463 réponses à ce sujet

[Solmanian]

I usually try not to be mean to community members. But since he basically called the sane part of the community morons, I don't feel that bad just saying it bluntly: OP, you're a moron, and a rude one at that. The IT has no real basis in reality and its foundations are laid one what could be a simple easter egg (the mashed bodies of ME1 ashly&kaiden). The human marking in the chamber are human because shepard is standing inside the crucible, a human built construct, the idea of such a chamber existing in the citadel, is imposssible since the crucible was designed a long long time the citadel was built, so there is no reason for the citadel to have a compatible chamber to use the catalyst...

[DangerDavidson]

Solmanian wrote...

I usually try not to be mean to community members. But since he basically called the sane part of the community morons, I don't feel that bad just saying it bluntly: OP, you're a moron, and a rude one at that. The IT has no real basis in reality and its foundations are laid one what could be a simple easter egg (the mashed bodies of ME1 ashly&kaiden). The human marking in the chamber are human because shepard is standing inside the crucible, a human built construct, the idea of such a chamber existing in the citadel, is imposssible since the crucible was designed a long long time the citadel was built, so there is no reason for the citadel to have a compatible chamber to use the catalyst...

This is absolutely wrong. Shepard is not standing inside the crucible. If you look up, you can see the crucible hovering above you in its entirety. Shepard is standing on the dream-citadel-crucible-adapter that was already on the dream-citadel. This is apparent from the joining cinematic. He was lifted to the site from an interior dream-citadel control room.

Shepard is on the dream-citadel. That is undisputible from the visual evidence, sorry.

[agathokakological]

Gravity is still a theory.

But yeah, I've refrained from calling it a theory for the past few days, and refer to it only as "indoctrination."

[Hashbeth]

*Sigh* Good sir. I appreciate your Candor. But as a fellow IT subscriber, I must say that this is not the way to go about this issue.

The IT has a lot of information that supports it, that is true. However, that does not give it status as fact.

The IT will remain a theory until the ending is addressed, at length, by BioWare. I hope this occurs soon (at PAX probably). However, until then the IT theory will remain, a theory.

You could speculate that someone wanted the theory put in (and thus added these clues), if you'd like, or you could buy into the Indoctrination Conspiracy. However, to call it fact is preemptive, as much as I would prefer it to be true.

[DangerDavidson]

agathokakological wrote...

Gravity is still a theory.

But yeah, I've refrained from calling it a theory for the past few days, and refer to it only as "indoctrination."

Hate the colloquial use of theory. Need new distinction. I propose "Framework"

The Framework Of Evolution
The Framework of Quantum Electrodynamics.

[GBGriffin]

DangerDavidson wrote...


Well, while there is no rigorous proof, I'd say its a near certainty at this point. 

This argument is in the realm of "well, we can't really explain fluid dynamics", vs  "we have solutions to ~100 sets of NS-equations but we can't prove existance and smoothness in the general case".

Funny. You made it sound definitive in the OP.

Also, no, no it isn't. What you're trying to do is discern the intent of a writing and development team, one that they decided on when the game launched and one that they are now offering to fix, albeit probably slightly. You aren't speculating over science, as much fun as you might think that is. You are speculating over intent, and only they know what there intent was/is.

BioWare is holding all the cards. What people on both sides are doing, even after BioWare let us have a sneak peek at them, is speculating over the intent of a creative process. Only they know what they intended. There actually is a fact, a truth, buried with BioWare.

To rephrase, only BioWare knows what BioWare intended, and all efforts to prove what they intended are pretty moot by this point because, again, only they know what they intended, and they've said they'll tell us in April. These threads serve no purpose other than to get people riled up and speculating hardcore at what this truth could be.

Modifié par GBGriffin, 25 mars 2012 - 11:12 .

[DangerDavidson]

Hashbeth wrote...

*Sigh* Good sir. I appreciate your Candor. But as a fellow IT subscriber, I must say that this is not the way to go about this issue.

The IT has a lot of information that supports it, that is true. However, that does not give it status as fact.

The IT will remain a theory until the ending is addressed, at length, by BioWare. I hope this occurs soon (at PAX probably). However, until then the IT theory will remain, a theory.

You could speculate that someone wanted the theory put in (and thus added these clues), if you'd like, or you could buy into the Indoctrination Conspiracy. However, to call it fact is preemptive, as much as I would prefer it to be true.

The only absolute fact I am presenting is:

IT fits the plot very well and it is unlikely that BioWare went insane.

I like to think this discussion at least makes the run-of-the-mill "I HATE BIOWARE" people to second guess themselves.

[darkshadow136]

The IT theory is just fans grasping at straws to try to make sense of a horrible ending, if Bioware went with it, it would be a cheap cop-out in my opinion. Bioware needs to re-write the ending entirely, not try to patch it with Bond o.

If anyone was Indoctrinated it was Bioware being taken control of by EA. Straight forward evidence, before EA Bioware created and had passion in their game development. Since EA Bioware went from a nice sit down formal restaurant serving 7 course meals, to a MC Donald's fast food franchise. At least we still have quality game developers like Bethesda, and CDproject.

[DangerDavidson]

GBGriffin wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...


Well, while there is no rigorous proof, I'd say its a near certainty at this point. 

This argument is in the realm of "well, we can't really explain fluid dynamics", vs  "we have solutions to ~100 sets of NS-equations but we can't prove existance and smoothness in the general case".

Funny. You made it sound definitive in the OP.

Also, no, no it isn't. What you're trying to do is discern the intent of a writing and development team, one that they decided on when the game launched and one that they are now offering to fix, albeit probably slightly. You aren't speculating over science, as much fun as you might think that is. You are speculating over intent, and only they know what there intent was/is.

BioWare is holding all the cards. What people on both sides are doing, even after BioWare let us have a sneak peek at them, is speculating over the intent of a creative process. Only they know what they intended. There actually is a fact, a truth, buried with BioWare.

To rephrase, only BioWare knows what BioWare intended, and all efforts to prove what they intended are pretty moot by this point because, again, only they know what they intended, and they've said they'll tell us in April. These threads serve no purpose other than to get people riled up and speculating hardcore at what this truth could be.

Can I not apply one set of speculative tools to another scenario??? I'm not sure why that would be taboo.

[GBGriffin]

DangerDavidson wrote...

The only absolute fact I am presenting is:

IT fits the plot very well and it is unlikely that BioWare went insane.

I like to think this discussion at least makes the run-of-the-mill "I HATE BIOWARE" people to second guess themselves.

How can you have the words "absolute" "fact" AND "unlikely" in the same statement?

[GBGriffin]

DangerDavidson wrote...


Can I not apply one set of speculative tools to another scenario??? I'm not sure why that would be taboo.

In this case, no. The difference is that you're equating naturally occuring phenomenon, over which no one (well, a divine being if you  buy into that) has control over to human intent, something over which they have 100% control over and only they know for certain.

[Cucobr]

sorentoft wrote...

It's a theory because it has no proof.

No.

It's a thoery because BioWare has not yet confirmed. 

The theory has A LOT of proof... basically more than 20 minutes of solid arguments.

Modifié par Cucobr, 25 mars 2012 - 11:15 .

[Qutayba]

agathokakological wrote...

Gravity is still a theory.

But yeah, I've refrained from calling it a theory for the past few days, and refer to it only as "indoctrination."

No. gravity isn't the theory.  The theories are those things that try to explain why gravity works the way it does (attraction of masses, electron fields, string theory, etc.).

Calling Indoctrination a theory isn't a put-down.  I happen to think it's a very strong theory that explains why the ending works the way it does.  It's still just an interpretation, no matter how much evidence you have, because it cannot eliminate completely the other explanations.   It will only stop being a theory when A) BioWare reveals that's what they were doing, BioWare decides that is what they were doing, or C) BioWare says nothing on the subject, and certain players decide to make it their ending, while it remains just a theory for everyone else.

[Gaddmeister]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Well, while there is no rigorous proof, I'd say its a near certainty at this point. 

This argument is in the realm of "well, we can't really explain fluid dynamics", vs  "we have solutions to ~100 sets of NS-equations but we can't prove existance and smoothness in the general case".

I don't think it's fair to compare fluid dynamics to writing. The evidence you're bringing up for your case is in-game evidence. Whether or not the IT is true this evidence of yours is made up by a person, a writer. The fundamental laws of nature don't apply to this evidence.

Either the writer did a good job and fooled the majority of the fans, or the writer messed up and wrote a story full of plot holes. What does this has to do with fluid dynamics? How can you call this near certainty?

[DangerDavidson]

GBGriffin wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

The only absolute fact I am presenting is:

IT fits the plot very well and it is unlikely that BioWare went insane.

I like to think this discussion at least makes the run-of-the-mill "I HATE BIOWARE" people to second guess themselves.

How can you have the words "absolute" "fact" AND "unlikely" in the same statement?

Ok Mr. Straw Man, would you like me to explain?

It is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, via a standard set of deductive logical axioms, (ie, if A = B and, B = C, then C = A, and any other grade-school logic) that:

IT fits the plot very well, (it does)
It is unlikely that a huge successful game studio suddenly went insane. (that is also unlikely). As much as people don't like to admit it, their gripes with BioWare are quite minor over some other similar gripes people had with Activision over MW, (loss of dedicated servers/whatever). Did you not like DA2? Well, admittedly DA2 <<< DAO, but the game was coherent and well animated, as expected. 

herp, also derp.

[DangerDavidson]

Gaddmeister wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Well, while there is no rigorous proof, I'd say its a near certainty at this point. 

This argument is in the realm of "well, we can't really explain fluid dynamics", vs  "we have solutions to ~100 sets of NS-equations but we can't prove existance and smoothness in the general case".

I don't think it's fair to compare fluid dynamics to writing. The evidence you're bringing up for your case is in-game evidence. Whether or not the IT is true this evidence of yours is made up by a person, a writer. The fundamental laws of nature don't apply to this evidence.

Either the writer did a good job and fooled the majority of the fans, or the writer messed up and wrote a story full of plot holes. What does this has to do with fluid dynamics? How can you call this near certainty?

All I meant by that analogy is:

Lets pretend that ME3 is an experiment to verify IT.

Is there overwhelming evidence for IT in ME3? Yes.

Therefore, I can state that it is highly likely that this is not just a THEORY IN THE COLLOQUIAL SENSE, (again why I hate the word) and likely a good Framework for what is going on. ME3 is a mystery, and I , as well as many other people have presented some decent facts that solve it.

As a scientist, I cringe at this next scentence: The only absolute confirmation that our scientific theories are laws would come from God/Jesus/Ra/Zeus etc.

Some famous physicist once said, (wheeler?) that the only subject that can absolutely prove anything is mathematics.

Modifié par DangerDavidson, 25 mars 2012 - 11:21 .

[Nostradamoose]

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****.

[DangerDavidson]

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****.

I could apply occams razor the other way.

Which is simpler, that a game company tried (and failed, depending on who you ask) to make a thought-provoking conclusion, or that they went ass-backwards into the story development over one of the most successful franchises in recent history.

[GBGriffin]

DangerDavidson wrote...


herp, also derp.

I was actually going to refute this, riiiiiiiiiiiiight up until here, which was unnecessary and, for me, ruined any argument you might have made

Anyways, enjoy your letdown in April.

I'm not sure why I expected this thread or discourse to be balanced...nothing here anymore really is.

[DangerDavidson]

GBGriffin wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...


herp, also derp.

I was actually going to refute this, riiiiiiiiiiiiight up until here, which was unnecessary and, for me, ruined any argument you might have made

Anyways, enjoy your letdown in April.

I'm not sure why I expected this thread or discourse to be balanced...nothing here anymore really is.

So you're refuting my claim with the false accusation that I am refusing to debate with you logically, which is exactly what I have been doing?

Unfortunately for you, I know how to spot people employing common logical fallicies just to get an argument to go their way Mr. Red Herring Straw Man

Also, in response to your earlier quibble, as far as I am concerned, BioWare is in the devine being position, same scenario.

Moving right along indeed....

Modifié par DangerDavidson, 25 mars 2012 - 11:30 .

[The Anti-Saint]

Such carefully crafted vituperation on this thread makes for an amusing read. Carry on!

[Gaddmeister]

DangerDavidson wrote...

Gaddmeister wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Well, while there is no rigorous proof, I'd say its a near certainty at this point. 

This argument is in the realm of "well, we can't really explain fluid dynamics", vs  "we have solutions to ~100 sets of NS-equations but we can't prove existance and smoothness in the general case".

I don't think it's fair to compare fluid dynamics to writing. The evidence you're bringing up for your case is in-game evidence. Whether or not the IT is true this evidence of yours is made up by a person, a writer. The fundamental laws of nature don't apply to this evidence.

Either the writer did a good job and fooled the majority of the fans, or the writer messed up and wrote a story full of plot holes. What does this has to do with fluid dynamics? How can you call this near certainty?

All I meant by that analogy is:

Lets pretend that ME3 is an experiment to verify IT.

Is there overwhelming evidence for IT in ME3? Yes.

Therefore, I can state that it is highly likely that this is not just a THEORY IN THE COLLOQUIAL SENSE, (again why I hate the word) and likely a good Framework for what is going on. ME3 is a mystery, and I , as well as many other people have presented some decent facts that solve it.

As a scientist, I cringe at this next scentence: The only absolute confirmation that our scientific theories are laws would come from God/Jesus/Ra/Zeus etc.

Some famous physicist once said, (wheeler?) that the only subject that can absolutely prove anything is mathematics.

Yes, there is overwhelming evidence for it in ME3. However, ME3 is a story. It's made up. It's not science. It could just boil down to bad writing, simple as that. I understand that you find the IT the more likely explanation, I can accept that. But how can you call yourself a scientist and take the IT as truth without hesitation?

[Bobrzy]

Desteron wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

It's a theory because it has no proof.

Acctually - it's a hypothesis, if we'll look closely.

[Jaze55]

4 hours later people still getting trolled hard. I guess it was a success.

5/10. To hyper in replies makes it seem like you've been doing lines this whole time.

[DangerDavidson]

Gaddmeister wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Gaddmeister wrote...

DangerDavidson wrote...

Well, while there is no rigorous proof, I'd say its a near certainty at this point. 

This argument is in the realm of "well, we can't really explain fluid dynamics", vs  "we have solutions to ~100 sets of NS-equations but we can't prove existance and smoothness in the general case".

I don't think it's fair to compare fluid dynamics to writing. The evidence you're bringing up for your case is in-game evidence. Whether or not the IT is true this evidence of yours is made up by a person, a writer. The fundamental laws of nature don't apply to this evidence.

Either the writer did a good job and fooled the majority of the fans, or the writer messed up and wrote a story full of plot holes. What does this has to do with fluid dynamics? How can you call this near certainty?

All I meant by that analogy is:

Lets pretend that ME3 is an experiment to verify IT.

Is there overwhelming evidence for IT in ME3? Yes.

Therefore, I can state that it is highly likely that this is not just a THEORY IN THE COLLOQUIAL SENSE, (again why I hate the word) and likely a good Framework for what is going on. ME3 is a mystery, and I , as well as many other people have presented some decent facts that solve it.

As a scientist, I cringe at this next scentence: The only absolute confirmation that our scientific theories are laws would come from God/Jesus/Ra/Zeus etc.

Some famous physicist once said, (wheeler?) that the only subject that can absolutely prove anything is mathematics.

Yes, there is overwhelming evidence for it in ME3. However, ME3 is a story. It's made up. It's not science. It could just boil down to bad writing, simple as that. I understand that you find the IT the more likely explanation, I can accept that. But how can you call yourself a scientist and take the IT as truth without hesitation?

I don't take it to be the ABSOLUTE Truth, In fact. if you reference my earlier quote, nothing really is.

I do believe, based on the presented evidence,  IT to be correct to a very high confidence interval, if you will, and therefore I plan to use it as a basis for everyday decisions! You should too : )