses and I will address them quickly!

Lol why did you capitalize "gym?" I am sure more then half the people here go to one. Though I am just guesstimating based on how many people are here.

No idea, typing really fast, just uh..yeah no idea. lol

[DangerDavidson]

KingDan97 wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Hi Guys! I'm back from the GYM, Ive read some responses and I will address them quickly!

OP writes gym in all caps people, time to pack up he clearly isn't going to hear any logic.(Protip: You put acronyms in all caps, when you shorten a word it's lower case, so unless you just got back from the gyroscopic yodelling monkey, it's gym)

accident accident accident :  ). I'm sure MOST of you go to gyms .

[DangerDavidson]

Jacobcus wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Jacobcus wrote...

kaisterbahn wrote...

You've done nothing. If you weren't a complete idiot, you'd realize this. But you are, so you don't.  You aren't an intelligent person, so stop trying to act like it. It's ugly and unbecoming.

I just love people who join a thread without reading the previous posts.Try not to act like a child, I have posted quotes by Casey and other Bioware employee's disproving your theory. Their is no IT, stop being so childish and reading between lines that don't exist, their has been an official statement where Bioware states this is the ending they wanted.

Sorry Jacobus, no you haven't. We've already addressed why those quotes don't exactly mean what you think they do. Please try again.

Are you honestly stating that you read something "between" the lines of what they clearly stated? They made a official statement that this is the ending they wanted. Why are you making such childish assumptions about something that has been proven false? Imagine if everyone saw things like you, Joker: Commander Shepard! The Reaper's have destroyed earth! Shepard: No they didn't.

No I did not read between the lines. I am not arguing that their statements said anything about the deliberateness of whatever plot element. In fact my position is that their statements said NOTHING about the deliberateness of whatever plot element.

[Highlord Heian]

Because that would be stupid. We were promised an ending, a conclusion, closure, answers. Not a vague ending that has no variation, makes no sense, and has to be very loosely interpreted to explain the massive plot holes that plagued what we were given.

It was a bad ending. Not a good ending that "nobody gets". Even if that's the explanation, it's BAD. Poorly put together, badly written, awfully represented, and and completely betrayed the expectations of every player by ignoring all the choices made over three full games.

[KingDan97]

DangerDavidson wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Megachaz wrote...

You're right. It's not a theory because it's been proven false.

Not even once has it been PROVEN false....

Burden of proof has and will always lie with those in the affirmative position, regardless of how much evidence may lend itself to the theory it can all be torn down with arguments equating to laziness(bad writing, asset reuse, etc.) There is simply no proof, undeniable, immovably strong proof.

Just because it has not been explicitly stated as false does not mean it has implicitly been proven as true.

Sorry I really disagree. I'd argue that the majority of the proof is AGAINST lazy writing, as the inclusion of various visual elements leads credence to the theory, (Framework!!!).

It's not something you can disagree with, it's how scientific analysis works. Unless you can provide PROOF that the indoctrination theory is factually quantifiable it cannot be stated as such or you're just working in the same light as those who you tore down for their creationist views in your first post.

They see plenty of proof because there's no specific proof against(remember those quotes you "disproved" by reading against the lines? Yeah, same thing.)

[DangerDavidson]

wheelierdan wrote...



every time someone posts how they feel about the end and some IT person posts a a youtube link i instantly think of the "hello" song from the musical. just smacks of a religious person going door to door with religious tracts saying, "have you heard the good news of indoctrination? a savior is coming and his name is DLC."

Oh god ,I'm not preaching. I'm not saying believe indoctrination is happening FOR SURE. I'm saying it undisputably has credence to it and that people should maybe give it a thought before denouncing bioware.

[DangerDavidson]

KingDan97 wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Megachaz wrote...

You're right. It's not a theory because it's been proven false.

Not even once has it been PROVEN false....

Burden of proof has and will always lie with those in the affirmative position, regardless of how much evidence may lend itself to the theory it can all be torn down with arguments equating to laziness(bad writing, asset reuse, etc.) There is simply no proof, undeniable, immovably strong proof.

Just because it has not been explicitly stated as false does not mean it has implicitly been proven as true.

Sorry I really disagree. I'd argue that the majority of the proof is AGAINST lazy writing, as the inclusion of various visual elements leads credence to the theory, (Framework!!!).

It's not something you can disagree with, it's how scientific analysis works. Unless you can provide PROOF that the indoctrination theory is factually quantifiable it cannot be stated as such or you're just working in the same light as those who you tore down for their creationist views in your first post.

They see plenty of proof because there's no specific proof against(remember those quotes you "disproved" by reading against the lines? Yeah, same thing.)

Sorry but this entire thread is about proof that IT is factually quantifiable. I fail to see what this rebuke is about.

I never read between the lines. In fact it is you that is reading between the lines. My position IS and REMAINS that the devs have said NOTHING concrete about anything. Just a bunch of appeasement and the news that "something is coming"

Modifié par DangerDavidson, 26 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[DangerDavidson]

Highlord Heian wrote...

Because that would be stupid. We were promised an ending, a conclusion, closure, answers. Not a vague ending that has no variation, makes no sense, and has to be very loosely interpreted to explain the massive plot holes that plagued what we were given.

It was a bad ending. Not a good ending that "nobody gets". Even if that's the explanation, it's BAD. Poorly put together, badly written, awfully represented, and and completely betrayed the expectations of every player by ignoring all the choices made over three full games.

I agree that the real ending should have been included. Again I speculate it had something to do with whatever development deadline.

[Jacobcus]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Jacobcus wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Jacobcus wrote...

kaisterbahn wrote...

You've done nothing. If you weren't a complete idiot, you'd realize this. But you are, so you don't.  You aren't an intelligent person, so stop trying to act like it. It's ugly and unbecoming.

I just love people who join a thread without reading the previous posts.Try not to act like a child, I have posted quotes by Casey and other Bioware employee's disproving your theory. Their is no IT, stop being so childish and reading between lines that don't exist, their has been an official statement where Bioware states this is the ending they wanted.

Sorry Jacobus, no you haven't. We've already addressed why those quotes don't exactly mean what you think they do. Please try again.

Are you honestly stating that you read something "between" the lines of what they clearly stated? They made a official statement that this is the ending they wanted. Why are you making such childish assumptions about something that has been proven false? Imagine if everyone saw things like you, Joker: Commander Shepard! The Reaper's have destroyed earth! Shepard: No they didn't.

No I did not read between the lines. I am not arguing that their statements said anything about the deliberateness of whatever plot element. In fact my position is that their statements said NOTHING about the deliberateness of whatever plot element.

Their was an official statement that this is how they intended it to end.... Also RetakeMassEffect3 has been shutdown. So the chances of getting some DLC for closure is probably gone, unless they keep to their word.

[KingDan97]

DangerDavidson wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Megachaz wrote...

You're right. It's not a theory because it's been proven false.

Not even once has it been PROVEN false....

Burden of proof has and will always lie with those in the affirmative position, regardless of how much evidence may lend itself to the theory it can all be torn down with arguments equating to laziness(bad writing, asset reuse, etc.) There is simply no proof, undeniable, immovably strong proof.

Just because it has not been explicitly stated as false does not mean it has implicitly been proven as true.

Sorry I really disagree. I'd argue that the majority of the proof is AGAINST lazy writing, as the inclusion of various visual elements leads credence to the theory, (Framework!!!).

It's not something you can disagree with, it's how scientific analysis works. Unless you can provide PROOF that the indoctrination theory is factually quantifiable it cannot be stated as such or you're just working in the same light as those who you tore down for their creationist views in your first post.

They see plenty of proof because there's no specific proof against(remember those quotes you "disproved" by reading against the lines? Yeah, same thing.)

Sorry but this entire thread is about proof that IT is factually quantifiable. I fail to see what this rebuke is about.

It's not proof it's evidence. Just because you won't acknowledge the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.

[wheelierdan]

im convinced you don't know what a fact is, all any of you really have is a little something we call circumstantial evidence, facts are actual proof.

just because someone matching my description was seen in the area of a murder is not proof i killed someone, its merely circumstantial evidence, there is a difference, please learn this.