470 réponses à ce sujet

[FlyinElk212]

You know what's the greatest part about Indoctrination theory? It can't be proven nor unproven.

Most of the post seems to be entirely subjective postulation, with thoughts like, "Evidence can only be accepted if you first accept Indoctrination to be true". These ideas are no better than the ideas brought forth by Indoctrination theorists themselves.

The theory itself isn't the problem-- the people who believe it to be 100% factual, and those that believe it to be 100% fiction, are the problem.

Modifié par FlyinElk212, 31 mars 2012 - 02:01 .

[JesseLee202]

BlackAlpha wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

Yes! Thank you for posting that article. It explains the fundamental problem of the indoctrination theory: The indoctrinated theory teaches people how to use flawed logic which basically brain washes them. People are very much indoctrinated into the whole theory. Now, this is just about a video game, so some people will be thinking it's not a big deal, right? Wrong! The logic people are taught here, they will use in real life and that's a horrible, horrible thing for all of us.

So now that the article has pointed out some ways how you've been indoctrinated, remember that knowledge, so that it won't happen a second time in the real world!

really? you make me sick 

[DevilBeast]

To both the ID supporters and those who oppose it: Why is it so important to disprove or deny this theory?? What do you gain from it?? I mean, does it really matter to you what other people think regarding the endings??
So far there are evidence that supports the theory, but it is also possible to find evidence that opposes it.

Untill Bioware actually makes a statement regarding all this speculation neither of the two groups are right or wrong. Only Bioware knows the truth.

[No Snakes Alive]

dreman9999 wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Sigh....Shepard isn't "indoctrinated". He is fighting it off.

Still doesn't make sense.

What make no sense about the reapers trying to sabatge the crucible or the fact they used indoctrination to stop it before?

Thank you for being on the same page as me, or at least so it seems. How the **** are the reapers going to stop Shepard if he makes it to Citadel? Oh I don't know, how about one last super-concentrated Indoctrination attempt to persuade him off his gameplan? And lo and behold, look who just happens to be on the Citadel waiting for us: it's the personification of Indoctrination himself, The Illusive Man. Him and every single effect Bioware's design team could possibly muster up to indicate to the player that Idoctrination is the name of the game here, from the humming to the black tendrils on the screen to TIM's reaperized look to the blatant displays of mind-control in every single event that takes place thereafter.

How DOESN'T it make sense that TIM triggers the final scene after the slip into unconsciousness at the foot of the control panel, and that the conversation with the kid from your dreams who refers to himself and the reapers as one and the same at one point - a conversation wherein Shep's plan to destroy the reapers is made to look bad and futile but Saren and TIM's prophecies while under the influence of the reapers are just peachy - how all of THAT is Shepard's last chance to stick it to the reapers and their last ditch effort to persuade Shepard (and you, the player) not to?

Please, do tell, how that doesn't make sense but the notion that writers who gave us this much amazing story thus far just absolutely dropped the ball with the last 10 minutes and slapped a scotch-tape ending on an otherwise masterpiece?

[Coachdongwiffle]

Jigokou wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

IT theory is interesting and unoffensive, until the part about Destroy being the "correct" choice. That part is clearly ridiculous.

Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.

I like the idea of there being a "correct ending" I wish more games did this. I don't always think doing the "paragon/renagade/nuetral" options should always work out. Maybe the game should make you think and figure out which one actually would work. 

[Fulgrim88]

phantomdasilva wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

You only have to look at stuff like the Genophage plot or the Rannoch plot to see that Bioware can be fantastic writers. Mordin's sacrifice for example was one of the best moments in the trilogy imo.

And if the IT somehow turns out to be true, that doesn't make the writers better. If anything, the theory makes the endings worse:

-No actual closure included with the game
-In a game of choice, only one of the end choices is 'correct'
-you have to play MP to get the 'true' ending

I find it more likely that the writers messed up the endings - pretty much the worst ten minutes they could've messed up - than the idea that they simply shipped ME3 without its ending, and will later give out a 'true' ending that, despite the series being about choice, only works for one choice and only if you played MP.

Yeah I mainly agree with that. The Indoctrinated theory if intended by Bioware would be very problematic. Releasing a game without an ending, ot be release to another date.

Separating the ending at a later date has no artistic purpose either. If immediately after choosing control and syntesis we see shepard being indoctrinated or shepard being converted into a husk. Everyone will be shocked that they failed the puzzle and then think, wow bioware fooled me that was genious, or if they chose destroy and defeated the puzzle. We would feel clever taht we saw through the twist and then play through to the end.

However if the real ending is release 3-4 months later. The twist and shock is gone and they can't take back the foul taste in the mouth 

Thank you for making a lot of sense.

This, mixed with the many Bioware statements not even hinting at anything Indoc, should give us a clear idea that what could've been genius (and maybe was planned at some time in the past) ended up being just another rushed ending.

DevilBeast wrote...

To both the ID supporters and those
who oppose it: Why is it so important to disprove or deny this theory??
What do you gain from it?? I mean, does it really matter to you what
other people think regarding the endings??
So far there are evidence that supports the theory, but it is also possible to find evidence that opposes it.

Untill
Bioware actually makes a statement regarding all this speculation
neither of the two groups are right or wrong. Only Bioware knows the
truth.

Ironically, I'm fighting them for their sake.

The way I see it, a lot of people are just setting themselves up for yet another disappointment from Bioware, by beeing so deeply invested in a theory that has received nothing but coffin nails from Bioware up to this point.

Each and every bit of official info, starting with the Final Hours app and ending with Ray's statement and recent Twitter messages has defended the ending as it is. Sure, no one went ahead and said "Indoc Theory is wrong!" but if this was their plan all along, they sure as hell would've hinted at it by now - to ease some of the backlash.

The fact that they didn't strongly suggests that people are getting their hopes up for nothing. And I kinda wanna save them from that. We've all had our share of disappointment already

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 31 mars 2012 - 02:09 .

[Chuvvy]

Sweet mother of ****. I've written essays shorter than that.

[dreman9999]

phantomdasilva wrote...

AnsinJung wrote...

While true that IT takes some evidence on a "want to believe" basis, you actually didn't disprove the theory. Nice try though. A red herring makes use of things like Occam's Razor. Deception isn't supposed to be obvious.

Your bias is laid bare in Part nine, where it's just what you want to believe. Nothing is proven either way.

The point of the article wasn't to prove that indoctrination theory is wrong. Rather to disprove that indoctrination theory is an objective fact

...Do you understand the meaning of theory?

theory ...
http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/theory 
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The idea of the meaning of theory is that it is  an objective fact. Why is someone trying to prove that it is what  it already is?

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 mars 2012 - 02:11 .

[aimlessgun]

Coachdongwiffle wrote...

Jigokou wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

IT theory is interesting and unoffensive, until the part about Destroy being the "correct" choice. That part is clearly ridiculous.

Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.

I like the idea of there being a "correct ending" I wish more games did this. I don't always think doing the "paragon/renagade/nuetral" options should always work out. Maybe the game should make you think and figure out which one actually would work. 

It would be ok if it was a puzzle. But in this case, being "correct" is about having an assumed mindset going on inside the brain of Commander Shepard, a mindset which is set by the player. This is something that you cannot be "correct" about. 

[Chrillze]

I can't wait until PAX where I get to say "I told you so" to all the people that don't believe in the Indoctrination Theory, it have all the answears.

[dreman9999]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Sigh....Shepard isn't "indoctrinated". He is fighting it off.

Still doesn't make sense.

What make no sense about the reapers trying to sabatge the crucible or the fact they used indoctrination to stop it before?

Thank you for being on the same page as me, or at least so it seems. How the **** are the reapers going to stop Shepard if he makes it to Citadel? Oh I don't know, how about one last super-concentrated Indoctrination attempt to persuade him off his gameplan? And lo and behold, look who just happens to be on the Citadel waiting for us: it's the personification of Indoctrination himself, The Illusive Man. Him and every single effect Bioware's design team could possibly muster up to indicate to the player that Idoctrination is the name of the game here, from the humming to the black tendrils on the screen to TIM's reaperized look to the blatant displays of mind-control in every single event that takes place thereafter.

How DOESN'T it make sense that TIM triggers the final scene after the slip into unconsciousness at the foot of the control panel, and that the conversation with the kid from your dreams who refers to himself and the reapers as one and the same at one point - a conversation wherein Shep's plan to destroy the reapers is made to look bad and futile but Saren and TIM's prophecies while under the influence of the reapers are just peachy - how all of THAT is Shepard's last chance to stick it to the reapers and their last ditch effort to persuade Shepard (and you, the player) not to?

Please, do tell, how that doesn't make sense but the notion that writers who gave us this much amazing story thus far just absolutely dropped the ball with the last 10 minutes and slapped a scotch-tape ending on an otherwise masterpiece?

1. Sheperd is not key to defeating the repers...The crucible is.
2. At that point anyone can get on the crucible and trigger it...Sheperdis not need to press a button.
3. Theory is that everything after Sheperd is cut down is a dream and indoctriation attempt.... Basicly, everything after Sheperd is shot down by harbinger is a trick.

[Hainted]

If it's real 3 quick questions
Where did my armor go?
Where did the magic gun come from?
Why did my crew abandon me and the fight?

[dreman9999]

Hainted wrote...

If it's real 3 quick questions
Where did my armor go?
Where did the magic gun come from?
Why did my crew abandon me and the fight?

Where's Shepard during the breath scene?

[BlackAlpha]

JesseLee202 wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

Yes! Thank you for posting that article. It explains the fundamental problem of the indoctrination theory: The indoctrinated theory teaches people how to use flawed logic which basically brain washes them. People are very much indoctrinated into the whole theory. Now, this is just about a video game, so some people will be thinking it's not a big deal, right? Wrong! The logic people are taught here, they will use in real life and that's a horrible, horrible thing for all of us.

So now that the article has pointed out some ways how you've been indoctrinated, remember that knowledge, so that it won't happen a second time in the real world!

really? you make me sick 

How come? All I mean is that if people over here use bad logic that makes them believe something which is false (on the scale of the indoctrination theory and  the principles being used), then the same will happen if they use said logic in the real world. Except in the real world, there can be a lot more consequences. And for your information (assuming the indoctrination theory is false), the principles you can apply to the indoctrination theory, they can be applied to how people can be manipulated in the real world, which is why I said that people are being indoctrinated by this theory.

You don't think that is a possibility? Or you don't think it's an issue?

[No Snakes Alive]

BlackAlpha wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

Yes! Thank you for posting that article. It explains the fundamental problem of the indoctrination theory: The indoctrinated theory teaches people how to use flawed logic which basically brain washes them. People are very much indoctrinated into the whole theory. Now, this is just about a video game, so some people will be thinking that it's not a big deal, right? Wrong! The logic people are taught here, they will use in real life and that's a horrible, horrible thing for all of us.

So now that the article has pointed out some ways how you've been indoctrinated, remember that knowledge, so that it won't happen a second time in the real world!

Except that every single tenet of that argument against Indoc Theory rested upon major fallacies of logic. 90% of it didn't even attempt to address the argument itself. I haven't seen such blatant, rampant displays of logical fallacies since having to read through examples of them way back in philosophy 101 to learn what they are, and even the textbook couldn't come up with as many as this guy's "argument" lolol.

Talk about indoctrinated.

[phantomdasilva]

dreman9999 wrote...
.Do you understand the meaning of theory?

theory ...
http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/theory 
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
The idea ofthe meaning of theory is that it is  an objective fact. Why is someone trying to prove that it is what  it already is?

Yes, I know that scientific theory is actually a stronger form of evidence then fact.

If you want to be technical, it should have been called the indoctrination hypothesis

However, I also believe that meanings change over time. If many people substitute theory with hypothesis incorrectly. Well that's the new extra definition of theory. Just a layman definition that shouldn't be used by scientist.

in any case one of the 6 definition you quoted was this  (6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.)
The indoctrination theory seems to meet that definiton don't you think?

Modifié par phantomdasilva, 31 mars 2012 - 02:17 .

[Shared]

My 10 cents about the whole IT thing is, untill someone can explain to me how the **** Shepard survives if you have a high enough EMS, and choose destroy, and also is alive back on EARTH! IT is coorect. There is just no other explanation for it. The Citadel explodes= no more mass effect fields, so there wouldnt be gravity (or air) if he still was in space (or concrete for that matter).

So if you choose destroy, and have 4000+ EMS, you wake upp alive on Earth, pressumably London. But you just exploded in space. Now the ONLY explenation for this is you never went to the citadel.

[Big I]

I don't think the indoctrination theory is true because I don't think that Bioware would ship a game without an ending. It's also clear from pre-launch interviews that the devs thought the endings woked fine as a conclusion to the trilogy.


That said, there's more than enough in-game evidence to support the indoctrination theory interpretation of events. The OP says that indoc theorists are working backward, using self-serving interpretations of events to prove something they already believe, but then goes on to do the same thing themselves. OP is starting from the point of "the indoc theory is incorrect" and then seeks to discount what people put forward as indoc evidence by providing an alternative interpretation (e.g. Major Coates's dialogue, shrubbery around beam).


Until Bioware comes out and says the indoc theory is incorrrect it's a valid interpretation.

[dreman9999]

phantomdasilva wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
.Do you understand the meaning of theory?

theory ...
http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/theory 
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
The idea ofthe meaning of theory is that it is  an objective fact. Why is someone trying to prove that it is what  it already is?

Yes, I know that scientific theory is actually a stronger form of evidence then fact.

If you want to be technical, it should have been called the indoctrination hypothesis

However, I also believe that meanings change over time. If many people substitute theory with hypothesis incorrectly. Well that's the new extra definition of theory. Just a layman definition that shouldn't be used by scientist.

in any case one of the 6 definition was (6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.)
The indoctrination theory seems to meet that definiton don't you think?

 The difference between an hypothesis and a theoy is that it yet has any fact to support it....It just a guess. The IT does have facts supporting it.
The concept of a theory is not being missed used.
Anyway , much of the theories in science is based on assumption supportedby fact but can't be proven or unproven because of limited info and knowledge..Wave theory, dark energy theory, theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution. IT theory is in the same case.

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 mars 2012 - 02:25 .

[InsaneAzrael]

Hey OP,
Thanks. Sincerely, thanks. I actually thought that IT would be an interesting twist for the narrative. Given that at the end of the game I was already suspending so much disbelief that I was near supporting a nearly alternate universe of ME concepts.

Suspending my disbelief for factors raised in the ME3 IT was going to be actually less strenuous than what rationalisations I had been performing in-game. Yet reading your post (and still reading it over - having a cup of tea to take a wee break), it is clearer and I appreciate you taking the time out to not just be exacting and logical, but objective. I for one think that what truly shines clear (thusfar) is the actual failure of the story. You use examples of the REAL limitations of framing the story within a games mechanics. Your being realistic. As good as writing has been for the ME series, it has never been so bad as this iteration. Not that everything was bad. It just grates as piecemeal and underdeveloped.

So as you point out the "writing it themselves" to deal with what I consider to be cognitive dissonance in action, I concur. Then again, I also get the impression that this would certainly not have happened if expectations were not raised so high and then so terribly underestimated/ignored/abandoned.

So, I'm going to get back to reading, but here's a quick intermediary cheers.

[Leonia]

pablosplinter wrote...

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

How is any of it patronising?

[BlackAlpha]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

Yes! Thank you for posting that article. It explains the fundamental problem of the indoctrination theory: The indoctrinated theory teaches people how to use flawed logic which basically brain washes them. People are very much indoctrinated into the whole theory. Now, this is just about a video game, so some people will be thinking that it's not a big deal, right? Wrong! The logic people are taught here, they will use in real life and that's a horrible, horrible thing for all of us.

So now that the article has pointed out some ways how you've been indoctrinated, remember that knowledge, so that it won't happen a second time in the real world!

Except that every single tenet of that argument against Indoc Theory rested upon major fallacies of logic. 90% of it didn't even attempt to address the argument itself. I haven't seen such blatant, rampant displays of logical fallacies since having to read through examples of them way back in philosophy 101 to learn what they are, and even the textbook couldn't come up with as many as this guy's "argument" lolol.

Talk about indoctrinated.

I've done a bit of critical thinking in the past, so I'm wondering what flaws you've noticed. Personally, I think the author hit the nail on the head: IT uses a lot of circular reasoning for many arguments, so the arguments aren't really based on anything solid. Then, you can easily debunk the arguments using Occam's Razor. And that's what the author did, so I thought the author was spot on.

Modifié par BlackAlpha, 31 mars 2012 - 02:31 .

[No Snakes Alive]

dreman9999 wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Sigh....Shepard isn't "indoctrinated". He is fighting it off.

Still doesn't make sense.

What make no sense about the reapers trying to sabatge the crucible or the fact they used indoctrination to stop it before?

Thank you for being on the same page as me, or at least so it seems. How the **** are the reapers going to stop Shepard if he makes it to Citadel? Oh I don't know, how about one last super-concentrated Indoctrination attempt to persuade him off his gameplan? And lo and behold, look who just happens to be on the Citadel waiting for us: it's the personification of Indoctrination himself, The Illusive Man. Him and every single effect Bioware's design team could possibly muster up to indicate to the player that Idoctrination is the name of the game here, from the humming to the black tendrils on the screen to TIM's reaperized look to the blatant displays of mind-control in every single event that takes place thereafter.

How DOESN'T it make sense that TIM triggers the final scene after the slip into unconsciousness at the foot of the control panel, and that the conversation with the kid from your dreams who refers to himself and the reapers as one and the same at one point - a conversation wherein Shep's plan to destroy the reapers is made to look bad and futile but Saren and TIM's prophecies while under the influence of the reapers are just peachy - how all of THAT is Shepard's last chance to stick it to the reapers and their last ditch effort to persuade Shepard (and you, the player) not to?

Please, do tell, how that doesn't make sense but the notion that writers who gave us this much amazing story thus far just absolutely dropped the ball with the last 10 minutes and slapped a scotch-tape ending on an otherwise masterpiece?

1. Sheperd is not key to defeating the repers...The crucible is.
2. At that point anyone can get on the crucible and trigger it...Sheperdis not need to press a button.
3. Theory is that everything after Sheperd is cut down is a dream and indoctriation attempt.... Basicly, everything after Sheperd is shot down by harbinger is a trick.

Not one ioda of what you said makes sense. The entire last mission is devoted to Shepard getting onto the Citadel to open it up for the Crucible and trigger the death of the reapers. Please do tell me who else could "get on it and push that button" after what you, the savior of the universe, just had to go through to get there?

And you just absolutely brushed aside what my theory is and said no, there's a more flawed version of the Indoctrination Theory floating sound and I'm addressing THAT one. Good job!

Again, after you face TIM in a scene that was deliberately designed to display Indoctrination at its fullest effect, in a location that could only be described as absolute checkmate for the reapers, you slip into unconsciousness and are faced with Indoctrination. You can either fight it off and finish the job or succumb. What doesn't make sense about that?

One more time, since you failed to grasp everything I said last time, Shepard getting onto the Citadel and doing what needed to be done from there to trigger the Crucible is gameover for the reapers. Let's say, for arguments sake that Shepard does get there: wouldn't the reapers already be ****ed if they don't have one last-ditch effort back-up plan to stop him? Doesn't TIM look an awful lot like that last-ditch effort of the Reapers? Doesn't a persuasive argument following exposure to TIM, an argument against the destruction of the reapers (which is what Shepard's wanted) and for the synthesis or control of them (which are what they convinced Saren and TIM to want) with imagery clearly linking it back to Shepard's imagination seem like that last-ditch effort?

What doesn't make sense about THAT?

[dreman9999]

leonia42 wrote...

pablosplinter wrote...

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

How is any of it patronising?

It's basicly saying , nicely, that anyone tha believe the IT theory is deluional.

Modifié par dreman9999, 31 mars 2012 - 02:32 .

[MaximizedAction]

dreman9999 wrote...

phantomdasilva wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
.Do you understand the meaning of theory?

theory ...
http://www.thefreedi...nary.com/theory 
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
The idea ofthe meaning of theory is that it is  an objective fact. Why is someone trying to prove that it is what  it already is?

Yes, I know that scientific theory is actually a stronger form of evidence then fact.

If you want to be technical, it should have been called the indoctrination hypothesis

However, I also believe that meanings change over time. If many people substitute theory with hypothesis incorrectly. Well that's the new extra definition of theory. Just a layman definition that shouldn't be used by scientist.

in any case one of the 6 definition was (6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.)
The indoctrination theory seems to meet that definiton don't you think?

 The difference between an hypothesis and a theoy is that it yet has any fact to support it....It just a guess. The IT does have facts supporting it.
The concept of a theory is not being missed used.
Anyway , much of the theories in science is based on assumption supportedby fact but can't be proven or unproven because of limited info and knowledge..Wave theory, dark energy theory, theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution. IT theory is in the same case.

QFT, except in nature, a theory can be disproved very easily: If one single experimental result contradicts with what the theory predicted, the theory is wrong.
Same goes for general theory of relativity. No one will ever prove it, but if this one Neutrino had indeed been faster than light, then the theory would've been falsified and we'd have to make a new one.

But all this doesn't really apply here, because Bioware here is the creator and they are the ones that know what is and what isn't...god, if you will