470 réponses à ce sujet

[Asharad Hett]

nukular power wrote...

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.

I come here for the hope of something more.  If they go ahead and kill my hope, then I can move on.

[ShadowNinja1129]

Read the whole thing. Well-worded OP.

Although I find that this is more a critique of how some have argued the theory, dismissing it mainly by citing some of the worst explanations for the IT evidence and claiming that your counter-argument thereby refutes it. For example: This post assumes that the indoctrination process has begun in full at the beginning of the charge, while there has been much debate as to whether this process starts at the charge, at the laser beam, or at the console after the TIM confrontation. And I personally find that starting it at Harbinger's laser makes for the most convincing argument that is not as easily refuted. But let's not get into it, I'm not trying to start a debate over the nuance of a fan-made theory, just citing an example.

Also, I would be careful with using "begging the question" as a major counter argument. May I note that one of your major explanations for a lot of these plot holes is simply "the developer got lazy," and your evidence (offered later) is "to err is human." However, while BioWare has demonstrated that they cut corners like any game designed based on the limitations of the system (all men and women have the exact same svelte figure regardless of age or background, for example), they have rarely demonstrated cutting corners on the story. BioWare has gained so much love because the story is so very intricate and takes into account some of the smallest details when affecting outcomes to both the main story arcs and subplot arcs. It would be highly uncharacteristic of them to simply "get lazy" or "mess up" right at the finish line when their track record has been so incredible. Therefore, your evidence of "BioWare could've just gotten lazy" is begging the question in and of itself, because your counter-arguments start with the assumption "well, assuming BioWare got uncharacteristically lazy, then they just rushed the ending and didn't put much thought into it, thereby proving they just got lazy". I'm not so short-sighted as to claim that this destroys your argument, but considering how much emphasis you place on petitio principi, I thought it was curious to see it as one of your major counter-arguments. BioWare's talent isn't just a source for bias, it’s also a credible trend that we have all been able to observe.

May I also note that using Dragon Age II as evidence for BioWare and ME's decline is poor reasoning at best for a reason you cite in your argument (you're not looking at all the indicative data). DAII came out a little over a year after DA:O. Keep in mind the development team would have to have been either fundamentally different or stretched thin, as BioWare made that extensive expansion pack Awakening for DA:O during that year of space. This means that, best case scenario, assuming Awakening had no impact on DAII's development, DAII got a little less than a year of development time. ME3 had two years of development time and had largely the same team working on it from the past games. Additionally, with the outline provided by Drew they knew where the series was headed. I agree that the leak probably caused them to scrap the original ending, but they basically still had about a year at that point to iron out the details of a new one, which would hopefully be pretty dang high on the priority list.

There are other counter-arguments I could make based on in-game evidence on how indoctrination is defined and presented to us that actually supports IDT decently, but again, I don't necessarily want to get down and start debating the nuances of a fan-made theory in this thread unless someone specifically requests me to do so.

Like I said before, overall well written, although you fall prey to a few of the fallacious argument styles you complain about here. Also feel like you've picked and chosen some of the weakest explanations to refute, as IDT is hardly a uniformly accepted theory. I would love for IDT to be true, but I'll freely admit it’s just guesswork at the end of the day, anyone who pretends otherwise is being foolish.

I also apologize if someone already said all this, after reading such a wall of text I didn't feel up to combing through 20 pages of responses to ensure I wasn't accidentally copying someone. So please note any similarities in this post to any others are purely coincidental and blah blah blah

[devSin]

ShadowNinja1129 wrote...

Also, I would be careful with using "begging the question" as a major counter argument.

It's not a counter-argument. It's acknowledgment of the fact that "evidence" alone does not infer the conclusion that is being supposed (you only see that conclusion because you're looking for evidence to support that conclusion). This doesn't mean you're wrong; it simply means that the evidence itself doesn't suggest that you're right.

ShadowNinja1129 wrote...

May I also note that using Dragon Age II as evidence for BioWare and ME's decline is poor reasoning at best for a reason you cite in your argument (you're not looking at all the indicative data). DAII came out a little over a year after DA:O. Keep in mind the development team would have to have been either fundamentally different or stretched thin, as BioWare made that extensive expansion pack Awakening for DA:O during that year of space. This means that, best case scenario, assuming Awakening had no impact on DAII's development, DAII got a little less than a year of development time.

Origins was primarily completed by the end of 2008 (and there's no clear answer as to when the writers finished the majority of their work; it would have been prior to the game being finished, however). The release was delayed from early 2009 to November so that it could be released simultaneously on all three platforms (for most its life, it existed as a PC-only title).

Awakening and DA2 development was almost certainly started during this period (this is also the reason Awakening was ready for release a mere four months or so after Origins' official release).

ShadowNinja1129 wrote...

ME3 had two years of development time and had largely the same team working on it from the past games. Additionally, with the outline provided by Drew they knew where the series was headed. I agree that the leak probably caused them to scrap the original ending, but they basically still had about a year at that point to iron out the details of a new one, which would hopefully be pretty dang high on the priority list.

Drew left while ME2 was being completed, and there's no evidence he left any sort of plan (and what we have is certainly not something he wrote). We're not sure if they ever even had a plan (we know there wasn't one when they did ME, and we have rumors of the dark energy plot they were considering, but nothing indicates where or when the current ending was conceived).

Also, the team expected to have less than two years, and when the beta was leaked last year, the ending was almost identical to what we have now. This doesn't preclude some secret indoctrination ending, but there's nothing conclusive I've seen that would even hint that it was what they planned. Truthfully, it looks like they rushed into an ending that maybe didn't get the scrutiny it required and was implemented and wrapped up and released, and has failed horribly and made mockery of all their claims about what they were going to provide.

I would be thrilled if you were right, that there was some greater plan and they had a masterfully crafted ending nearing completion they're just waiting to announce at PAX, but everything I've seen simply seems to show somebody who aspired to do something far beyond their apparent ability to deliver.

Modifié par devSin, 01 avril 2012 - 08:07 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Posterior probabilities, of course.

A theory is not just wild speculation or conjecture. It is a hypothesis supported by evidence. Saying that it's not fact but just a theory just proves that you don't know what you are talking about ( cf intelligent design - or whatever they're calling it now - vs theory of evolution)

[evisneffo]

Well worth the read, OP. (If the title made you come in here to hate, don't be lazy. Read it!)

Thanks for a well-reasoned response.

[the slynx]

The final sections of OP's statement have some interesting arguments in them, although the first bits seem a little unnecessary. I'm not sure it's completely convincing, but it presents some problems IT hasn't completely deal with.

One point that confuses me is why Shepard's brushes with Reaper tech in earlier games, including the partially built Reaper of ME2, couldn't have planted the beginnings of indoctrination in his mind long ago. I'm still a bit fuzzy on how exactly indoctrination works; there isn't enough information in-game to explain it properly - especially if it's meant to be a major plot point.

[InsaneAzrael]

Auralius Carolus wrote...
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.

Here Here!

[Yalision]

There is a video floating around out there that shows that Shepard is indeed on the Citadel when he takes "the breath". The cords, the "concrete", all the textures are examined and then obvious in the video. I was never on board the IT band wagon to begin with, as nice and pretty as it is. It simply isn't true.

[Fail_Inc]

It was fun to read your post OP, I really don't want to believe talented people in Bioware got THIS lazy.
Now you say they use used textures in Citadel to save time, etc. But we can clearly see Normandy parts and Shadow Broker's ship parts and bunch of others in Citadel, it feels like they had a reason to mix them. There are also screenshots of body piles which textures are ME1 Ashley-Kaidan (pink&white armor). It's too much effort to be lazy.
We know how lazy they can get, DA2 caves are the true example. Same cave with different doors opened each time. If they wanted to do the same, they could just the use Shadow Broker's ship and get away with it.
I'm not a IT believer and I just want more endings but still some of things they show is... interesting.

[shepLJ]

I agree and I refuse to be indoctrinated. Victor Frankel had some really interesting stuff to say about how we as humans create meaning in our lives and even in the face of horror - ie Hitler ....etc. I do understand why it would be comforting to be believe Indoctrination theory but at the end of the day - it just doesn't make any sense and it feels alll wrong ...love and hugs to all we lovers of Shep

[jurgen_fool]

Fail_Inc wrote...

It was fun to read your post OP, I really don't want to believe talented people in Bioware got THIS lazy.
Now you say they use used textures in Citadel to save time, etc. But we can clearly see Normandy parts and Shadow Broker's ship parts and bunch of others in Citadel, it feels like they had a reason to mix them. There are also screenshots of body piles which textures are ME1 Ashley-Kaidan (pink&white armor). It's too much effort to be lazy.
We know how lazy they can get, DA2 caves are the true example. Same cave with different doors opened each time. If they wanted to do the same, they could just the use Shadow Broker's ship and get away with it.
I'm not a IT believer and I just want more endings but still some of things they show is... interesting.

It's not a matter of Bioware being lazy. Look at the majority of the game; it's perfectly and painstakingly done. All evidence towards the ending however does point to Bioware running out of development time. The game was pushed back by months from it's first release date. There's no way EA was going to push such a major game back even further. Bioware just had to made to with the time they got and the ending suffered.

Dragon Age 2 had around a year of development time.. so yeah, it's clear to see why a lot of the dungeons in that game were recycled. A year just isn't enough to develop a 40 hour game without cutting some corners in this day and age.

[Reorte]

Yalision wrote...

There is a video floating around out there that shows that Shepard is indeed on the Citadel when he takes "the breath". The cords, the "concrete", all the textures are examined and then obvious in the video. I was never on board the IT band wagon to begin with, as nice and pretty as it is. It simply isn't true.

Saying it simply isn't true is no better than insisting that it is. We simply don't know, and because the ending (and the rest of the game) is the result of human imagination, unconstrained by physical reality, both are valid possibilities (and there may be others that no-one has thought of). The only valid topic of discussion is what the probabilities of the those possibilities are.

My opinion lies along the lines of it being unlikely that the quality of writing would take such a nosedive at such a key point but I can't rule that out.

[Wowky]

I think the biggest problem with the OP in this thread is that is attempting to apply laws of logical reasoning to something which was written by people who probably don't have PhD's in philosophy. These guys are creative writers, so yeah, maybe they aren't able to make something that doesn't have ANY logical fallacies, but it doesn't mean Indoctrination Theory (or any other potential explanation) wasn't what they intended.

Modifié par Wowky, 01 avril 2012 - 01:22 .

[Icinix]

If any thoughts for any reasoning about the ending requires this much analysing, debate and thoughts for any realm of possibility...


...the ending failed to be an ending.

[ShadowNinja1129]

devSin wrote...

]It's not a counter-argument. It's acknowledgment of the fact that "evidence" alone does not infer the conclusion that is being supposed (you only see that conclusion because you're looking for evidence to support that conclusion). This doesn't mean you're wrong; it simply means that the evidence itself doesn't suggest that you're right.

Forgive my phrasing: I would be careful of using "begging the question" as a major source of contention, simply because I was pointing out that I felt just calling BioWare lazy was also begging toe question based on his line of logic.

devSin wrote...

Origins was primarily completed by the end of 2008 (and there's no clear answer as to when the writers finished the majority of their work; it would have been prior to the game being finished, however). The release was delayed from early 2009 to November so that it could be released simultaneously on all three platforms (for most its life, it existed as a PC-only title).

Awakening and DA2 development was almost certainly started during this period (this is also the reason Awakening was ready for release a mere four months or so after Origins' official release).

Heh, that does explain why it felt like a PC port on consoles. I was not aware of that, I should've checked my facts more thoroughly then! Regardless, I believe my point still stands, mainly because I can't see the logic from a business standpoint by investing money in a full sequel to a game before the original game has even come out. Thats a LOT to get on board for, even with EA's limitless money pool, when the investor has no idea how well the original product will even do. Granted this is all speculation, but I can't see them starting DAII very long before the release date of DA:O. The team likely used most of that year of delay to make Awakening, which would explain, as you've stated, how it came out four months after release of DA:O

devSin wrote...

Drew left while ME2 was being completed, and there's no evidence he left any sort of plan (and what we have is certainly not something he wrote). We're not sure if they ever even had a plan (we know there wasn't one when they did ME, and we have rumors of the dark energy plot they were considering, but nothing indicates where or when the current ending was conceived).

Also, the team expected to have less than two years, and when the beta was leaked last year, the ending was almost identical to what we have now. This doesn't preclude some secret indoctrination ending, but there's nothing conclusive I've seen that would even hint that it was what they planned. Truthfully, it looks like they rushed into an ending that maybe didn't get the scrutiny it required and was implemented and wrapped up and released, and has failed horribly and made mockery of all their claims about what they were going to provide.

I would be thrilled if you were right, that there was some greater plan and they had a masterfully crafted ending nearing completion they're just waiting to announce at PAX, but everything I've seen simply seems to show somebody who aspired to do something far beyond their apparent ability to deliver.

Yes, I'm aware of Drew's departure (he went to work on SWTOR). He himself confirmed that dark energy was "on the table" at one point, and due to all the foreshadowing done in the second game it would seem to indicate that's what he had planned, at least.

It was also heavily hinted in the Arrival DLC that came out in March 2011, so they had to change over from dark energy to the Catalyst stuff between then and the leak in November. However, the Final Hours app does state that they even delayed some of TIM's voice acting until mid November because they were still tweaking and changing things with the ending (they may have still been considering a TIM boss fight at that point, who knows?). The Final Hours app also confirms that they had a sequence planned where Shepard was to undergo full indoctrination.

The Final Hours App wrote...

"And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped because the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices)"

I'm not saying this means "IDT IS RIGHT LOLOLOL" the whole sequence with TIM that we got at the end is probably a watered-down version of this, but the potential is still there.

Regardless, considering how many promises they made about the complexity and diversity of the endings, it would be incredibly embarassing to bungle it all right here, literally as they were crossing the finish line for the ME trilogy. I don't think any of us want to believe it, I'll acknowledge I'm grasping for anything that will tell me they didn't just royally screw up, but for a company that's been so incredible until this point its really, REALLY hard to swallow.

Maybe they just weren't able to deliver due to time constraints or resources or something, but I have the feeling if they approached EA and said "We need a little more time/money to flesh out our new ending, it'll make the final product much better" EA would've given it to them. I think EA trusts BioWare to the point that if BW said "it'll improve your bottom line" EA would throw money at them to make it happen. So why didn't they? Considering they delayed an official statement until April, they'll probably make a statement at PAX in a couple days (it only makes sense). Hopefully when they don't feel as demonized by the community they'll engage in more open talks and, if nothing else, explain their rationale behind whatever they finalize as the ending.

Although if IDT or some "the endings as they are are not what they seem" is true and they're holding the ending back, I have a feeling that its something that EA could get behind business-wise. Just so no one starts ripping me a new one for seeming to claim the following is "fact", ALL THAT FOLLOWS IS PURE SPECULATION:

The ending, whatever it may be, IDT, hallucination, something else, whatever, might've been held back to kill used game sales. You heard right.

Say BioWare wants to break the fourth wall and indoctrinate the player, or do something else crazy with the ending that we haven't even thought of. They ask EA if they can release it later, obviously for free to those who bought the game. EA would be smart to greenlight it. Why? Because it means that only people who buy a new copy of the game get the complete ending, thereby dealing a major blow to used game sales. It's not the first time EA would've done something like this, I remember off the top of my head a Tiger Woods PGA golf game that has much of the content locked down until you put in a new game passcode to verify you bought new. By doing this for ME, BioWare gets to do their crazy medium pushing thing (or gets more time to flesh out the ending and release it later without impacting the release date) and EA gets to put another nail in the coffin for used game sales. Seems like a win/win for the two of them.

I'm not saying that this right or honorable, but it would be smart business.

/end PURE SPECULATION

Although the final hours app does have that infamous piece of paper with the "Lots of speculation from everyone" quote on it, which destroys a lot of the hope I have plus most of BW's "artistic integrity" defense.

/sigh PAX needs to get here faster . . .

EDIT: Formatting

Modifié par ShadowNinja1129, 01 avril 2012 - 06:59 .

[Samtheman63]

way too long

[Sett101]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Holy mother of nonsense textwalls. If you can't compress a logical argument into a sequence of bulletpoints instead of jumping it through a thousand circular hoops it's no good.

Bottom line: The Indoctrination Theory cannot be disproven because absolutely anything can happen in a dream/hallucination.....hence nothing is inherently false. The end.

^^^See that.....whole OP mess dismantled with two lines.

Unless BioWare addresses it as false(and they'd be stupid to do so) the theory stands.

There is a quote somewhere on this forum from one of the wrting team saying they had one ending that would result in indoc but scrapped it and the App with all sorts of stuff about the endings. That IS bioware saying it and it is not accepted by the indoc folks. So uh here's your sign.
 

[AllThatJazz]

You make a number of really good points, OP. The time and effort that went into this is appreciated. Plus, Brian Cox mention = +100000000 internets for you

This has probably been posted somewhere and I've just missed it - but in ME2 you do the N7 mission Abandoned Mine - during which you fight a bunch of husks, and destroy the Reaper Indoctrination device that created said husks (and which actually looks A LOT like Object Rho). So Reaper artifacts clearly can and do result in indoctrination over a period of time. As such, it is more than likely that Object Rho would have a similar effect (and at any rate, how else would Dr Kenson and her team have become indoctrinated? There is nothing to suggest that they have had any physical contact with an actual Reaper, is there?). Shepard is unconscious in the vicinity of Object Rho for two days. It's at least possible that she could have suffered some ill effect from that. And cumulatively, with the other bits of exposure she's had, it could well be enough for Harbinger to at least make the attempt to control her/him as her mental state gets progressively weaker throughout ME3.

Hah, I'm not 100% sold on the IT, but I do think that Shep has been exposed enough to make it possible.

[Gogzilla]

Ill admit i mainly focused on your debunking evidence section to try to get a different perspective on things but I am going to go insane if i try to read all this dribble.

The number of times you ignore or forget facts.
or simply misunderstand simple concepts.

There is difference between being susceptible to indoctrination,
In the process of indoctrination.
to being an indoctrinated slave.

There is information in the codex, books , comics that you don't even talk about.
Heck you even forgot about indoctrination references in the game.

The cherry on top of everything.

"We’ve got a fleeting glance of Sovereign on Eden Prime (seconds)

· Communication with Sovereign on Virmire (Minutes perhaps?)

· Boarding the derelict Reaper (Forty five minutes tops?)

· Communication with Harbinger via possessed minions. (I don’t think that this should count but I’m including it anyway, let’s say in real combat time maybe 15 hours?)

· The reaper base (at the very least you’re near a larval Reaper- an hour)

· Near Reapers escaping earth (half an hour)

· Fight with a Reaper on Tuckanka (half an hour, including time just spent near it?)

· Last attack in London (An hour maybe in real time. Let’s say three hours in game time?)"

You took the time to write 10,000 words , you might as well have gotten all the instances that were in the game. That list is grossly incomplete.

For example ME1 the end where Shepard fights Soveringn/Saren. The reaper ship is enveloping the tower they were fighting in. Not to even mention the fact that they were trapped in the middle of all the reaper debris for i don't know how long before Anderson showed up.

And how you got those times is a mystery to me.

IT is whole lot circumstantial evidence that lines up a pattern when you connect the dots. Not the strongest stuff but what i read is on even thiner ice.

[XRAY1975]

well, this whole thing begs the question

[Samtheman63]

You're going to feel like a right dick when the DLC comfirms Sheps indoctrination