470 réponses à ce sujet

[STAG IRONHIDE]

Carlthestrange wrote...

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.

I think its just ****** poor writing.

Me too.... me too

[Carlthestrange]

STAG IRONHIDE wrote...

Me too.... me too

Makes me feel sad too.

[bigbade]

Also would like to add that you repeatedly insist that something needs strong evidence then proceed to not talk about the Shepard breathing scene.

If it is a last gasp, why show it? To really nail it home that ALL endings suck and you have no hope of living? Doubtful.
If it's citadel rubble, you'd rather Shepard survive the citadel exploding, atmosphere re-entry, and a crash landing wherever (a process he's gone through which led to 6 years of rebuilding) and wake up within the next couple minutes / hours?

[Rafe34]

Ziggeh wrote...

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".....

That... is a very good name for it.

And yes, people do that with IT all the time. The video game journalists are doing that with the Retake movement. Mischaracterize what the other guy is saying to make him look ridiculous.

[devSin]

I think it could have been better written and perhaps argued a bit more successfully, and there are some incorrect assumptions and observations, but I'm overall impressed by the effort.

Thanks for putting it out there. I can't imagine any of us would have given it this much attention.

[InsaneAzrael]

It's a hypotheses, one based on conjectures. As far as this goes, those getting whipped into a tizzy rather than playing this as banter are quite, well, deluded.

It's a game, it's a story. We ALL invested into this series.
The Indoctrination hypothesis is amusing, you're probably agitated by the ending as are many (and I certainly was). Yet, I grasped at IT also as a means to alleviate the disbelied, the cognitive dissonance. Just remember, it's a poorly constructed GAME.

The story in parts grasps us. In PARTS, it's episodic and does not gel totally. The displeasure at the end is justified due to it being at the stage whereby it just gives up.

As for those attempting to bandy the rules to fit their substituted FAITH in IT. It is just a game, and you are hoping it is true. It may or may not be what was intended. Give it a rest.

[zephyr2025]

dreman9999 wrote...

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?

Dreams are dreams. Every single human in the world has them every day. Dreams don't need an explaination. This isn't even in the same zip code as proof.

Yes I know that doing A leads to B. What i'm saying that is just because B occured, doesn't mean A caused it. Again.. the rain and wet explaination..

But seriously, I couldnt' care less about the "theory". I saw it, thought it was ok and that's it. You can't make proofs about a fictional story. Stories are just like that. One scene Hamlet is pretending to be crazy and in other scenes he is clearly crazy. You can't prove that Hamlet is one or the other ebcause it's just something that's made up.

[PhotonMaze]

Supporters of the indoctrination theory, like me, still only see it as a theory. This post doesn't prove anything either way. It simply states that the evidence is not full-proof. That is obvious.

I really hate the way that people are comparing the theory to religion because none of us supporters are accepting it as absolute fact like religions do. Nor do we shape any part of our lives around the theory. It can be more easily compared to a scientific theory, as there is strong evidence which no one has yet debunked and we are merely waiting for the results of our theory (Bioware announcing something).

I suggest you wait aswell instead of writing a huge, pointless thread that doesn't disprove any of the evidence. This article is basically saying to all the supporters of the theory "You could be wrong." We know we could be wrong, but we support the theory because it seems feasible! Nothing more.

Remember people - you can't help what you believe. Beliefs change naturally. You can't consciously turn them on or off. That's why it's more prudent to give people facts and let them interpret them as they see fit instead of telling people "It's just a theory so therefore you shouldn't believe in it." With all the facts I've heard, the indoctrination theory still seems valid.

Anyway, I think that the main bulk of evidence comes from how the developers have been acting. Mike Gamble's old tweets seem to indicate they have been planning something big. This kind of thing gets me very excited. I trust bioware have got something up their sleeve whether it's the indoctrination theory or not.

[CaliGuy033]

OP is pretty much spot on, although I don't agree with everything about how he wrote the post.

Not to say that IT isn't a clever theory. It's very clever. But it'll never be any more "real" than "The moon landing was faked" or "The Illuminati run the world."

[Captain Arty]

I have to say, I appreciate the effort people have put into this thread, but it's kind of silly to get worked up and aggressive about this when an announcement in a few days will probably settle it.

[Rhz]

regardless if the indoc theory is true or not, the super massive plot hole (also known as starchild) MUST be kicked out in order to bring order to the chaos. It is inevitable.

[Judah Ben Hur]

First of all, this isn't a Master's thesis. You don't need to make some contrived title like this is going to end up in a major publication.

Secondly, how are you so conceited that you think we have time to read that condescending load of crap? Ockham's Razor - on a message board about video games? Were you beaten up too much or too little at school?

I'm sure that you're getting so many stars from people because you've managed to write something that's considerate and isn't in typical gamer internet-speak. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard for that one.

You utterly wasted your time writing this. If it was therapeutic for you, well, good on you, but you'd have done just as well getting people to read it if you'd written it on the wall of a hidden cave off of the coast of Antarctica.

Modifié par Judah Ben Hur, 31 mars 2012 - 09:46 .

[Rafe34]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

OP is pretty much spot on, although I don't agree with everything about how he wrote the post.

Not to say that IT isn't a clever theory. It's very clever. But it'll never be any more "real" than "The moon landing was faked" or "The Illuminati run the world."

If BW comes out and says its true, it'll be very real.

Again, you're comparing real-world conspiracy theories to a video-game. it doesn't work, same reason why you can't use Occam's Razor.

Just think about if BW had ended KOTOR right before its revealed you are Revan, and then someone goes back and puts the pieces together. 

[Slaiyer]

Rafe34 wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

OP is pretty much spot on, although I don't agree with everything about how he wrote the post.

Not to say that IT isn't a clever theory. It's very clever. But it'll never be any more "real" than "The moon landing was faked" or "The Illuminati run the world."

If BW comes out and says its true, it'll be very real.

Again, you're comparing real-world conspiracy theories to a video-game. it doesn't work, same reason why you can't use Occam's Razor.

Just think about if BW had ended KOTOR right before its revealed you are Revan, and then someone goes back and puts the pieces together. 

Love your reasoning and completely agree.

PS - NOOOOOOO, I havn't beaten KOTOR yet .... Guess that's my fault but still.. Spoiled.

[STAG IRONHIDE]

Slaiyer wrote...

Rafe34 wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

OP is pretty much spot on, although I don't agree with everything about how he wrote the post.

Not to say that IT isn't a clever theory. It's very clever. But it'll never be any more "real" than "The moon landing was faked" or "The Illuminati run the world."

If BW comes out and says its true, it'll be very real.

Again, you're comparing real-world conspiracy theories to a video-game. it doesn't work, same reason why you can't use Occam's Razor.

Just think about if BW had ended KOTOR right before its revealed you are Revan, and then someone goes back and puts the pieces together. 

Love your reasoning and completely agree.

PS - NOOOOOOO, I havn't beaten KOTOR yet .... Guess that's my fault but still.. Spoiled.

Exactly, he hit the nail on the head with that one. See my quote, too. It's really disappointing for me because I refuse to buy the DLC. It's basically like I'll never got to see the true ending for myself.

Modifié par STAG IRONHIDE, 31 mars 2012 - 10:02 .

[recentio]

Rafe34 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

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".....

That... is a very good name for it.

And yes, people do that with IT all the time. The video game journalists are doing that with the Retake movement. Mischaracterize what the other guy is saying to make him look ridiculous.

But IT *is* failing to apply Occam's razor to real life -- the real life idea that BioWare intended IT is incredibly convoluted and is *exactly* what is being claimed.

Modifié par recentio, 31 mars 2012 - 10:03 .

[GamiSB]

Nice essay and well worth reading. A few minor points. In his AMA thread here and on Reddit but Geoff Keighley who had direct contact with BioWare while they were developing the game said over and over that he didn't see any signs of the game's ending being rushed. Does this prove it wasn't? No but his testimony is worth taking into account which I don't see in your argument for the ending ahving been rushed

He also mentioned in those threads that the script didn't change except for minor details after the leak. In fact I recall reading comments on how the ending wasn't what they were expecting and the three options were lame when it first appeared on 4chan.

Finally Drew has said that his ending for Shepard's story had been scraped before he left and has been consistent in saying that he did not leave ME because he didn't get his way. He left during ME2 production to work on The Old Republic and is now focused on his own writing.

Finally lets talk Frank Miller because as a comic fan I feel compelled to correct some things here. All-Star B&R sold incredibly well and was generally well received. It only gets hate after the fact because of how extreme it took the character (which was the point) same as Holy Terror). The book ran for 10 issues, each a top seller for that month, and was only two issues short of what was expected. The only reason it stopped at ten is because of Jim Lee's habit of taking on more than he can do art wise. That all said Miller has never been good, he's been average and his work has never evolved beyond what it has always been. The only reason Dark Knight Returns took off was because it came out during the Watchmen craze and anything "Dark" was selling like hot cakes.

Modifié par GamiSB, 31 mars 2012 - 10:11 .

[RiotLaFontaine]

recentio wrote...

But IT *is* failing to apply Occam's razor to real life -- the real life idea that BioWare intended IT is incredibly convoluted and is *exactly* what is being claimed.

But not by all those in the "IT camp."  One can separate the theory that Shepard is being indoctrinated (which is a good argument) from "this was all planned by BioWare."  The latter is only a subset of IT supporters.

For example, I support the interpretation of Indoctrination as one possible explanation for the end events, but I don't think it was planned as such - merely the end result of large plotholes that needed to be filled in and were left hanging instead.

Both theorizing that indoctrination is taking place/took place and refuting this theory are forms of speculation that each require evidence.  There is, however, no right answer either way unless BioWare offers a definitive response on the matter (and even that can be called into question under authorial intent - they may have intended to depict one thing, only to have opened up the possibility of another valid interpretation).

Modifié par RiotLaFontaine, 31 mars 2012 - 10:11 .

[Carnage752]

Daring post and well-structured argument OP. Got them IT Drones reeling I see.

I'm neutral on the theory. The way I see it it's bad either way. Either it's a bad ending or an incomplete one.

I'm fine with how Bioware cuts the (alleged) fixed ending towards or against IT. I'm just sick of the IT drones calling it fact instead of theory. Unless Bioware backs up the theory, the endings must be taken at factual and face value.

I also ask you to remember your view isn't fact either. Well-backed maybe, but not fact. If you assume you are speaking facts, you are no better than the drones you fight.

[Devos]

recentio wrote...

But IT *is* failing to apply Occam's razor to real life -- the real life idea that BioWare intended IT is incredibly convoluted and is *exactly* what is being claimed.

Aye, the simplest explanation for the crapyness of the ending is that it's a crappy ending.

[Subguy614]

Dear OP:

Your arguement is flawed by one point. You are using the outside the game universe (ours) to explain why a theory that stays within the ME universe is flawed.
For example if we stay in the ME universe (ie from any surviving character's point of view) your arguement posits a mystical "writing team" that was rushed to complete their experience. This has all the same trappings as saying God made the world" as used in one of your examples. Staying strictly within the ME universe, it is your assertion that the writers were rushed that fails occam's razor. The IT explains the events from within the ME universe and does it quite well.

[daisekihan]

TL;DR (much)

I don't believe in the indoctrination theory, but if you wanted to say "Religious people are dumb and people who believe in indoctrination theory are acting like religious people", you could have said it a little more succintly.

Also, applying parsimony (you call it Ockham's Razor) to discern the intended meaning of a work of fiction to the extent you do is silly. It may not be likely, but its by no means as unlikely as you think it is that Bioware released the game with a false or incomplete ending in order to ensure DLC sales. And even if people are just reading things into the ending, given the "Lot's of speculation" comment from the Mike Gamble, it may have been their intention to make the ending ambiguous enough that the player could slap any old meaning they wanted on it. Which is probably why they said stuff like "you don't need to know how long they've been reaping" ---- they wanted the player to imagine it themselves or some similar nonsense.

I would also like to add that trolling on the level of the indoctrination theory being true is not without precedent for an entertainment company producing a work for a highly devoted fanbase that would forgive its ill-treatment once the troll was over ---- this very thing happened with the Haruhi Suzumiya anime and the rage-inducing Endless Eight, which was followed up with an announcement of a movie that made the fans forget their rage. After Endless Eight, no amount of trolling from any company that makes entertainment would surprise me.

Modifié par daisekihan, 31 mars 2012 - 10:39 .

[I am KROGAN]

Holy mother of god, this is an essay. Seriously, it's not a fact, it's a theory.

If you don't personally believe it, fine, whatever, I could care less. The need for a Graduate School-esque dissertation "disproving" it is totally and completely pointless for one reason: the people who subscribe to the indoctrination THEORY are not going to have their minds changed by an essay describing why every piece of evidence is false. What you're trying to do (this may be a terrible analogy) is disprove the existence of God. People who believe are hard as hell to convince.

I'm glad you felt that it was worth your time to write this so that you could find people who agree with you on the internet (or spur disagreements).


My TL:DR:

TL:DR


Edit: Grammar

Modifié par I am KROGAN, 31 mars 2012 - 10:36 .

[STAG IRONHIDE]

I am KROGAN wrote...

Holy mother of god, this is an essay. Seriously, it's not a fact, it's a theory.

If you don't personally believe it, fine, whatever, I could care less. The need for a Graduate School-esque dissertation "disproving" it is totally and completely pointless for one reason: the people who subscribe to the indoctrination THEORY are not going to have their minds changed by an essay describing why every piece of evidence is false. What you're trying to do (this may be a terrible analogy) is disprove the existence of God. People who believe are hard as hell to convince.

I'm glad you felt that it was worth your time to write this so that you could find people who agree with you on the internet (or spur disagreements).


My TL:DR:

TL:DR


Edit: Grammar

Agreed. There's no way I'm going to read something that long about the ending, ME is supposed to be a cheesy and exciting space opera series, the fact that someone has  to go that far into trying to figure the ending shows that Bioware changed their minds about what they wanted the series to be at the last second.

[Ariq]

You seem to like the trappings of logic and reason, if not the practice. Allow me to introduce you to one more:

The Straw Man Argument.

For all of the words you wrote in the OP, you haven't much addressed what IT says. You constructed a reason you think people believe it, and knocked that down. You snagged a couple of arguments that aren't typically part of IT (such as the companions being on the Normandy all along) and knocked them down. But those aren't the arguments of IT. You talk a great deal about question begging and parsimony without ever connecting them to the premises of IT. You dismiss Shepard's exposure to Reaper tech while glossing over Object Rho - and more importantly, the unique presence of Harbinger. Yes, the testimony of the musicians does not tell us the development cycle of DA2. You are correct. But this has nothing to do with ME3.

So yes, that Stuffy Man you've built from straw so you could knock him down is all well and beaten. I wouldn't have believed it either, and wouldn't have needed ten thousand words to figure it out. To each his own, I suppose.