470 réponses à ce sujet

[Iwillbeback]

Eviscerator03 wrote...



All points I refute in the above piece.

Yeah you can call them points but they have no evidence supporting.
It is merely speculation that was made by people who don't like the genius of IT.

[HellishFiend]

I cannot believe anyone would spend so much time trying to shoot down someone else's speculation.

Isnt the saying "lots of speculation for everyone"? Either come up with your own speculation, read someone elses, or not. But people shouldnt go spending hours or days creating a dissertation with the sole intent to make people feel foolish for doing what Bioware wants us to do, which is to believe in our speculation of choice.

That's so aggravating, that I hope that the Indoc theory turns out to be true so the author of that dissertation will feel as foolish as he is trying to make others feel.

[Eviscerator03]

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...



All points I refute in the above piece.

Yeah you can call them points but they have no evidence supporting.
It is merely speculation that was made by people who don't like the genius of IT.

I'm not going to waste my time any more if you're so indoctrinated into your theory that you are accusing me of not having any evidence without even skimming the post (which would reveal a plethora of evidence).

[phantomdasilva]

HellishFiend wrote...

I cannot believe anyone would spend so much time trying to shoot down someone else's speculation.

Isnt the saying "lots of speculation for everyone"? Either come up with your own speculation, read someone elses, or not. But people shouldnt go spending hours or days creating a dissertation with the sole intent to make people feel foolish for doing what Bioware wants us to do, which is to believe in our speculation of choice.

That's so aggravating, that I hope that the Indoc theory turns out to be true so the author of that dissertation will feel as foolish as he is trying to make others feel.

I think the main issue is that some people have claim that speculation to be objective fact.

So when someone say the ending is bad, someone jumps in well you are too stupid and missed the clues for indoctrination. Bioware are genious for thinking up this theory etc.

If it's just speculation then I doubt articles like this would be written.

Modifié par phantomdasilva, 31 mars 2012 - 11:33 .

[Iwillbeback]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...



All points I refute in the above piece.

Yeah you can call them points but they have no evidence supporting.
It is merely speculation that was made by people who don't like the genius of IT.

I'm not going to waste my time any more if you're so indoctrinated into your theory that you are accusing me of not having any evidence without even skimming the post (which would reveal a plethora of evidence).

You keep saying it is evidence but all I see is Speculation.

[Leonia]

I don't know why anyone should feel foolish or insulted for reading something that runs contrary to their own opinion. Read the article before you make such baseless assumptions. It's ok for people to disagree, at this juncture we can't rule anything out completely but we can try to understand one another and make sound arguments based on facts. If you don't like that, fine, but nobody is calling you names. Stop putting words in the mouths of those who do not accept IT. They aren't doing it to you, show some curtesy and respect in return.

Modifié par leonia42, 31 mars 2012 - 11:37 .

[Eviscerator03]

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...



All points I refute in the above piece.

Yeah you can call them points but they have no evidence supporting.
It is merely speculation that was made by people who don't like the genius of IT.

I'm not going to waste my time any more if you're so indoctrinated into your theory that you are accusing me of not having any evidence without even skimming the post (which would reveal a plethora of evidence).

You keep saying it is evidence but all I see is Speculation.

Wilful disbelief- it's covered in part one. And if everything present to counter IT is just 'speculation' then everything to support it is also speculation as the same inconsistensies are used.

[HellishFiend]

phantomdasilva wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

I cannot believe anyone would spend so much time trying to shoot down someone else's speculation.

Isnt the saying "lots of speculation for everyone"? Either come up with your own speculation, read someone elses, or not. But people shouldnt go spending hours or days creating a dissertation with the sole intent to make people feel foolish for doing what Bioware wants us to do, which is to believe in our speculation of choice.

That's so aggravating, that I hope that the Indoc theory turns out to be true so the author of that dissertation will feel as foolish as he is trying to make others feel.

I think the main issue is that some people have claim that speculation to be objective fact.

So when someone say the ending is bad, someone jumps in well you are too stupid and missed the clues for indoctrination. Bioware are genious for thinking up this theory etc.

If it's just speculation then I doubt articles like this would be written.

You make a good point, but if that dissertation is directed at the subset of believers in the indoctrionation theory that proclaim it as undeniable fact, then that just makes it pointless instead of arrogant, as it would never actually reach it's target audience in any meaningful capacity. 

[crappyjazzy]

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.

[Iwillbeback]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...



All points I refute in the above piece.

Yeah you can call them points but they have no evidence supporting.
It is merely speculation that was made by people who don't like the genius of IT.

I'm not going to waste my time any more if you're so indoctrinated into your theory that you are accusing me of not having any evidence without even skimming the post (which would reveal a plethora of evidence).

You keep saying it is evidence but all I see is Speculation.

Wilful disbelief- it's covered in part one. And if everything present to counter IT is just 'speculation' then everything to support it is also speculation as the same inconsistensies are used.

Everything used to support IT is in the game and can be easily undertsood.
Using outside elements that don't appear in the game is hardly evidence and doesn't support it because it is meaningless.

[Ira Deorum]

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.

[nitefyre410]

leonia42 wrote...

I don't know why anyone should feel foolish or insulted for reading something that runs contrary to their own opinion. Read the article before you make such baseless assumptions. It's ok for people to disagree, at this juncture we can't rule anything out completely but we can try to understand one another and make sound arguments based on facts. If you don't like that, fine, but nobody is calling you names. Stop putting words in the mouths of those who do not accept IT. They aren't doing it to you, show some curtesy and respect in return.

 

I'm just going to quit this because it sum everything up nice... 

To the OP ... great post... I reading the blog now.

[Nyctyris]

Just going to address one point. There's so much I could say about Occam's razor.

Like the fact that Indoc Theory is arguably the simplest explanation, within the Mass Effect universe (if not within our own, but that's arguable as well.) Being wary of overly complex theories is probably a good practice, but in relation to Indoc Theory I don't find it overly complex, so much as it is merely "subtle". The basic theory is in fact quite simple. 

Occam's Razor isn't immune to personal prejuidice. An explanation which fits with one person's world view will, by the person, be considered "more simplistic", whereas one which is at odds with their world view will be considered unnecessarily complicated. In relation to indoc theory, that's another way of saying, "John doesn't agree with indoc theory, so indoc theory seems unnecessarily complex to him; Bob does agree with indoc theory, so it seems quite natural to him". 

In any case, while an interesting guideline, "testing the razor" has often proved false, when it is solely relied on. It works well as a guideline for selecting theories, but as a methodological principle it is way too simple. The theory of aether was propounded as being the simplest explanation, but of course we know now that this is nonsense.Some explanations (such as how the human body functions at the molecular level) are just too complex to be addressed through a "go for the simplest approach". There is very little evidence that the world is simplistic; just the opposite.




Seems like (correct me if I'm wrong) the fundamental issue here is one of basic premise. Indoc theorists are working on the premise that, within the context of the Mass Effect universe, there is an explanation for the ending which makes more sense than what is presented on the surface. 

In contrast, your premise is that the explanation should make sense from the context of our universe, as the audience looking in. Therefore, indoc theory seems less likely from an outside, metagame perspective; it is much simpler to say that the endings were bungled. 

However, regardless of which turns out to be the case, the fact is that any epilogue or ending dlc which addresses or explains the ending must, if it is to be satisfactory, offer an explanation which DOES fit and make sense within the context of the Mass Effect universe. It isn't enough for Joker to turn to Liara in-game and say, "Hey, guess what, we died to plot holes. All good?" There has to be an ingame explanation (at some point) as well as, and independent from, the out-of-game explanation. Until we have more information from bioware, indoc theory goes a long way towards offering a fun and interesting in-game explanation, even though it admittedly doesn't cover every point or seeming plothole.

Modifié par Nyctyris, 31 mars 2012 - 12:05 .

[phantomdasilva]

HellishFiend wrote...

You make a good point, but if that dissertation is directed at the
subset of believers in the indoctrionation theory that proclaim it as
undeniable fact, then that just makes it pointless instead of arrogant,
as it would never actually reach it's target audience in any meaningful
capacity.

I don't know, people write essays debunking conspiracy theorist all the time. Sometimes people write essays about pointless topics because it's fun, entertaining, intellectually stimulating or as a form of self-expression. It doesn't have to be related to convincing other people

although I will say that if people are willing to write 22 minute videos and a very lengthy essay supporting their subjective speculation of the indoctrination theory. Then i think it's ok to write a lengthy essay debunking it even if both accept it was speculation.

My only real problem with this essay is that the tone of it was pretty snarky and patronising and there didn't seem to be obvious distinguishment between the people who believed it as a good exlpanation of the ending and people who believe bioware were behind all of it. .

[Darth_Trethon]

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.

Modifié par Darth_Trethon, 31 mars 2012 - 11:50 .

[Samuel1323]

I just recently beat ME3 again. After you get hit by harbingers beam you wake up who knows how much time after. Your armor is burnt off lovically so would your radio. Mass effect 3 doesnt have 2d ****t textures for 3d objects. The corps near the make all are flattened in an unrealistic way, as are all the pitch black shrubs they are completely 2d. You have trees from your dream in the background near the beam. You move faster than you should be for limbing the stridee doesnt match the speed. You have a Pistol with unlimited ammo, you kill 3 husks While limping to the beam, keep in mind you arent bleeding from a wound in your side. Marauder shields shoots you in the right shoulder then you walk into the beam. You wake up again and that same flattened body texture is in the dark hallway, it also resembles the faces of the dead you knew like kaiden. Ashley, and thane. Anderson contacts you on yourcomm that should have been burned off from harbingers beam. He says that he followed you inside the beam, yet you never see anderson before you enter the beam, and he didnt tell the corporal or the admiral that you are still alive. Anderson is in a dak hallway and sais the place is shifting. He somehow beats you to the console and when you get into the room you realize there is only one way into the chamber. Anderson doesnt look wounded sny more than usual yet your armor got shredded by harbingers beam. Then the illusive man walks in outa nowhere and mind controlls you even though previous indoctinated victins couldnt control non indoctrinated beings. You argue with him and if you let him kill you he doesnt even turn to the console even though he just ranted about how the crucible cant let him controll the repears. If you go paragon he kills himself and you sit by anderson and watch the view as anderson bleeds out. Yet shepard. Clutches his side like he was shot too but he never got shot there then somehow admiral hackett contacts shepard even though everyone thinks hes dead. Then shepard passes out and wakes up again near the vod child and you know what happens there. The big hints are rhat the music. Changes in each path, the destroy sounds like hope. And when shepard does shnthesis or control his eyes change to look exactly like sarens or the illusive mans, and there is also no kinetic atkosphere near the presidium. Hence you had to wear a mask in mass effect 1 .

Shepard is indoctinated so dont pull that Everyone who doesnt believe what I believe is illogical an has flawed logic bull****.

Sorry for any typos typIng on ipod

[pharsti]

You cant convince the IT believers that its not true, the denial is too strong, just give up.

Even after BW tells them its not true, theyll still believe it , thou i see no need for them to say the obvious.

[Thornquist]

Great post OP. However, by the recent Bioware announcements like Rays, I do believe most IT-believers have gone from "IT is the truth" to "IT should be the truth"

In any case: People believe what they want to believe.

[phantomdasilva]

Iwillbeback wrote...


Everything used to support IT is in the game and can be easily undertsood.
Using outside elements that don't appear in the game is hardly evidence and doesn't support it because it is meaningless.

It depending what the IT is there to promote

If the theory is that Bioware intended the IT. Then using outside elements that doesn't appear in the game is a very reasonable and can be used.

If you are taking a suspension of disbelief approach and just, trying to create a theory to justify what we see on the screen. Then using stuff outside the game is pointless.

Nevertheless this article isn't about people who belief in the latter just the former.

Modifié par phantomdasilva, 31 mars 2012 - 11:55 .

[Leonia]

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.

Really, that's your argument? You can't look at that and tell me what fallacy you just used? Being too lazy to read the article is one thing but don't extend that laziness to the foundation of your argument, you do yourself a great disservice.

[Fingertrip]

TL;DR

[Nyctyris]

well, I haven't been lazy, feel free to address me.

[arthurhallam]

this is an excellent post & reflects a lot of the comments I've been leaving against this absurd theory. well done op

[Darth_Trethon]

pharsti wrote...

You cant convince the IT believers that its not true, the denial is too strong, just give up.

Even after BW tells them its not true, theyll still believe it , thou i see no need for them to say the obvious.

BioWare has been dead quiet....they wouldn't want to spoil their new DLC either way. But as far as belief goes the same goes for you.....no ammount of logical evidence will convince you because you WANT to believe the IT is false whereas you cannot prove it false no matter what beacause absolutely anything and everything is possible in a hallucination or a dream.....still there are piles and piles of convincing arguments as to why it is a hallucination or dream and nothing substantial to prove it real....mainly because it's a completely nonsensical mess that has no logic without a million assumptions....like a pink space angel unicorn that poops rainbows ressurected Shep's dead squad members and teleported them to the Normandy......I mean that's totally more believable than say....Shepard was hallucinating/dreaming that his squad members died and that the Normandy left.

[arthurhallam]

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.

what dumb anti-intellectual horse****.