470 réponses à ce sujet

[Baronesa]

huntsman2310 wrote...

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

EMERGENCY INDUCTION PORTS...

[rachellouise]

I could say this:

It could be a dying dream. Shepard chooses to believe she is saving everyone she cares about by sacrificing herself. However everyone is dead or soon will be, as she was stopped before she could actually get to the beam.
The reapers will be back in the next cycle

Modifié par rachellouise, 31 mars 2012 - 12:44 .

[TyDurden13]

I'm guessing the OP is currently an undergrad at a small liberal arts college?

[Candidate 88766]

OP, you put into words what I couldn't possibly hope to do.

The IT is essentially fanfiction. Its quite a good idea, and there is some in-game stuff that kind of supports it (if, as you say, you first accept that the theory is true) and if there had been proper foreshadowing and actual closure afterwards it could have been really good.

I have nothing against people that want the IT to be true. I can't blame them for wanting something different when I myself am just headcanoning most of the ending sequence.

However, it baffles me that there are so many people that believe that not only is the IT 100% true, but that Bioware actually intended it - that Bioware chose to release ME3 without its ending purely for the sake of a 'surprise'.

The story is as much the fans' story as it is the writers' imo. If people want to believe this theory, then I have no problem with that. The endings as they are were highly disappointing, and so it makes sense that people want to believe something else. But as this thread points out, you can't say that the IT is actually correct. Most 'evidence' for it is only works if you first accept that the theory is correct, which isn't how evidence works.

[Darth_Trethon]

rachellouise wrote...

I could say this:

It could be a dying dream. Shepard chooses to believe she is saving everyone she cares about by sacrificing herself. However everyone is dead or soon will be, as she was stopped before she could actually get to the beam.
The reapers will be back in the next cycle

It could be a dream without being a"dying" dream....DLC: "Shep, wake up"....continues. And even that assumption is false....if Shep dies we just don't know what happens next...someone else can potentially get to the beam and do the job. Shep isn't the only competent person in the galaxy.

[Marta Rio II]

The thing I find interesting about the indoc theory, that separates it from other conspiracy theories, is that Bioware had been actively encouraging it. 

Tweets from @masseffect, Jessica Merizan, and Chris Priestly (if I recall correctly) had been somewhat supportive of it, not going so far as to say "yes the indoc theory is true", but saying things along the line of "yeah, that's definitely a possible interpretation...;)", thus implying that it's true.  I think even Stanley Woo said something similar in these forums at one point.

To use the 9/11 example from the OP: it would be akin to someone high in the Bush Administration "liked" the film Loose Change (a 9/11 conspiracy theory vid) on facebook.  Not outright confirmation of the conspiracy theory, but approval, nonetheless.

I don't believe the indoc theory is true (for many of the reasons stated in the OP).  I think Bioware was initially encouraging this type of speculation so that dissatisfied fans would take the theory and run with it, and therefore no longer be dissatisfied and angry with the company.

If you think about it, the fan-devised theory is a convenient "get out of jail free" card, as all Bioware has to say is: "If you think the indoc theory is true, then it is.  Your speculation is as valid as anyone else's.  Aren't you clever!" In the early days of the ending backlash, they seemed to use this strategy in the hope that it would be enough to placate fans, but it clearly wasn't as they have since changed their tune (see Hudson and Muzyka's most recent statements).

I think this was a, well, less than responsible initial strategy, as it seems to have spawned a thousand conspiracy theorists, all of whom will be even more dissapointed when in turns out that indoc theory isn't true.

Modifié par Marta Rio II, 31 mars 2012 - 12:51 .

[celozzip]

op i didn't read any of that long-winded bollocks you posted. just wanted you to know. people on this forum need to get a life. this is worse than the theorists on the LOST forums back in the day. reams and reams of text all for nothing in the end.

[Iwillbeback]

huntsman2310 wrote...

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

Lol.

You have no idea, Indoctrination seems to be beyond your comprehension.
I fully understand Indoctrination, trust no one and everything isn't as it seems.

You can believe what you want and Bioware can claim Indoctrination isn't real but that doesn't change the fact that it is real and Mass effect 3 is only the beginning of the end.

[Lmaoboat]

phantomdasilva wrote...

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.

If Data is in idiot, it is because the writer intended him to be an idiot.  Trying to use the other method in an argument sounds like you're ignoring causality, as if the Mass Effect games just appeared out of nowhere one day.

[AcesRedd]

Still working through the OP but I just wanted to mention that in the Comics where we see a young TIM we see an artifact used by Saren's brother that does indoctrinate people....Turians and one human. Also I think that's where TIM's indoctrination actually began. Sorry if it was mentioned before though.

[pharsti]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

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.

Well, maybe youre not, but just on this topic ive already seen some people straight out saying IT is fact, with even one saying that even if BW disproves it, its still canon. Thats my only problem with the IT crowd, other than that, its fine, i still think its worse writting than what i got, but id accept it if true.

And as you said, it cant be "proven" false, just as you cant prove its true, pretty sure thats why they call it a theory. Id say it would be a "solid possibility" if they had acted differently when faced with all the outrage the ending got, but seeing their statements, id say at best its a "very far off possibility".
I even find it hard to discuss something i can only see as obvious, especially when (and not trying to offend anyone) the IT believers act like some conspiracy nuts, overanalying everything and going into convoluted "reasons" why theyre right..... i remember trying to discuss with someone who didnt believe humans went to the moon.... sweet starchild, the feeling is the same

Like knocking your head on a wall XD

As you said, well see when they announce the dlc, personally i think theyll just try to plug the plot craters (that alone will be an amazing feat XD) and maybe give an epilogue. Using the IT would go in the "change the ending" part, and im pretty sure BW wont do that.

I do think its an amazing statement to how bad BW screwed up thou.... the ending is so bad people want it to be a dream! Not something you see often eheh

[Candidate 88766]

Iwillbeback wrote...

huntsman2310 wrote...

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

Lol.

You have no idea, Indoctrination seems to be beyond your comprehension.
I fully understand Indoctrination, trust no one and everything isn't as it seems.

You can believe what you want and Bioware can claim Indoctrination isn't real but that doesn't change the fact that it is real and Mass effect 3 is only the beginning of the end.

So even if the people who wrote and developed this story came and said outright that the theory is wrong, you would still think that it is real?

You can't possibly believe that.

[Lmaoboat]

Iwillbeback wrote...

huntsman2310 wrote...

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

Lol.

You have no idea, Indoctrination seems to be beyond your comprehension.
I fully understand Indoctrination, trust no one and everything isn't as it seems.

You can believe what you want and Bioware can claim Indoctrination isn't real but that doesn't change the fact that it is real and Mass effect 3 is only the beginning of the end.

Wrong. If Bioware says it isn't real, it isn't End of story.

[Cazlee]

@Marta Rio II: The concept of Shepard falling into the same trap as Saren or TIM is really a neat idea, and it's something that Bioware will never confirm or deny because the whole point of having those three options were to encourage fan speculation.

Modifié par Cazlee, 31 mars 2012 - 12:53 .

[Sassafrass23]

Congrats. You provided a great wall of text to try and prove FAN fiction speculation wrong with your own speculation. But in all seriousness the ending is so vague, so far out there that what we created was merely speculation, head cannon, and fan fiction. Until bioware announces what is cannon the IT theory and your counter argument is all just speculation and head cannon. Which is the huge issue with the ending. All we can do is speculate. Is the IT theory wrong? We dont know. Is your theory wrong? We dont know. The problem is we are forced to create our own headcannon and believe it is true. If you dont agree with IT more power to you, but dont try and force your view as the one and only true cannon. And if you counter with "Oh but IT theory people try and force it on us" Your only stuping to their level and are just as much at fault as them.

Modifié par Sassafrass23, 31 mars 2012 - 12:54 .

[The man of myth]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

ardias89 wrote...

We were reduced by a bad ending into analysing it so that we could get some closure like we were promised. And who exactly are you to judge, yes the IT is a fan construction and that alone makes it false, however like I said what does it matter we were promised closure and we didn’t get it, then the natural action must be to analyses and make sense of it which the IT does.

If people were not peddling it as fact Iw ouldn't be bothered. However that isn't the case- IT is being sold as truth. Any siutation where people accept falsehood as truth is potentially a dangerous one. Denial of bad news (esepcially news requiring action such as the death of a family member) is an example of this.

Uhhh, you do know this a video game, right?

[Darth_Trethon]

Marta Rio II wrote...

The thing I find interesting about the indoc theory, that separates it from other conspiracy theories, is that Bioware had been actively encouraging it. 

Tweets from @masseffect, Jessica Merizan, and Chris Priestly (if I recall correctly) had been somewhat supportive of it, not going so far as to say "yes the indoc theory is true", but saying things along the line of "yeah, that's definitely a possible interpretation...;)", thus implying that it's true.  I think even Stanley Woo said something similar in these forums at one point.

To use the 9/11 example from the OP: it would be akin to someone high in the Bush Administration "liked" the film Loose Change (a 9/11 conspiracy theory vid) on facebook.  Not outright confirmation of the conspiracy theory, but approval, nonetheless.

I don't believe the indoc theory is true (for many of the reasons stated in the OP).  I think Bioware was initially encouraging this type of speculation so that dissatisfied fans would take the theory and run with it, and therefore no longer be dissatisfied and angry with the company.

If you think about it, the fan-devised theory is a convenient "get out of jail free" card, as all Bioware has to say is: "If you think the indoc theory is true, then it is.  Your speculation is as valid as anyone else's.  Aren't you clever!" In the early days of the ending backlash, they seemed to use this strategy in the hope that it would be enough to placate fans, but it clearly wasn't as they have since changed their tune (see Hudson and Muzyka's most recent statements).

I think this was a, well, less than responsible initial strategy, as it seems to have spawned a thousand conspiracy theorists, all of whom will be even more dissapointed when in turns out that indoc theory isn't true.

All good points but one flaw....if the IT is true then where is the real ending? So BioWare would be stupid to think it is enough to make fans accept the worthless trash of an ending they delivered. I am inclined to believe the IT is true and want BioWare to take it and biuild a whole new ending discarding the trash we now have but by itself it does NOT satisfy me or most of the others supporting it.

Modifié par Darth_Trethon, 31 mars 2012 - 12:57 .

[pablosplinter]

I only read half of that but had to stop, not patronizing enough for me.

[Iwillbeback]

Lmaoboat wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

huntsman2310 wrote...

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

Lol.

You have no idea, Indoctrination seems to be beyond your comprehension.
I fully understand Indoctrination, trust no one and everything isn't as it seems.

You can believe what you want and Bioware can claim Indoctrination isn't real but that doesn't change the fact that it is real and Mass effect 3 is only the beginning of the end.

Wrong. If Bioware says it isn't real, it isn't End of story.

You must be joking.
Indoctrination is now beyond them they can't stop it, it goes everywhere it infects every part of the story and it makes sense, it doesn't matter if they don't want it to be true.
They created it but now it is rebelling against them, they can't stop it.

Modifié par Iwillbeback, 31 mars 2012 - 12:58 .

[Fulgrim88]

Iwillbeback wrote...

Lmaoboat wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

huntsman2310 wrote...

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

Lol.

You have no idea, Indoctrination seems to be beyond your comprehension.
I fully understand Indoctrination, trust no one and everything isn't as it seems.

You can believe what you want and Bioware can claim Indoctrination isn't real but that doesn't change the fact that it is real and Mass effect 3 is only the beginning of the end.

Wrong. If Bioware says it isn't real, it isn't End of story.

You must be joking.
Indoctrination is now beyond them they can't stop it, it goes everywhere it infects every part of the story and it makes sense, it doesn't matter if they don't want it to be true.
They created it but now it is rebelling against them, they can't stop it.

At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. Crazy people make more sense than that

[Marta Rio II]

Cazlee wrote...

@Marta Rio II: The concept of Shepard falling into the same trap as Saren or TIM is really a neat idea, and it's something that Bioware will never confirm or deny because the whole point of having those three options were to encourage fan speculation.

Right, I agree with that.  I mean, I'd say that the indoc theory is a valid interpretation of the ending, as it nixes a lot of the plotholes and logical issues that exist in the current ending.  It just has this sort of weird conspiracy theory angle attached to it, that arose due to things that Bioware said in the early days of the ending backlash.

I think the problem is that Bioware underestimated how literally proponents of this theory would take their social media statements.  And it's partly because of those statements that we now have a large number of people clinging to the idea that the indoc theory is the Truth, rather than just one of many ways to interpret the ending.

Modifié par Marta Rio II, 31 mars 2012 - 01:01 .

[Lmaoboat]

Iwillbeback wrote...

Lmaoboat wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

huntsman2310 wrote...

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

Lol.

You have no idea, Indoctrination seems to be beyond your comprehension.
I fully understand Indoctrination, trust no one and everything isn't as it seems.

You can believe what you want and Bioware can claim Indoctrination isn't real but that doesn't change the fact that it is real and Mass effect 3 is only the beginning of the end.

Wrong. If Bioware says it isn't real, it isn't End of story.

You must be joking.
Indoctrination is now beyond them they can't stop it, it goes everywhere it infects every part of the story and it makes sense, it doesn't matter if they don't want it to be true.
They created it but now it is rebelling against them, they can't stop it.

Oh, I get it now: you're completely bonkers.

Modifié par Lmaoboat, 31 mars 2012 - 01:02 .

[LieroOnTheMoon]

I guess some people have compulsive need to crush other peoples dreams and hope.

[phantomdasilva]

Lmaoboat wrote...

phantomdasilva wrote...

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.

If Data is in idiot, it is because the writer intended him to be an idiot.  Trying to use the other method in an argument sounds like you're ignoring causality, as if the Mass Effect games just appeared out of nowhere one day.

No one is claiming that the writers didn't write the story and that the story exist independentedly from the creator

However the suspension of disbelief is a good test on how well the writer was able to express their intentions and points of view

isn't the job of the writer, is to be able to express their intentions and vision so that the universe matches up their intention.

If intent is everything, then well every artist intended to make a good story

If a writer wrote a movie that was intended to be non-racist and spread the issue of tolerance they manage to botch it up and offended everyone because what's on the screen didn't match their intended message but also spread the opposite message

Can you just dismiss the complaint as, well the author intended the movie to be non-racist and it was only his ignorance that made the message of the movie different to what turn out on the screen?

If we dismiss the suspension of disbelief interpretation, then Jar Jar binks is a lovable cute character, instead of annoying. After all we judge the character by how they behave on screen, not what the author  wanted the audience to feel.

If the writers wanted Data to be smart, they have to demonstrate that Data is smart by writing intelligent lines.

It's like the time where Worf was a laughing stock by the fans because he kept losing fights. The author itnended Worf to be bad arse, the audience reacted that he was hopeless in the fight because he loses fight because what on the screen didn't match the intention

Modifié par phantomdasilva, 31 mars 2012 - 01:06 .

[wrc78]

I have only read the post which is truncated to the end, and not bothered to copy the URL to read its very end, but I was honestly open to something that would make me change my mind.

I was not sold at all on the indoctrination theory at the beginning, and I admit it is something to compensate the only other explanation the post states, that is the ending has just been rushed.

Trouble is there I only read the "why" of the indoc theory being fought by "why not ?".
I don't have the time (nor the will) to quote each of the argument, but most of the debunking is done by rethoric and the whole of the debunking really doesn't weight in the end more than the indoc theory does.
Just trying to clear assumptions by making different ones which don't have more ground even in a "non indoctrinated human mind" does not make them better.

Further more, it also assumes the indoctrination theory as being a whole totally accepted by every person who believes it makes some sense. While I tend toward this theory, I find some of its arguments doubtful, which does not mean I find the whole point meaningless.

Of course, it is also obvious that believing in the indoc theory also means the will to believe in Bioware, and is some kind of leap of faith, as else, you're either not implicated enough in the trilogy and don't care about all the loose end and can go "OK, that's the end, why not. Let's do something else.", or as your post describes it, "Bioware just rushed it"; shame for the conclusion of its conclusion.

Hopefully in April we'll have some things that matter more than all the running speculation.

Modifié par wrc78, 31 mars 2012 - 01:13 .