463 réponses à ce sujet

[Jacobcus]

N-Seven wrote...

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

I want to shake your hand Sir 
ಠᴥಠ 

[DangerDavidson]

wheelierdan wrote...

you cant use the word physical evidence that somethign is true unless you can somwehow touch it. you really need to think aobut the words you use.

what you have is called circumstantial evidence.

stephen hawking is in a wheelchair. this is a fact.
I am in a wheelchair, this is also a fact.
You could suggest that i am perhaps stephen hawking based on this information.
aka you have circumstantial evidence that i am stephen hawking.

however i am not stephen hawking despite this evidence.

do you understand?

But from that scenario, were I to be completely free of Bias, I would freely admit that there are mountains of possible facts that could prove you are not stephen hawking. I feel like the ratio of specific characteristics you could come up with to convice me you are stephen hawking would be significantly less than the opposite.

Given that that is the case, after a LOT of evidence, its quite likely that I would be less inclined to believe that you are, in fact, stephen hawking.

However, if I had NO previous BIAS, (basically, I am a child), if the only piece of evidence at that time is that you are stephen hawking because wheelchair, then for that brief moment, you ARE stephen hawking.

Modifié par DangerDavidson, 26 mars 2012 - 02:27 .

[KingDan97]

DangerDavidson wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Jacobcus wrote...

When the Co-founder of Bioware announces a world-wide official statement that this is the ending they intended. That is not evidence that is pure fact.

When the Co-founder of Bioware announces a world-wide official statement that there will be a global event to make up for a previous even that ended up being a middle finger to half of the world. That is not evidence... oh wait... that didn't work out so well. Trolololol.

No one is claiming Indoctrination isn't something they are currently considering, but there is a significant number of overwhelming statements from multiple Bioware developer sources collected both before and after ME3 launched that both state outright and then go on to explain why we got the ending we did as we got it, directly tearing down one of the common points of indoctrinators(Lack of investigate options) in the process.

They might at this point choose to use indoctrination theory as a mulligan for the ending as it stands, it's been both explicitly and implicitly stated by both the lead writer and the executive producer that this was what they made, this is how they meant to make it and they're only working on clarifying it now due to fan outcry.

So the second paragraph is 100% true. They are and have been working on clarifying it.  I have not seen one DETAILED, CONCRETE explanation of the current ending from any official bioware source. As stated previously, conjectures about the completness of the game by developers do not disprove IT. They only assert that what we got is what we were meant to get.

I am going to directly transscribe word for word what is said as I listen to it from Mac Walters in regards to the ending and the mystery surrounding it from the Final Hours of Mass Effect 3, 

"Originally with the catalyst, the child you talk to in the end of the game. I had written that much more in the guise of what you would expect the you know an investigative conversation. Where you know he has something that he tells you but then you get to ask a ton of questions and get all your questions answered. And Casey and I talked about it and we were like, "Nope. I think it should just be, you know, keep it high level. Give you the details that you need to know, but don't get into all the, the stuff that you don't need to know." You know, like I was talking about how long have they been reaping, and it's like, you don't need to know that to know the answers to the Mass Effect universe and we just, we intentionally left those out."


THERE YOU GO. I hope you're happy because it was excruciatingly annoying to need to do that. The only thing I changed was when he stumbled over his words, because I didn't want to write "umm, and ya know uhh" after every sentence.

Detailed, conclusive and if you want to see it for yourself just buy the goddamned app.

Modifié par KingDan97, 26 mars 2012 - 02:28 .

[N-Seven]

Jacobcus wrote...

N-Seven wrote...

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

I want to shake your hand Sir 
ಠᴥಠ 

Shaken, sir.

[FatalX7.0]

sorentoft wrote...

It's a theory because it has no proof.

And because it's indoctrination, it cannot be proven nor debunked.

[wheelierdan]

you are correct. but understand in your indoctrination theory you are asserting things to be facts, that are circumstantial evidences. aka they point to indoctrination ONLY if you keep yourself to a narrow set of facts, just like i did to prove i was stephen hawking.

you suggested if you add in the rest of the facts, it would prove i wasnt stephen hawking, which is correct. however you need to do the same thing for the indoctrination theory. Rather then settle the theory on a few sets of circumstantial evidence you need to look at all the evidence. not just the ones that support the theory.

[DangerDavidson]

KingDan97 wrote...

"Originally with the catalyst, the child you talk to in the end of the game. I had written that much more in the guise of what you would expect the you know an investigative conversation. Where you know he has something that he tells you but then you get to ask a ton of questions and get all your questions answered. And Casey and I talked about it and we were like, "Nope. I think it should just be, you know, keep it high level. Give you the details that you need to know, but don't get into all the, the stuff that you don't need to know. You know, like I was talking about how long have they been reaping, and it's like, you don't need to know that to know the answers to the Mass Effect universe and we just, we intentionally left those out."


THERE YOU GO. I hope you're happy because it was excruciatingly annoying to need to do that. The only thing I changed was when he stumbled over his words, because I didn't want to write "umm, and ya know uhh" after every sentence.

Detailed, conclusive and if you want to see it for yourself just buy the goddamned app.

I've seen that before. I specifically stated that I've seen that before. 

I'd like you to just clear your head and then read that thing again. The only thing they are confirming there is that they didn't want to get too "explain-y" with that scene and that they condensed it for WHATEVER reason. Again, this is another example of the, i think, HILAROUS response from bioware where they have repeatedly told us a large body of information that amounts to NOTHING. lol.

[N-Seven]

KingDan97 wrote...

"Originally with the catalyst, the child you talk to in the end of the game. I had written that much more in the guise of what you would expect the you know an investigative conversation. Where you know he has something that he tells you but then you get to ask a ton of questions and get all your questions answered. And Casey and I talked about it and we were like, "Nope. I think it should just be, you know, keep it high level. Give you the details that you need to know, but don't get into all the, the stuff that you don't need to know. You know, like I was talking about how long have they been reaping, and it's like, you don't need to know that to know the answers to the Mass Effect universe and we just, we intentionally left those out."


THERE YOU GO. I hope you're happy because it was excruciatingly annoying to need to do that. The only thing I changed was when he stumbled over his words, because I didn't want to write "umm, and ya know uhh" after every sentence.

Detailed, conclusive and if you want to see it for yourself just buy the goddamned app.

Did he just say this was the end of the game?  Like there wasn't another mission to get inside the Citadel?

[Cody211282]

Your right it's not a theory.


It's a friken Hypothesis!

[Well]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Well wrote...

I just wanted to make this comment.It is on the OP initial comment.

"Can we stop calling IT a theory? Its so blatantly obvious what is going on at this point. We need to bin the people saying:

- I hate the ending it doesnt make sense
- The ending is fine I like it they way it is

into the following category:

- I didn't get that Shepard is being indoctrinated."



So I going to put you in a category.

Those that can't see beyond their own nose.

I don't understand why people are allowed different views.I will minimize their opinions since it conflicts with mine.Consensus has been reached.I have agree with myself on numerous times.

Sorry Well, I think at this point, it goes beyond just simple opinion. Mostly because of the overwhelming amount of physical evidence. If you read this thread in its entirety, the quality/coherence of evidence against IT pales in comparison to the opposite. 

There is a threshold where certain opinions no longer become acceptable in society, e.g., creationism.

I'll just take that as another opinion on the internet.It has no meaning.It is just there.Since some folks think they can dictate to others when in reality it  has no value.It is meaningless rhetoric which some use.You go ahead and put it out there.

[DangerDavidson]

wheelierdan wrote...

you are correct. but understand in your indoctrination theory you are asserting things to be facts, that are circumstantial evidences. aka they point to indoctrination ONLY if you keep yourself to a narrow set of facts, just like i did to prove i was stephen hawking.

you suggested if you add in the rest of the facts, it would prove i wasnt stephen hawking, which is correct. however you need to do the same thing for the indoctrination theory. Rather then settle the theory on a few sets of circumstantial evidence you need to look at all the evidence. not just the ones that support the theory.

But, sir! SIR!  If you read my replies. I did this many times, in fact I pointed to my previous confusion about the necessity of the crashed planet/grandfather scene and how I could only explain it as a further distraction reinforcing the troll. I have taken evidence from both sides into account. Unbiased opinion here, sir, unbiased opinion.

[DangerDavidson]

wheelierdan wrote...

you are correct. but understand in your indoctrination theory you are asserting things to be facts, that are circumstantial evidences. aka they point to indoctrination ONLY if you keep yourself to a narrow set of facts, just like i did to prove i was stephen hawking.

you suggested if you add in the rest of the facts, it would prove i wasnt stephen hawking, which is correct. however you need to do the same thing for the indoctrination theory. Rather then settle the theory on a few sets of circumstantial evidence you need to look at all the evidence. not just the ones that support the theory.

But SIR! I did, in fact, take them in. In fact if you read this thread, I went on to explain how one thing I am not sure about is the entire crashed-planet/grandfather scene. I can only explain that at the moment as a further distraction/troll-reinforcement.

Unbiased opinion here, sir, unbiased opinion.

[Jacobcus]

Let's take a break from our argument, lets have a tea party ಠᴥಠ

[Holding5Aces]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Holding5Aces wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Holding5Aces wrote...

I do believe there are enough clues in the game to conclude that indoctrination was, at one point, a part of the story and was largely removed from the ending.

It seems like the indoctrination theme ended with TIM's scene.

You don't think it continued into the RBG endings? Interesting. Just curious, what makes you think its a falsity up until TIM and then real after?

I believe IF the indoctination theme continued with starchild, the writers would have eventually revealed Harbinger's influence, depending on the actions you chose.

Having the ability to resist indoctrination and destroy the Reapers never came to being in the end-game sequences.  If the destroy ending was the "true" ending to resist indoctrination, why are all three endings largely the same?  If there was an attempt being carried out, you would expect to see a sequence to confirm that indoctrination failed.

Either Shepard was fully indoctrinated and all three choices are simply an illusion, or indoctrination itself must have ended with TIM.  
 
If the choices were an illusion, the Reapers would have won, and the legend of Shepard would have died as well.  The grandfather and child scene contradicts that possibility.

What do you think of the assertion that that entire spaceship/planet/grandfather sequence is a distraction? You know that the shepard breathing scene exists and that he is all mashed up in concrete after the destroy ending. I feel like that was the manifestation of his resistance, that he recovered, his allies held off harbinger, and now he's ready to do some damage, no?

What made the series epic was the fact that you clearly felt the consequences of your actions.  The raw emotion that had driven the rest of the game is how this series should have ended.

The endings were 95% the same.  I believe that the Shepard breathing scene is only a scene in the destroy scenario is because it's the only option where you don't clearly see Shepard die.  You see the explosion, and if you had enough ems, you get a little something extra afterwards.  You see Shepard survive (perhaps), and just like the rest of the ending, it doesn't make sense at all.

[Dreogan]

Welcome to the Holy Church of Indoctrination. Please leave reason at the door, take a seat in the pew of apophenia, and listen to this day's sermon on confirmation bias.

Also, be sure to evangelize the work of the Good Storytellers.

Modifié par Dreogan, 26 mars 2012 - 02:36 .

[DangerDavidson]

Holding5Aces wrote...


What made the series epic was the fact that you clearly felt the consequences of your actions.  The raw emotion that had driven the rest of the game is how this series should have ended.

The endings were 95% the same.  I believe that the Shepard breathing scene is only a scene in the destroy scenario is because it's the only option where you don't clearly see Shepard die.  You see the explosion, and if you had enough ems, you get a little something extra afterwards.  You see Shepard survive (perhaps), and just like the rest of the ending, it doesn't make sense at all.

Oh OH, riddle me this then:  What does EMS/AMS have to do with Shepard surviving an explosion? its completely plausible that it has a lot to do with distracting Harbinger while he recovers from indoc. But surviving the explosion? Seems like an arbitrary number in that case. Just another thing to think aboot.

[KingDan97]

DangerDavidson wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

"Originally with the catalyst, the child you talk to in the end of the game. I had written that much more in the guise of what you would expect the you know an investigative conversation. Where you know he has something that he tells you but then you get to ask a ton of questions and get all your questions answered. And Casey and I talked about it and we were like, "Nope. I think it should just be, you know, keep it high level. Give you the details that you need to know, but don't get into all the, the stuff that you don't need to know. You know, like I was talking about how long have they been reaping, and it's like, you don't need to know that to know the answers to the Mass Effect universe and we just, we intentionally left those out."


THERE YOU GO. I hope you're happy because it was excruciatingly annoying to need to do that. The only thing I changed was when he stumbled over his words, because I didn't want to write "umm, and ya know uhh" after every sentence.

Detailed, conclusive and if you want to see it for yourself just buy the goddamned app.

I've seen that before. I specifically stated that I've seen that before. 

I'd like you to just clear your head and then read that thing again. The only thing they are confirming there is that they didn't want to get too "explain-y" with that scene and that they condensed it for WHATEVER reason. Again, this is another example of the, i think, HILAROUS response from bioware where they have repeatedly told us a large body of information that amounts to NOTHING. lol.

You. Clearly have. No comprehension of your own arguements.

The backbone of the entire indoctrination theory is that Shepard doesn't get to protest it, that it's not "something Shep would do." This tears down the very notion that there even the slightest inclination of intentionally making the player question why they couldn't ask those things. They all thought you'd just buy it.

[DangerDavidson]

Dreogan wrote...

Welcome to the Holy Church of Indoctrination. Please leave reason at the door, take a seat in the pew of apophenia, and listen to this day's sermon on confirmation bias.

Oh god, its people like you again. No confirmation bias here thank you!

[DangerDavidson]

KingDan97 wrote...

]You. Clearly have. No comprehension of your own arguements.

The backbone of the entire indoctrination theory is that Shepard doesn't get to protest it, that it's not "something Shep would do." This tears down the very notion that there even the slightest inclination of intentionally making the player question why they couldn't ask those things. They all thought you'd just buy it.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure how that follows. Shepard absolutely gets to protest it. It's called the Destroy ending. Whether he survives the protest is determined  by your AMS and if your allies could hold off harbinger long enough while he did it!

[Dreogan]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Welcome to the Holy Church of Indoctrination. Please leave reason at the door, take a seat in the pew of apophenia, and listen to this day's sermon on confirmation bias.

Oh god, its people like you again. No confirmation bias here thank you!

Yes, yes, that's why we call it confirmation bias.

I'd say I'll sit back and watch the house of cards tumble with a twinge of schadenfreude once Bioware does fix their ending-- but I doubt even a flat denial from the Good Storytellers would cause the Church to discard its doctrine.

Modifié par Dreogan, 26 mars 2012 - 02:41 .

[Holding5Aces]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Holding5Aces wrote...


What made the series epic was the fact that you clearly felt the consequences of your actions.  The raw emotion that had driven the rest of the game is how this series should have ended.

The endings were 95% the same.  I believe that the Shepard breathing scene is only a scene in the destroy scenario is because it's the only option where you don't clearly see Shepard die.  You see the explosion, and if you had enough ems, you get a little something extra afterwards.  You see Shepard survive (perhaps), and just like the rest of the ending, it doesn't make sense at all.

Oh OH, riddle me this then:  What does EMS/AMS have to do with Shepard surviving an explosion? its completely plausible that it has a lot to do with distracting Harbinger while he recovers from indoc. But surviving the explosion? Seems like an arbitrary number in that case. Just another thing to think aboot.

Or it's a cheap excuse for you to play multiplayer and get your readiness higher, so you get a 5 second clip of a banged up Shepard taking a breath.

[FemmeShep]

OP is a troll guys, hasn't anyone realized this yet.

*exits thread*

[DangerDavidson]

Dreogan wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

Welcome to the Holy Church of Indoctrination. Please leave reason at the door, take a seat in the pew of apophenia, and listen to this day's sermon on confirmation bias.

Oh god, its people like you again. No confirmation bias here thank you!

I'd say I'll sit back and watch the house of cards tumble with a twinge of schadenfreude once Bioware does fix their ending-- but I highly doubt even a flat denial from the Good Storytellers would cause the Church to discard its doctrine.

Absolutely it would! Clearly when they release an official addendum I will react either one way ( I KNEW IT, **** YEAH) or the other, (OH...OK?? I GUESS.....).
After this point any and all speculation will become useless and redundant. Until then, lets debate : )! 

[KingDan97]

DangerDavidson wrote...

KingDan97 wrote...

You. Clearly have. No comprehension of your own arguements.

The backbone of the entire indoctrination theory is that Shepard doesn't get to protest it, that it's not "something Shep would do." This tears down the very notion that there even the slightest inclination of intentionally making the player question why they couldn't ask those things. They all thought you'd just buy it.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure how that follows. Shepard absolutely gets to protest it. It's called the Destroy ending. Whether he survives the protest is determined  by your AMS and if your allies could hold off harbinger long enough while he did it!

That's not protesting, that's one of the three choices you are presented with. Again, you clearly have no comprehension of the arguements of the indoctrination theory because the entire idea is that you never get to ask the god child any questions on the three choices he presents you with.

You also read very heavily into a game mechanic, this was something that the writers had no input on the implementation of any more than they had input on the gun damage or weapon mods.

[DangerDavidson]

Holding5Aces wrote...


Or it's a cheap excuse for you to play multiplayer and get your readiness higher, so you get a 5 second clip of a banged up Shepard taking a breath.

Hmmm. Maybe, but I'm wondering what the tease would be about if there is no follow up content?