470 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

phantomdasilva wrote...

The problem with using "arrival" DLC as evidence.

Is that it is an optional DLC that is completed by alliance marine team if you refuse to play it.

If Bioware intended the indoctrination theory. the Arrival DLC would have been compulsory, Everyone would have got knocked out by a reaper tech divice and stayed unconscious for a few days as a set up to being indoctrinated.

You can not have a major plot point be forshadowed by an optional DLC and optional side quest.

The ending still is the same whether you play Arrival or not

Now of course if you using the indoctrination theory as a subjective theory to explain the ending in your personal game that is fine.

Is Liara not the shadow broker in ME3 regardless if you played LotSB? Was that not a major plot point?

EDIT: Gave it a bit more thought, easy to explain IT theory if haven't played Arrival... changed dialogue... instead of "from the artifact on Aratoht" it becomes "from all your encounters with reaper tech"... easy fix.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 31 mars 2012 - 05:44 .

[wheelierdan]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

phantomdasilva wrote...

The problem with using "arrival" DLC as evidence.

Is that it is an optional DLC that is completed by alliance marine team if you refuse to play it.

If Bioware intended the indoctrination theory. the Arrival DLC would have been compulsory, Everyone would have got knocked out by a reaper tech divice and stayed unconscious for a few days as a set up to being indoctrinated.

You can not have a major plot point be forshadowed by an optional DLC and optional side quest.

The ending still is the same whether you play Arrival or not

Now of course if you using the indoctrination theory as a subjective theory to explain the ending in your personal game that is fine.

Is Liara not the shadow broker in ME3 regardless if you played LotSB? Was that not a major plot point?

EDIT: Gave it a bit more thought, easy to explain IT theory if haven't played Arrival... changed dialogue... instead of "from the artifact on Aratoht" it becomes "from all your encounters with reaper tech"... easy fix.

if you dont help her do it she hires a band of mercs who get wiped out in the process but the result is the same.

[Aurvant]

Arrival is canon whether you played it or not. It's why Shepard is received of duty on Earth.

[Jadebaby]

wheelierdan wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

phantomdasilva wrote...

The problem with using "arrival" DLC as evidence.

Is that it is an optional DLC that is completed by alliance marine team if you refuse to play it.

If Bioware intended the indoctrination theory. the Arrival DLC would have been compulsory, Everyone would have got knocked out by a reaper tech divice and stayed unconscious for a few days as a set up to being indoctrinated.

You can not have a major plot point be forshadowed by an optional DLC and optional side quest.

The ending still is the same whether you play Arrival or not

Now of course if you using the indoctrination theory as a subjective theory to explain the ending in your personal game that is fine.

Is Liara not the shadow broker in ME3 regardless if you played LotSB? Was that not a major plot point?

EDIT: Gave it a bit more thought, easy to explain IT theory if haven't played Arrival... changed dialogue... instead of "from the artifact on Aratoht" it becomes "from all your encounters with reaper tech"... easy fix.

if you dont help her do it she hires a band of mercs who get wiped out in the process but the result is the same.

You rebuttal is exactly what I explain in the edit for IT.

Edit; where there's a will there's a way.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 31 mars 2012 - 05:53 .

[Reorte]

I don't really understand the purpose of this thread. There's no absolute proof for the IT but it appears to give fewer inconsistencies than taking everything at face value. It is sadly true that some people appear to take something as the truth because it fits in with how they want things to be rather than how likely they appear to be but IMO that's a side-issue.

[Cody]

Ira Deorum wrote...

crappyjazzy wrote...

When you start with a basic misunderstanding of the word "theory" I'm afraid I can't continue on reading the other 9,999 words.

Plus I'm eating breakfast.

Theories are supposed to be refuted and argued about. And there are people who take the IT theory as fact. Therefore, this article is valid.

You can't ignore something because someone else's idea rustled your jimmies.

The same can be said for the opposition. Such as the op. Of course the IT is a theory(a damn good one tho). Sadly some people do treat it like a fact. Thing is though, this post was directed at everyone. And treated as if it were fact by the op. When it is just speculation like the IT. Which makes him just as bad as the people you speak of.

[Kryptoniangamer]

I personally can not buy into the whole indoctrination theory even if there is some so called supporting evidence to suggest it, because at the same time I feel there are things that do not point to it at all. There are already so many plot holes big enough to fly planes through without adding more to it with indoctrination theory. Bioware screwed the pooch with this game. The endings were not the only bad part of this game, but that is for another topic. IT theory in my opinion is just a way for let down fans to try and rationalize the ending. I do not know if anyone has mentioned this before, but I honestly feel Bioware with the success of Mass Effect has no plans on leaving this game a trilogy. First point, way to many plot holes that need to be resolved. Second, for anyone that watched past the credits, dialogue says the following. Child:Tell me another story about the Shepard. Stargazer: Its getting late but ok, one more story.

That alone gives me hope that Shepards story is not over and that there will be a fourth. If Bioware can fix the issues with the third game, I know die hard fans would be chomping at the bit for a 4th and we all know EA loves the thought of those dollar signs.

[Iucounou]

You know, its quite sad that someone feels the need to write a 10k word essay on why IT is wrong.

I can summarize that essay with just six words. "I think you are all wrong!"

A lot of people claim that the IT proponents are in denial. At least they are pointing at things in the game, elements of the lore and so on to base their theory on.

What they are not doing is saying "The writing was great until the last ten minutes, then it was terrible."

That is the entirety of the argument against IT. "I think differently than you, therefore you are wrong." No reason, no logical assumptions, just "I think..."

No. In fact the problem is you aren't thinking. Be sheep and mindlessly rail against Bioware and others if you want to. Just don't try and glam up your assertions with a thin veneer of pseudo-logic. If you can disprove IT, then do so.

There are people in denial on this forum. I do not think it is the IT people that make up the bulk of them, however.

[Iwillbeback]

Reorte wrote...

I don't really understand the purpose of this thread. There's no absolute proof for the IT but it appears to give fewer inconsistencies than taking everything at face value. It is sadly true that some people appear to take something as the truth because it fits in with how they want things to be rather than how likely they appear to be but IMO that's a side-issue.

It appears to be Indoctrination because all the signs point towards it.
It's not my problem if you can't join the dots, nobody is forcing you to join them.
But that doesn't mean I won't laugh at you.

[Tov01]

Since so many seem unwilling to actually read the opening post, allow me to summarize.

The evidence used to support IT only work if you assume IT is correct, which isn't how evidence works. The evidence can just as easily point to bad writing or some other explanation. The OP then gives several examples of this, which you can read on your own time.

[khankar]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is mint, it has no flaws.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

Neither does denying it make it false.

It's a sad fact that the ending is such as disappointing let down that everyone (including myself) are clamouring for an explanation.

IT is a hope by which to explain the plot hole ridden ending. Either it's true in which case Bioware released a semi-complete game or it's false in which case Bioware messed up badly at the final hurdle

[recentio]

Thanks for a quality read, OP.

I think Indoc is a very interesting example of human psychology at work--far more interesting than the organic vs. synthetic ideas presented for consideration on the face of ME3's ending. For one, I think we are culturally conditioned through popular fiction that outlandish, conspiracy-based explanations are often correct when in reality they are almost always incorrect. It's a disturbingly familiar scattering of reactions based on personality. All of my armchair philosophy will probably offend someone, but it seems to me that folks who generally tend to respond positively to religious, superstitious, and consipiracy notions are more disposed to find Indoc deeply compelling while those who tend to doubt everything until undeniable facts are put forth are more disposed to find Indoc to be nothing more than a comforting delusion.

On a somewhat tangential note, the differences in behavior that result from belief or rejection of Indoc are also an interesting manifestation of Marx's "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

If one dislikes the ending but believes Indoc, then one is happy in spite of their dislike for the ending. There is no drive to object to the ending in frustration because faith dictates that the rapture, er, I mean, Truth DLC is coming soon. Believers become fans who hate the ending yet never says a word against it--a dream come true for BW. They take their soma and ask for more. And Mac Walters has inadvertantly succeeded in his mission to invoke the spirit of Brave New World (see: his brainsorm notes from Final Hours app) with the ending of ME3--quite an impressive feat to project that evocation out of fiction and into the real world, honestly. I must tip my hat to him on that one. He's created a self-pacifying group of dissatisfied players. Amazing.

On the other hand, if one dislikes the ending and rejects Indoc, then there is no solace. The ending is undeniable and begs for some real world explanation for how it all could go so wrong. Was BW rushed? Did Mac and Casey cut themselves off from the rest of the creative team when writing the ending? Did technical difficulties dictate plot points? Did the deadline prevent the full implementation of the ending sequence that BW wanted resulting in a product that even they are not satisfied with? These are all open questions, and living with questions is often a cognitively unpleasant state. The only relief for this fan is to stop caring about ME3 or to (perhaps heatedly) argue with BW over the form of its own creation until the questions are answered or the ending is revised. This angry group is in limbo, waiting for the promised April announcement to soothe their discontent.

EDIT: Personally, I believe the Intoxication Theory. Everything makes sense when Shepard and I are three sheets to the wind...

Modifié par recentio, 31 mars 2012 - 06:24 .

[dreman9999]

Tov01 wrote...

Since so many seem unwilling to actually read the open:wub:ng post, allow me to summarize.

The evidence used to support IT only work if you assume IT is correct, which isn't how evidence works. The evidence can just as easily point to bad writing or some other explanation. The OP then gives several examples of this, which you can read on your own time.

But IT uses facts and events from the games to support it. The bad writing statement just uses speculation.

[Tov01]

dreman9999 wrote...

Tov01 wrote...

Since so many seem unwilling to actually read the opening post, allow me to summarize.

The evidence used to support IT only work if you assume IT is correct, which isn't how evidence works. The evidence can just as easily point to bad writing or some other explanation. The OP then gives several examples of this, which you can read on your own time.

But IT uses facts and events from the games to support it. The bad writing statement just uses speculation.

Could you please give specific example s of both the evidence for IT, and why you think the opponents of IT are only using speculations.

[FS3D]

I really do think people should stop using the phrase "Indoctrination theory"... Already I've seen a number of people use the "just a theory" phrase too often for my liking.

A Theory in scientific methodology is the very opposite of a conjecture, guess-work, or unsupported assertion. It is a framework designed to explain the relevant facts that have been discovered.

Thre Indoctrination "theory" is not a Theory... It is nothing more than an unsupported assertion based on lots of speculation, with a lot of circumstantial evidence that can also be explained by developer game-plan change.

TL;DRL It's not a theory. It's a bunch of unsupported assertions, and will remain that way unless and until BioWare decides to make it canon.

[Diablos2525]

Who really cares, the ending(s) (lol as if there were more than one) sucks anyway. Even if Indoctrination theory is true it should have been implemented and then resolved within the game. No matter what the case is, the ending sucks.

[Foulpancake]

Wow, that has the be the worst thing i have ever read in my entire life. I've never seen such a huge wall of self righteous pompous drivel that basically amounts to yet another of the 10000 threads out there basically saying "we understood the ending, but you didn't because you're stupid"

Not only did you NOT touch on the major points of the Indoctrination theory at all, but you spent 90% of your wall of text explaining how to explain how we don't understand your superior logic. You talk like you're presenting to the Nobel Prize council, these are video game forums chief, using large words and citing references galore only makes you come off as an elitist.

To sum up

Eviscerator03, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Tov01]

Diablos2525 wrote...

Who really cares, the ending(s) (lol as if there were more than one) sucks anyway. Even if Indoctrination theory is true it should have been implemented and then resolved within the game. No matter what the case is, the ending sucks.

Exactly. If IT is true, then it assumes that Bioware deliberately kept the ending out of the game for DLC. We have to ask ourselves, is that any better?

[Tov01]

Foulpancake wrote...

Wow, that has the be the worst thing i have ever read in my entire life. I've never seen such a huge wall of self righteous pompous drivel that basically amounts to yet another of the 10000 threads out there basically saying "we understood the ending, but you didn't because you're stupid"

Not only did you NOT touch on the major points of the Indoctrination theory at all, but you spent 90% of your wall of text explaining how to explain how we don't understand your superior logic. You talk like you're presenting to the Nobel Prize council, these are video game forums chief, using large words and citing references galore only makes you come off as an elitist.

To sum up

Eviscerator03, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Also, if you don't think that the OP thouches on the main points of the IT, could you please tell us what those points are, so we can discuss those?

Modifié par Tov01, 31 mars 2012 - 06:29 .

[Foulpancake]

Tov01 wrote...

Foulpancake wrote...

Wow, that has the be the worst thing i have ever read in my entire life. I've never seen such a huge wall of self righteous pompous drivel that basically amounts to yet another of the 10000 threads out there basically saying "we understood the ending, but you didn't because you're stupid"

Not only did you NOT touch on the major points of the Indoctrination theory at all, but you spent 90% of your wall of text explaining how to explain how we don't understand your superior logic. You talk like you're presenting to the Nobel Prize council, these are video game forums chief, using large words and citing references galore only makes you come off as an elitist.

To sum up

Eviscerator03, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Also, if you don't think that the OP thouches on the main points of the IT, could you please tell us what those points are, so we can discuss those?

It's against my religion to beat dead horses

[STAG IRONHIDE]

I already made a thread, but I'll just repost what I said and bump this one instead...

I think what most fans are upset about, and why the Indoctrination theory doesn't hold up, is because we were told by Bioware to expect something completely different from the ending we were given at Launch. The ending has been argued to death, and at this point it's really just tiresome to go on and on about it, so I just want to leave this post simple and use a quote:

"It's going to make some people extremely happy. It's going to make some
people angry. But that's part of it, right? To invoke the emotion
putting some of these stories to bed will naturally bring up.


He added: "I honestly think the player base is going to be really happy
with the way we've done it. You had a part in it. Every decision you've
made will impact how things go. The player's also the architect of what
happens."


Whether you're happy or angry at the ending, know this: it is an ending.
BioWare will not do a "Lost" and leave fans with more questions than
answers after finishing the game, Gamble promised.


"You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things.
Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to
provide some answers to these people."

The bolded parts are just completely untrue. You gave us a Lost ending, and you know what? That would've been fine and you had all the right to do it since it's YOUR game, but not when you tell us otherwise and we go out and buy your product under false pretenses.

Now I'm not attacking Mike at all, and I hope he could give us a response. I've read his posts and he seems like a decent and honest guy, I'm looking forward to seeing what he has to say at PAX and I hope you can address this...

So from that quote, it is clear that we weren't given what was advertised when we bought the game, and that leads to the big question and title of this post:

Was the DLC prompt at the end telling us we would still get our answers, but that we would just be paying for them? Doesn't that mean that you put out an incomplete game?

[PlumPaul93]

Foulpancake wrote...

Tov01 wrote...

Foulpancake wrote...

Wow, that has the be the worst thing i have ever read in my entire life. I've never seen such a huge wall of self righteous pompous drivel that basically amounts to yet another of the 10000 threads out there basically saying "we understood the ending, but you didn't because you're stupid"

Not only did you NOT touch on the major points of the Indoctrination theory at all, but you spent 90% of your wall of text explaining how to explain how we don't understand your superior logic. You talk like you're presenting to the Nobel Prize council, these are video game forums chief, using large words and citing references galore only makes you come off as an elitist.

To sum up

Eviscerator03, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Also, if you don't think that the OP thouches on the main points of the IT, could you please tell us what those points are, so we can discuss those?

It's against my religion to beat dead horses

nice cop out

[STAG IRONHIDE]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...



nice cop out

He's just following Bioware's example.

[Foulpancake]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Foulpancake wrote...

Tov01 wrote...

Foulpancake wrote...

Wow, that has the be the worst thing i have ever read in my entire life. I've never seen such a huge wall of self righteous pompous drivel that basically amounts to yet another of the 10000 threads out there basically saying "we understood the ending, but you didn't because you're stupid"

Not only did you NOT touch on the major points of the Indoctrination theory at all, but you spent 90% of your wall of text explaining how to explain how we don't understand your superior logic. You talk like you're presenting to the Nobel Prize council, these are video game forums chief, using large words and citing references galore only makes you come off as an elitist.

To sum up

Eviscerator03, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Also, if you don't think that the OP thouches on the main points of the IT, could you please tell us what those points are, so we can discuss those?

It's against my religion to beat dead horses

nice cop out

i thought so thanks

The OP's post is the equivalent of the entire history of evolution to explain why men leave the toilet seat up...

The tone of it was condescending beyond belief, and i'm sorry but its been done and done and done some more. The other threads by a dozen that explain why "IT theory fails" are more than enough, we don't need TS Eliot to come in here to explain your logic in a more wordy and unncessary fashion.

[NAWhisperBlade]

What I don't get is why anyone sits down to write such a long post.

Just keep your mouth shut and wait for the official announcements.