470 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

zephyr2025 wrote...

People use words like "theory", "facts", "truth", etc about a piece of fiction is one of the saddest things I've seen on the internet. Can you guys at least be spending this energy on something that's actually real?

It doesn't matter what "evidence" you guys find because at the end of the day it's still just something that's been made up and someone like Casey Hudson can come out and say it's true one day, and then the next day say it's false.

@dreman9999 I don't see how those are facts. We already know what indoctrination is. It doesn't mean that whispers and dreams are only the result of indoctrination. Rain makes you wet, but if you're wet it doesn't mean it rained.

Sheperd knows that indoctrionation is subtle and cause whispers and visions based from comments for People who are indoctrinatred. Sheper is hit by an indoctrination wave that makes him see visions and here whispers...But it goes away...Then he starts having wired dreams fill with wired whispers.

......
How is that not proof? Are you really saying the dreams are a coincidence? Anyone who can put and and 1 together can so this. You drops something you fall, some goes off the side of a wall...they fall...

Indoctrination causes visions and whispers....Shep is hit by an indoctrination wave....You see visionsa and whispers......Then in a Shep has wired dreams and hears wired whispers...Much sound like reapers...
Then in the dirlict reaper you havea guy who talks about reapers invading his dream...
How it not obviou now that it's proof?

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 mars 2012 - 07:40 .

[dreman9999]

Denora wrote...

Impressive post. All evidence for and against IT isn't based on any real facts. We won't know anything solid until an official announcement, and honestly even then I doubt they'll say "yes it's true" or "nope IT is false". We'll have to actually play the ending DLC (whatever it's called or is) to see the truth behind the matter.

Well....there's...
This is the sound of Sheperds dreams.


This is scenes form the dirlict reaper...
http://www.youtube.c...JFRvDUp4#t=690s
http://www.youtube.c...JFRvDUp4#t=235s

This  from bennezia
http://www.youtube.c...jiKYmhJg#t=222s


this is from the crazied salarian.


Note the many comment on whispers.....Also, note that guy on the dirlict reaper commenting on the reapersinvading his dream.And before we go on....

Remeber Shepard too was on the dirlect reaper and has contact with many reaper devices.
And this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5vKMfh6gBk

Remeber what was said about indoctrination...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI1yekAjJls 

........
Then there's.....
http://www.youtube.c...yJo3EzZZk#t=71s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJIQfmWx3dI 

http://www.youtube.c...ZuSHpWwo#t=273s
....
So ya...IT uses facts... 

[thefallen2far]

dreman9999 wrote...

2. Thepistol not over heating is naot a minor issue..It's the main flaw of the gun. If it was a me1 , it would over heat.
3. They cut to black and offscreen, they put on helments, then the cut to black to take it off. It never magicly poops on and off in the game.

You're looking at it from the perception of in the game, plot, but from a development standpoint, If one of the choices at the end required that you shoot a device and it ran out of ammo, then emptying your clip to try and kill the ghost kid means your choice is limited trying the synth ending or the control ending.... I guess that's fine because all the endings were equally bad, but they didn't think they were bad.... they thought each ending was great. 

I feel bad for arguing against you so I'll also add, "why was Anderson there at all?".  If they lost the battle, there would have been no way for Anderson to get to the beam.  Ground generals don't fight wars on the front lines.  They walk through the battle after the day was won.  Generals haven't fought a battle since ....geez.... King Richard the Lionheart.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 31 mars 2012 - 07:47 .

[Ziggeh]

dreman9999 wrote...
So ya...IT uses facts...

Aside from the ones it ignores, but who cares about them?

[Samuel Beckenbach]

@eviserator03 shuuut uuuppp

[thefallen2far]

Ziggeh wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
So ya...IT uses facts...

Aside from the ones it ignores, but who cares about them?

 
If you're going to mention facts that are being ignored try to mention at least one or two of them.  Flipant remarks just make commentary without substance.

[moater boat]

I think it is hilarious that you bring up Occam's razor, then you single out every piece of "evidence" and provide a complex solution for each of them.

Which is more likely?
Major Coates was close enough to see the battle, but far enough away to miss Shepard AND Anderson

AND

Harbinger wasn't leaving the fight, just moving to attack a different group.

AND

Bioware put trees in an area where even the concrete is destroyed "just because"

AND

There are multiple areas that control the citadel arms

AND

Shep just happens to appear a hop skip and a jump away from one of those areas

AND

The citadel just happens to use lightning capacitors like the SB ship even though they appear nowhere else in any game (not to mention the lack of lighting on the citadel.)

AND

the walls in the citadel randomly move around for no reason other than to place Anderson Ahead of Shepard

AND

Shepard never sees the walls move.

AND

Anderson tells Shepard that he is indoctrinated rather than TIM because "he can't turn his head"

AND

The colors for control/destroy weren't switched intentionally, rather TIM is suddenly a paragon, the idea of destroying the reapers, the point of the whole series suddenly goes out the window, and the starchild wasn't lying about the Geth/EDI

AND

Reaper tech can't cause indoctrination IN SPITE OF THE TWO EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE WHERE IT DID

AND

The assumption that Saren would be in a position to indoctrinate the council, in spite of the fact that it takes, at a minimum, days to do so.

AND

The kid on Earth has teleportation abilities, (or it was just really bad level design) and he talks like an adult, and he is completely ignored by the same people who helped able bodied adults on to the shuttle.

AND

Shep somehow fell back to Earth, survived re-entry, was then buried in rubble and then takes a breath.



OR



The theory holds some water.

Now, using Occam's razor, you tell me which of those two possibilities is more likely? Bioware making not only an absurd amount of mistakes, but going out of their way to do things that don't make sense (i.e. moving walls, Shepard breathing on Earth) and going in direct contradiction to everything they have said about the ending (Will not be just A, B, or C)

OR

Bioware has yet to finish the story.

Occam's razor tells us that the IT is true.

[lillitheris]

The Indoctrination Theory: not true, but plausible.

[Duzaman7]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Thread makes me laugh pretty damn hard. Well played, OP. Well played.

Why can't people just get it through their heads that nothing is true or false until bioware announces it to be true or false?

The same reason people talk about whether Heaven and Hell is real before they actually die.. Its something to talk about. I was going to think of something better, but my brain is fried after reading the OP. 

[SpideyKnight]

 I see the conversation with the Rachni queen a little different, or at least I glean something else from it than you.  To me it is clear that she is talking about Harbinger.  Harbinger is almost always accompanied by yellow eyes, whether he is possessing something or in his Reaper form.  Harbinger is what the Rachni queen is talking about when she mentions the color yellow.  I choose to view it as a remarkable bit of foreshadowing on Bio's part.  Props to Drew for putting it in.

Now, if I am correct, it means that what the Rachni queen says only needs to be translated.  Meaning that the oily shadows that she mentions and Shepard experiences could, in fact, be one and the same.  This to me was one of the more compelling arguments of IT.  There are others, of course, but I'm just a big fan of foreshadowing.

I haven't really jumped on the IT train, for a lot of the reasons you mention.  Also, I have personal integrity and I have railed against "It was all a dream" endings, with passionate verve and vigor, all my life as being lazy endings for the inept and clinically brain-dead writer.  Now I find myself in the precarious position of actually prefering that same tired and worthless ending over the rubbish that I got.  It's very disconcerting.

[STAG IRONHIDE]

thefallen2far wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
So ya...IT uses facts...

Aside from the ones it ignores, but who cares about them?

 
If you're going to mention facts that are being ignored try to mention at least one or two of them.  Flipant remarks just make commentary without substance.

If Indoctrination is true,  it means the destroy ending where he gasps for breath is the only true ending and the Reapers are still a threat. Synthesis/Control means you died on Earth while Indoctrinated.

So that means that even if Indoctrination is the case, Bioware released an incomplete game.

[recentio]

moater boat wrote...

I think it is hilarious that you bring up Occam's razor, then you single out every piece of "evidence" and provide a complex solution for each of them.

Which is more likely?
Major Coates was close enough to see the battle, but far enough away to miss Shepard AND Anderson

AND

Harbinger wasn't leaving the fight, just moving to attack a different group.

AND

Bioware put trees in an area where even the concrete is destroyed "just because"

AND

There are multiple areas that control the citadel arms

AND

Shep just happens to appear a hop skip and a jump away from one of those areas

AND

The citadel just happens to use lightning capacitors like the SB ship even though they appear nowhere else in any game (not to mention the lack of lighting on the citadel.)

AND

the walls in the citadel randomly move around for no reason other than to place Anderson Ahead of Shepard

AND

Shepard never sees the walls move.

AND

Anderson tells Shepard that he is indoctrinated rather than TIM because "he can't turn his head"

AND

The colors for control/destroy weren't switched intentionally, rather TIM is suddenly a paragon, the idea of destroying the reapers, the point of the whole series suddenly goes out the window, and the starchild wasn't lying about the Geth/EDI

AND

Reaper tech can't cause indoctrination IN SPITE OF THE TWO EXAMPLES YOU PROVIDE WHERE IT DID

AND

The assumption that Saren would be in a position to indoctrinate the council, in spite of the fact that it takes, at a minimum, days to do so.

AND

The kid on Earth has teleportation abilities, (or it was just really bad level design) and he talks like an adult, and he is completely ignored by the same people who helped able bodied adults on to the shuttle.

AND

Shep somehow fell back to Earth, survived re-entry, was then buried in rubble and then takes a breath.



OR



The theory holds some water.

Now, using Occam's razor, you tell me which of those two possibilities is more likely? Bioware making not only an absurd amount of mistakes, but going out of their way to do things that don't make sense (i.e. moving walls, Shepard breathing on Earth) and going in direct contradiction to everything they have said about the ending (Will not be just A, B, or C)

OR

Bioware has yet to finish the story.

Occam's razor tells us that the IT is true.

Were you paying attention when you read the OP? Because this is exactly like the "creation vs. science" example of Occam's Razor. The "scientific" explanation of the origins of the universe is complicated, but it explains many "observed facts" in sensible detail. The "young galaxy creationist" explanation is simple, but handwaves many "observed facts" with the same blanket assumption. This shows that OP's explanation, though more complicated in its fine details, is favored by Occam's Razor because it explains facts with simple, though individual, explanations rather than one all-encompassing, simple-minded assumption that "it's a trick" which requires a huge amount of tacit assumptions to be made based on that premise.

[TcomJ]

Anyway, even if those are true... how does that make it a real ending they promise? Ever since you started to come up with this indoc theory and want to stay with it, you already fail.

[OblivionDawn]

OP is saying what we already know deep inside.

[Rafe34]

I do appreciate whoever took the time to write this all out.

However, he makes a critical error. Occam's Razor does NOT apply in a video game. It only applies in real-world situations. A video game is a product of someone's mind, and thus, just because an explanation is simpler doesn't mean it's going to be true. As a matter of fact, the reverse is often the case.

IT is a good theory, but that's all it is. There is no way to prove it, and anyone who says so doesn't really get it. IT is like if Bioware had ended KotOR before the major plot reveal, and someone looking back at the game were to try to say that you were Revan. Did it fit? Obviously, yes, it did. Would it have looked pretty much the same as IT does now? Yes, because you're just using "evidence" that fits the theory.

Simply because IT works backwards does not invalidate it as a theory. It has to, given the medium it came out of. It also does not prove it.

Finally, if IT is true, the real endings are yet to come, so this continual claim that IT is bad because the ending still sucks completely misses the entire point of the theory.

[bigbade]

so much set up, so little said. You picked some pretty weak points to dismantle, especially the Harbinger beam (of course that's gameplay, why do you need 2 paragraphs to tell me that? Shame on IT theorists if they use "standing still doesn't get me killed" as evidence.) and the trees (recycled textures, again, obvious).

You're arguing that we have to "beg the question" (10k words just to get that idea through? come on.) and make leaps of logic since we must first accept the IT (temporarily or not) to take in the evidence but your counter points aren't much better, since we must make the leap of logic and assume bioware was stressed, changing their script (which if you read the leak, isn't very true) and being rushed. Inon Zur said:
"Unlike other titles from Bioware, this [score] was kind of a rush job. EA really wanted to capitalize on the success of Origins, so the game was really being pushed hard to be released now"
His score was a rush job, he admits it, but that doesn't mean the game was. Last time I checked the development time for a score doesn't take as long as a game's development. Now granted, DA2 sucked and felt rushed etc, etc... but the OST composer saying he was being rushed to make music isn't "strong evidence" that the game in its entirety was rushed either.
Stress was undoubtedly a factor, but Drew Karpeshyn (spelling?) left for TOR before ME3 was being written, the lead writer had all the time he needed to make his script it's not as if his boss left halfway (though on the scale of the trilogy you could say that, since Drew left halfway through ME2)

I see what you're getting at, by simply taking things at face value and trying to be realistic about how the industry operated but unless you're working at EA/Bioware what you're saying is based off of assumptions as well.

Picking at points outside of the ending sequence (rachni, reaper exposure) is an easy way to demolish the IT by saying the actual lore doesn't match the indoctrination sequence, but does the ending match any of the lore? Let's take the ending at face value for a second, EVERYTHING is violated, what would stop bioware from simply giving us a "hands on" sequence through indoctrination, even if it doesn't match what's written in the codex?

I don't feel like going too deeply into this but I felt like you wrote a-plenty but didn't say much. Using theories to debunk theories, analogies that have nothing to do with the content (the 5 1st articles barely mention mass effect, need a better set up than this or people are going to let go real quick), and attacking weak points of the theory (also a misunderstanding of the theory? I don't remember reading that my crew was ALWAYS on the Normandy and not with me in the attack?? The normandy scene isn't even supposed to be happening in real time since the IT all takes place in the head) made this a pain to read, unfortunately.


Also, implying Garrus' mindpower is weak and should show signs of indoctrination invalidates everything

And "ergo" has plenty of synonyms, try them.

[Ziggeh]

moater boat wrote...

Occam's razor tells us that the IT is true.

Leaving aside the rhetorical device of listing one set of assumptions and not the other, does the razor really appliy here?

We're talking about the product of a remarkably convulted manufacturing process, of language and interpretation. Unlike physical and natural processes it's unlikely to fall neatly into order through evolutionary steps and the information to which we have access is rather limited.

An important part of it's common summary is the "All thing's being equal" preface, which just isn't the case here.

[Carlthestrange]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Sigh....Shepard isn't "indoctrinated". He is fighting it off.

Still doesn't make sense.

Because the ending as it is, toally does.

Eh, I want to read your wall of text, but I just got in from work and i'm rather tired. So I will tag it for later viewing.

[STAG IRONHIDE]

Carlthestrange wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Sigh....Shepard isn't "indoctrinated". He is fighting it off.

Still doesn't make sense.

Because the ending as it is, toally does.

Eh, I want to read your wall of text, but I just got in from work and i'm rather tired. So I will tag it for later viewing.

So not being able to make head or tail of the original ending  makes the theory correct? 

No, it makes the original ending garbage.

[Rafe34]

Ziggeh wrote...

moater boat wrote...

Occam's razor tells us that the IT is true.

Leaving aside the rhetorical device of listing one set of assumptions and not the other, does the razor really appliy here?

We're talking about the product of a remarkably convulted manufacturing process, of language and interpretation. Unlike physical and natural processes it's unlikely to fall neatly into order through evolutionary steps and the information to which we have access is rather limited.

An important part of it's common summary is the "All thing's being equal" preface, which just isn't the case here.

Exactly. Occam's Razor does not apply in video games, or anything fiction. Much of the time, it's actually the reverse- the more complicated explanation is the correct one. Glad I'm not the only one to point this out.

[Carlthestrange]

STAG IRONHIDE wrote...

So not being able to make head or tail of the original ending  makes the theory correct? 

No, it makes the original ending garbage.

My point was that the original ending -is- garbage, and its rather pointless to say the IT "Doesn't make sense" when it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the actual ending.

Personally I still don't think the IT is true myself. I think its just ****** poor writing.

[Ziggeh]

thefallen2far wrote...

If you're going to mention facts that are being ignored try to mention at least one or two of them.  Flipant remarks just make commentary without substance.

That assumes substance is my goal.

Besides which that rather misses my point, which granted wasn't expressed well by any definition: this is not a conversation about evidence or facts.

[Feraiin]

It is a theory. It isn't proven, nor disproven, at this point. We can assume Bioware, if they change something, will not go with the IT theory in the way it has been assembled in the Forums. No creative company takes a fans ideas and story. That is why people like Drew Karpyshyn don't read work submitted by fans. Too many strings attached.

However, the IT does explain a fair deal of the plotholes. That it leaves the ending with being a giant cliffhanger is true, but at this point, many probably would accept that the initial game was incomplete during release and would pay a reasonable amount for a DLC that remedies the situation.

All who don't like it can go and claim those who think the IT makes sense are naive or worse, but please, don't go around like you are enlightened and have, in your infinite wisdom, deduced Biowares intentions.

We will simply have to wait until an announcement is made that addresses the issue, nothing more nothing less.
In the meantime, have fun discussing pros and cons and come up with more well-written theories.
If nothing else, it's fun and passes the time.

[Ziggeh]

Rafe34 wrote...

Exactly. Occam's Razor does not apply in video games, or anything fiction. Much of the time, it's actually the reverse- the more complicated explanation is the correct one. Glad I'm not the only one to point this out.

I could get quite worked up about this sort of thing. I've started calling it "cargo cult debating", where people use things they've seen in successful arguments as if they're interchangable and powerful in all situations. The number of times people have misrepresented my point and then called it a "straw man".....

[felipejiraya]

I'm sure the guys in Edmonton are laughing at us.