470 réponses à ce sujet

[Dendio1]

First of all nice blog and ty for posting. I'll take a crack at responding

Begging the question: It is dependant on the evidence relying on the conclusion.
IT does not fit this and so your arguement falls apart.

Here is an example of begging the question:
Alice says she is honest.
If an honest person says something, it must be true.
Therefore Alice is an honest person, because an honest person says so.

Indoctrination theory evidence is not dependent on whether or not you believe IT to be correct.
It is not a form of begging the question.

Lets use the rachni example you gave
"No. We... I do not know what happened in the war. We only heard discordance. Songs the colour of oily shadows."
Discordance is another word for conflict. The oily shadows represent struggle.
These are facts that exist regardless of whether or not you believe in IT.


We can take shepards dreams and compare the oily shadows he experiences to what the rachni went through. Regardless of whether or not you believe in IT, shepard is under discordance chasing that kid through his dream with voices everywhere and reapers blearing. He is also experiencing oily shadows.

Lets go further:
"A tone from space hushed one voice after another. It forced the singers to resonate with its own sour yellow note. "

This clearly suggests the reapers forced the rachni in to submission one by one.

Whether you believe in IT or not this is canon dialogue in game. Now were in the game would we find the color yellow followed by submission?
Perhaps the meme *ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL*. Kenson during the arrival dlc, glows yellow at the apex of her betrayal. She is controlled by a reaper and has yellow light pouring from her eyes. This is canon regardless of IT theory

Now how about rachni interpreting reality differently than humans?

The geth interface merges with shepard and uses his mind to create a platform he can interpret. This is canon regardless of your belief in IT.
Its also proof that it is possible for a mind state to interpret forms it would not be able to understand during normal circumstances. If the geth can share their vision with shepard it is not unreasonable to see a scenario where the reapers mind visions would look similar to races with different methods of scensory output.

Now from all of this we can put two and two together. We can speculate that shepard under reaper influence had conflict in his mind, manfesting itself as many things, including oily shadows. We can speculate that perhaps if shepard fully gave in the oily shadows would become sour yellow. We can also speculate that the rachni queen interpreted reaper control in an identifiable way to shepard, since both cases were in the mind. The evidence behind this speculation is canon and not dependant on whether or not you believe in IT.

IT theory is not a law, it is actually closer to a hypothesis. it is also not a form of begging the question. The supporting evidence is present regardless of your belief in IT.

Modifié par Dendio1, 01 avril 2012 - 01:00 .

[D1ck1e]

This article doesn't refute it, it just says the IT is not fact.

I don't know what comes next to be honest, or if there's anything left to add to this ending.

I'd like them to flesh out the IT ideas though, or something even better I can't think of.

[Powerpetzi]

D1ck1e wrote...

This article doesn't refute it, it just says the IT is not fact.

If that is the case, all of the OP's effort was in vain and unnecessary. The very name of "Indoctrination THEORY" itself already says very explicitly that it's not a fact.

Modifié par Powerpetzi, 01 avril 2012 - 01:10 .

[doodiebody]

To start off with, I find IT interesting, but I'm not all in on it either.

With that said, I feel like the OP is over analyzing this. A philosophical discussion on the mechanics of a theory aren't really all that useful. The later parts of your post are far more important and you should really cull it down to that.

I agree with you on a few points. The trees in the run towards the beam are probably just lazy reuse of resources. The not being able to kill anderson or the keepers. Those kind of points. I agree entirely. It's like just the way it was programmed and shouldn't be read into.

However, many of your points devolve into nothing more than "fighting speculation with speculation." Your ideas about why nobody sees Shepard, or why Harbinger is leaving, etc are certainly all reasonable. With that said, just because your points are reasonable doesn't mean the IT points are less reasonable.

A few of your points are just plain wrong. For example, I'm not sure where you're going with the "Harbinger can't hit Shepard" post. Nothing about IT suggests anything like you're saying. Harbinger doesn't hit you until he hits you because that's how the game was programmed. I agree. But how is that evidence of anything? After you're hit, IT states you're buried in rubble somewhere unconscious. If you're not into IT, than everything after that is real. Frankly, you're strawmanning on this one. You're tearing down an argument I haven't seen many people make.

My biggest issue with the post is you seem to purposely ignore some of the stronger cases, while picking on the weaker ones. As I said, I agree with you on many of them, but those are also some of the more minor points of the theory.

[Rdubs]

Dont know why it's so hard for people to accept that the whole ending was simply a couple people trying to, as one person put it, "hog the ball" which ended up in a fumble. Do you really think that bioware would allow this unprecedented destruction of their brand equity value to go on if they had any intention of releasing additional material which would prove the current ending irrelevant - be it planned or not?

Very simply the only shred of anything which explains what happened is the supposedly debunked PA post. However I have to say the denial which supposedly debunked it was the weakest denial I have ever heard in my life. Even weaker than that Shaggy song "It wasn't me.". Where is the widespread concern, by either the person whose account was supposedly hacked or any other person with a PA account, that a somewhat important account was hacked? There isn't any, because everyone knows the account wasn't really hacked. Same exact thing happened in the Congressman Anthony Weiner twitter fiasco, he claimed his account was hacked to deny a post he made then when people were like, there should be an investigation, he was like no it's okay no big deal lets move on. Only later did he finally admit, yeah it was me all along.

Take a look at this, do these additional posts from the supposedly hacked account sound like someone trying to drum up contention, or do they sound like someone trying to contain a situation that unintentionally got out of hand.
http://i.imgur.com/W2gwS.jpg

Modifié par Rdubs, 01 avril 2012 - 01:16 .

[D-zid-816]

In all fairness.. despite the flaws of the indoc 'theory', its still a better ending than the actual endings. so yeah lol.

I just want to hear what Bioware have to say about the ending when the time finally comes, be nice to actually know for sure wtf they were aiming at besides "lots of speculation".

[SC0TTYD00]

It's very good and well written but when debunking the IDT E idence there's a lot of speculation there, maybe this maybe that.

[Rafe34]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

At the end of the day, the teleporting squad mate is adequately explained by both competing hypotheses so my posteriors would be unchanged.

*snort*

I know that what you put in this post was a nice argument, but my mind went down into the gutter with that statement.

[RedTail F22]

It continues to amaze me how intellegent some Mass Effect fans actually are. This is a well written article indeed.

[TODD9999]

Very well written. Thanks for contributing this to the community.

[Marinemike69]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is mint, it has no flaws.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

[Marinemike69]

RedTail F22 wrote...

It continues to amaze me how intellegent some Mass Effect fans actually are. This is a well written article indeed.

[Marinemike69]

Great post. I feel EA-Bioware became indoctrinated while they were writeing the ending.

I wish I could get a refund forthis game

[Rucent]

You can write as big of a post as you want, but you negate all the effort when you attempt to counter any responses with "I'm right, you're wrong."

[Tov01]

Rucent wrote...

You can write as big of a post as you want, but you negate all the effort when you attempt to counter any responses with "I'm right, you're wrong."

If you bothered to read it closely, you would find that is not what he said.

I really would wish that people would stop taking this debate so personally.

[Auralius Carolus]

I read through it, and basically what it appears to be moving toward is:

'The interpretted evidence of indoctrination is ambiguous with certain common and semi-common design characteristics/shortcomings. Certain individuals have also presented this presumed evidence in ways commonly viewed as fallacies in the realm of argumentation and/or philosophy. The author, therefore, reserves the right to present the information from a base technical perspective, resulting in quantifiable returns.'

That summary, as it stands, is appropriate for analyzing certain information. What is presented, however, is that the author approaches the issue attempting to resolve matters which involve personal perspective, using unqualifiable quantities. In other words, the non-numerical value of a representation is given value that cannot be justified outside of the author's interpretation, and is then presented as fact. This is a fallacy in and of itself, and is one of several types presented.

Until Bioware addresses this issue, the matter is "non-factual" in regards to the existance of the Indoctrination Theory. Normally, this would mean that the Indocrination Theory is classified as false-as the OP's copy says- however, the problem at hand revolves around a fictional dilemma which does not obey factual premise nor rely on consistancy and therefore cannot be held to scientific factual scrutiny or philosophical prudence, respectively. The same ambiguity that confounds theorists is applicable to counter-theorists which ends in non-factuality. The quantity is known, its quality is not.

Without Bioware's "clarity" factuality does not exist beyond a non-interpreted ending, which is technical data. All we are left with is speculation. That is it, plain and simple.

[Helmschmied]

We also know that the ending was in fact re written following a leak of the game’s script back in November 2011

That's not true. A friend of mine actually read the leaked script. The ending wasn't changed.

Modifié par Helmschmied, 01 avril 2012 - 02:33 .

[vrumpt]

Stopped reading when I got to the part where you said IT had little to no supportive pieces of information. Outright lying doesn't make a very compelling argument at all.

I guess people like to sit in their la la land with their fingers in their ears and ignore the dozens of significant pieces of PURPOSEFULLY PLACED evidence around them. you people make me /facepalm so very very hard.

[H8cijadi8ooer]

I personally like the IT theory and really its up to the players to decide on what happened.Whenever a game or movie can make different people have different views is a very hard challenge and obviously BioWare managed to do this whether they meant to or not to.

I enjoyed the ME3 ending but I agree with many reasons to why the ending wasn't very good.Like I said I enjoyed it but at the same time I was disappointed.

To remove my disappointment I will turn to the IT Theory.Unless it is proven not to be right I will roll with it because my view is that I get to choose how I want the ending to be.

Like I said earlier when a team of creators can create a game or movie and at the end there can be different views by an audience that is difficult to have.

Most movies have a plot from start to end and everybody will have the same feel and know how it ended.

Then at times you get films where you get a different idea on it all than the buddy beside you did.I have had these experiences before.

I beat ME3 a day or so ago and I kept 99.9% spoiler free from the ending.The other 0.1% was that I pretty much knew Shepard would die.

As I was at the end I was excited that I had put all the effort into all three games.

I imported a Paragon save of ME1 to ME2 and had tons of bonuses and I saw all of my past actions unfold onto ME3.

I beat the game and my idea was "the ending wasn't really that bad."

Then I went on to finally diverge myself into the "why the ME3 ending sucked" and started doing research.Then it came to clear to me "I agree to why people don't like it."

Even though I agree I still believe it was a good ending.Plus I mean BioWare may of had the idea of letting the audience decide on how it unfolds but that's a very risky thing to do and I'm almost certain that's not what they were wanting.

Though I notice that most people would rate this game bad all because of the ending.

But seriously guys.The 95% of the game and the part before you talk to that child on the Citadel blew my mind.

I played tons of hours of ME1 and ME2 and the combat was fun but never as fun as the ME3 combat turned out to be.ME3 got it right and I enjoyed it far more than the previous games.

Plus I found all the missions to be very fun and edge of the seat and not knowing what to expect.

If there was one thing I'd change (not counting the ending) I'd say I would say I want more places to be able to travel to that were open and let you go into a club,buy things,and what not.

That's one thing I didn't like about ME3 was that it wasn't like ME2 where you had Illium,Omega,The Citadel,and several other places.

You pretty much had The Citadel and The Normandy on ME3.I still enjoyed it for the most part.

Most may of chosen the Blue or green color paths but I chose the destroyer path because I knew throughout the ENTIRE trilogy my one goal was to destroy the Reapers.I didn't fall for it.I was sad though that I didn't get the optimal clip at the end.Turns out I didn't play any of the multiplayer so I didn't have enough War Assets.I beat every single-player mission and I went to EVERY planet but that wasn't enough apparently.

Modifié par H8cijadi8ooer, 01 avril 2012 - 02:52 .

[Lankist]

It's just weird how so many people, in the fact of such a disappointment, have opted to set themselves up for even more disappointment.

[Tov01]

vrumpt wrote...

Stopped reading when I got to the part where you said IT had little to no supportive pieces of information. Outright lying doesn't make a very compelling argument at all.

I guess people like to sit in their la la land with their fingers in their ears and ignore the dozens of significant pieces of PURPOSEFULLY PLACED evidence around them. you people make me /facepalm so very very hard.

If you kept reading, you would find that he makes several observations and arguments that he belives supports his claim. Just because he saw the same thing you saw and came to a diferent conclusion does not mean he is lying. Such attacks are not condusive to debate.

Modifié par Tov01, 01 avril 2012 - 02:53 .

[jurgen_fool]

Urgh - this rubbish is still going on? I read through the main post, and as fantastic and eloquent as it was, the OP could have summarised the IT as fans clutching at straws.

[Actinguy1]

"The Citadel is made of parts from scenery in other Mass Effect games, including the Shadow Broker’s ship and Collector ship"

I can prove that this piece of evidence doesn't work. My Shepard has never been to the Shadow Broker's base. I didn't play that DLC, and Liara specifically states that Shepard was not part of her becoming Shadow Broker in my game. Yet I have the same Citadel that you do.

[Asharad Hett]

Bioware has made public statements about some rumors in order to squash them. I'll be glad when they make a public statement either refuting or supporting IT, that way it will be over. Kinda.

[nukular power]

Asharad Hett wrote...

Bioware has made public statements about some rumors in order to squash them. I'll be glad when they make a public statement either refuting or supporting IT, that way it will be over. Kinda.

Why?  Then all that will be left to argue about is how much you hate the endings.