470 réponses à ce sujet

[Baronesa]

Very interesting post. Well done, great points

And you mentioned Brian Cox... you win

[Jigokou]

rachellouise wrote...

so the VI can choose who they see indoctrination in?

I assume that the VI can only sense Indoctrination at a certain stage. When the Victim's mind is still their own and fighting off the Reaper's influence, the sensors don't pick anything up. Once the brain has undergone complete change and the Reaper's influence take full root, that's when the sensors pick up the indoctrination.

[Darth_Trethon]

leonia42 wrote...

Now now, ad hominems don't help the cause.

I love how the term "canon" now has a subjective definition, however.

"Are we to allow dreams into evidence now? How can I defend myself against that."

I love that quote....we all know how obviously false those dreams were and how it all turned out for Saren....clearly dreams should have been allowed into evidence....the gallaxy would have been A LOT more prepared for the reapers.

I love the arguments "disproving" the IT I really do....

[Leonia]

Baronesa wrote...

Very interesting post. Well done, great points

And you mentioned Brian Cox... you win

Indeed, I have a sudden urge to rewatch those Origins of the Universe docos. Good stuff.

[Emerald69]

Indoctrination Theory adds logic and meaning to that mess of an ending, and it may not be what BioWare intended, but I think it says a whole lot when the ending explained by the fans makes much more sense the ending given by BioWare.

[Ira Deorum]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Fact? How is dead people coming back to life a fact? Elaborate more.....

The "I'm right because I am" argument is fascinating....

You all are making this too easy.....if I can tear down everything you say in two lines you're doing it wrong.

He's not saying anything like that. He's saying that it's wrong to conclude something as fact despite it not being proven.
Don't put words into people's mouth and make idiotic assumptions.

The only people here using the "I'm right because I am" argument is you and the Iwillbeback guy.

[Darth_Trethon]

Emerald69 wrote...

Indoctrination Theory adds logic and meaning to that mess of an ending, and it may not be what BioWare intended, but I think it says a whole lot when the ending explained by the fans makes much more sense the ending given by BioWare.

But.....but ......you don't understand.....the IT is false because that's a fact and it's a fact because I say so and all I ever say is fact. How can you not see the facts?

[Bob3terd]

People believe what they want to believe, ill remain neutral on IT till bioware actually gives us more info.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

-Draikin- wrote...

I haven't read everything, but I never believed the IT so I don't need to be convinced anyway. The IT is what it is: a fan made theory that's trying to explain the ending without having to conclude that Bioware messed up big time. If people still want to believe it, I can't stop them, but I regret that it's dividing the part of the community that's asking for new endings, and therefore weakening our position. The IT is being used by some gaming media as an example to show that the ending actually works, while in my humble opinion it actually shows that the ending fails miserably. I mean, the fans are using it explain the ending by saying it never happened, that the ending makes so little sense that the only logical conclusion would be that it's all a dream. That's depressing. And I don't think Bioware intends to debunk the theory either, as I've said before it's in their best interest to keep the speculation going.

What's even worse is, I'm reading articles from certain game media that state Bioware shouldn't change the ending because it may invalidate certain people's theories about the ending, like the IT. They'd rather let people believe their own made up theories about the ending rather than having it make sense. It's just ridiculous.

As opposed to wanting to indoctrination theory to be false, to prove that BioWare messed up, only so you get new endings? That's not 'depressing'?

[Jigokou]

Without the Indoctrination Theory, all that we have left is an ending that makes no freaking sense whatsoever. The Theory actually fills the gaps and explains the plotholes and leaps in logic perfectly, and it's all in the realm of possibility. It makes actually more sense than accepting what we got at face value. I just find it hard to believe, that after such a great Trilogy, they managed to completely drop the ball on the last 10 minutes. It just doesn't seem possible.

[Arthorius]

Ugh...Wall of text, contemptuous titles and missing the point. Yeah, I'm not reading that. Cool story bro.

[pharsti]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Fact? How is dead people coming back to life a fact? Elaborate more.....

The "I'm right because I am" argument is fascinating....

You all are making this too easy.....if I can tear down everything you say in two lines you're doing it wrong.

I think you misread, i said the problem with the IT is that people state it as fact, when its not, youre free to believe it, youre free to defend it and the reasons why you think it should apply, but stating it as pure fact is as true as all the things Mr. Hudson said in his interviews XD..... by the way.... when did i say something about dead people coming back to life ?

There is nothing for you to tear down mate, thou youre free to make yourself feel better by thinking that XD

[phantomdasilva]

Lmaoboat wrote...


You know Mass Effect is fiction, right? Somebody had to write it. That only explanation you need for anything in-universe is that Bioware wrote it, for whatever reason, that way. So unless all Bioware's PR damage control is actually fake, and just another layer of their ingenious plot in which they faked a horrible ending, only to come out with the real one, I'd say not only are outside elements important, but they completely supersede ingame "evidence".

Yes it is fiction but I don't believe author intention superceres what is in the screen because whatever the author is intending, they have to demonstrate it by having the in-universe consistent with their intention.  If it's not, then the message of the movie/game is different than their intentions.

One of my earlier post I mention in this board mentions the difference between the literary method and suspension of disbelief method in analysing works of fiction

I'll just used an example
Data in Star trek makes a comment that is scientifically inaccurate.
Literary method -  The writer stuffed up and made a scientific error. The author didn't intend Data to make a scientific mistake. We'll just assume that Data didn't say it or just imagine that data said something that was scietntific accurate to replace it. So retcon the mistake
The suspension of disbelief- Data is an idiot This is shown by him making numerous scientific mistakes

The literary analysis goes through the author intent, the suspension of
disbelief goes through the consequences of the intent on the universe. If the author makes a mistake due to bad writing, the suspension of disbelief goes through the consequences of that mistake has on the character etc.

Now which one is a better way to interpret a story. Whatever suits you personally,.. I sometimes switch between teh two outlook but i'm not going to tell other people one way of interpreting the story is more wrong then another.

Modifié par phantomdasilva, 31 mars 2012 - 12:38 .

[Darth_Trethon]

Ira Deorum wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Fact? How is dead people coming back to life a fact? Elaborate more.....

The "I'm right because I am" argument is fascinating....

You all are making this too easy.....if I can tear down everything you say in two lines you're doing it wrong.

He's not saying anything like that. He's saying that it's wrong to conclude something as fact despite it not being proven.
Don't put words into people's mouth and make idiotic assumptions.

The only people here using the "I'm right because I am" argument is you and the Iwillbeback guy.

I never said the IT was fact.....all I'm saying is that elaborate explanations trying to disprove the IT are futile because it cannot be disproven....anything can happen in a dream. Can it be false.....I suppose but untill the DLC ending laaunches to clear all this up the IT stands a a very solid possibility.

[Baronesa]

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.

Care to explain that misunderstanding?

And please don't equate theory with hypothesis.

[Darth_Trethon]

pharsti wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Fact? How is dead people coming back to life a fact? Elaborate more.....

The "I'm right because I am" argument is fascinating....

You all are making this too easy.....if I can tear down everything you say in two lines you're doing it wrong.

I think you misread, i said the problem with the IT is that people state it as fact, when its not, youre free to believe it, youre free to defend it and the reasons why you think it should apply, but stating it as pure fact is as true as all the things Mr. Hudson said in his interviews XD..... by the way.... when did i say something about dead people coming back to life ?

There is nothing for you to tear down mate, thou youre free to make yourself feel better by thinking that XD

I didn't say the IT was a fact.....I said it cannot be disproven and that actually is a fact and very different from me saying that the IT is fact, which I didn't.

I love wordplay.....makes my day.

[flexxdk]

So I read through all of it (yes, ALL of it), and I must say...

I'm impressed.

Too bad there are a few people who keep shouting "THE THEORY IS TRUE BECAUSE I SAY SO" (no offense; probably misunderstood those statements as well...).

Modifié par Whacka, 31 mars 2012 - 12:40 .

[shepLJ]

yep read just about everything about IT but still doesn't feel right - so I will wait and see - still trying to figure out the planet though - one with two Moon or a planet and moon in Kepler verge and the other in athena cluster..- any other ideas?

[SillyNydia]

Can't wait for the announcement or DLC that ends up showing IT is false.. but then again I'm sure we'll have another movement. "Retake Mass Effect 3...again"

Anything, even video evidence that clearly shows major holes in the theory are cast out without a second thought. While I can understand the reason you want it to be true, ignoring anything that contradicts it is just pathetic. And I'm not referring to the OP's wall of text because I didn't read it.

Modifié par SillyNydia, 31 mars 2012 - 12:41 .

[rachellouise]

I never said the IT was fact.....all I'm saying is that elaborate explanations trying to disprove the IT are futile because it cannot be disproven....anything can happen in a dream. Can it be false.....I suppose but untill the DLC ending laaunches to clear all this up the IT stands a a very solid possibility.

it is not futile. Your argument is anything can happen in a dream. However that is based on the assumption that the end is indeed a dream.

[huntsman2310]

I'm with the OP. Indoc theory really is grasping at straws.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

SimKoning wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

SimKoning wrote...

Anderson couldn’t reach the terminal before Shepard. There was only one path leading to that room.

Anderson states the citadel has been moving around and re arranging itself. We see it happening. This is just refusing to accept the obvious. Anderson has also been moving longer than Shepard has- he actually wakes Shepard up on the comms.[

Oh, you need to go back and edit this bit, because there is a far simpler explanation. If you walk out to the shifting mass effect plates, and turn around, it's OBVIOUS that there are many, many doors which are identical to the one you come out of. Anderson made it clear that he came up in a different location, most likely in the corridor adjacent to your own. When I walked out turned around after watching an IT video, I literally facepalmed. Confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty at its best. 

The whole point of the Citadel is that its a basically a big Reaper factory/command ship. It goes planet to planet and "sucks" up their population and spits out baby Reapers...

Yeah, we know that. I still don't get how Anderson reached the beam before Shepard; not to mention where he was at the time/why did they separate.

I actually thought about the Citadel being a Reaper command ship also. How do you know this?!! I don't think it discounts the indoctrination theory though.

Regarding the Citadel:

The Catalyst
"The Citadel is part of me"
"I control the Reapers"

Shepard/Anderson
"reminds me of your description of a Collector ship. Do you think they are making a Reaper in here?"
"Yeah, sure... they harvest the bodies and process them..."

Prothean VI

"The Citadel has moved to Sol to complete the harvesting process"

I can't believe so many people ask how I know this when it's made pretty obvious if you are paying attention.

I might've missed something after getting beamed up.

So does that mean I was right without knowing? That's like inventing the phone all over again! I'm brilliant!

ITS THE INUSANNON PEOPLE. THE INUSANNON ARE THE KEEPERS! Oh my Gooooooooooood!

edit: I don't think it says if the Reapers just moved in and took control of the facilities there, or if the Citadel was always a place where Reapers were created in different cycles. I'm pretty sure it's the latter though!!~

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 31 mars 2012 - 12:48 .

[Fulgrim88]

shepLJ wrote...

yep read just about everything about IT but still doesn't feel right - so I will wait and see - still trying to figure out the planet though - one with two Moon or a planet and moon in Kepler verge and the other in athena cluster..- any other ideas?

It's likely that we haven't visited that planet before.

The Normandy was kicked out of the Mass Relay system during transition.

Chances are that the planet isn't anywhere near the usual Mass Relay entry/exit points. Hence why it hasn't been destroyed by the Relay Explosions

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 31 mars 2012 - 12:43 .

[Darth_Trethon]

rachellouise wrote...

I never said the IT was fact.....all I'm saying is that elaborate explanations trying to disprove the IT are futile because it cannot be disproven....anything can happen in a dream. Can it be false.....I suppose but untill the DLC ending laaunches to clear all this up the IT stands a a very solid possibility.

it is not futile. Your argument is anything can happen in a dream. However that is based on the assumption that the end is indeed a dream.

I didn't assume anything....I just want you to try to provide me a logical explanation as to how two dead squad members returned to life and teleported to the normandy fro under a reaper's nose....

[nitefyre410]

I do believe I will sit back and be mere observer to the train wreck this thread is about become..
Read the entire blog OP... great read... very good points. Nice job.