508 réponses à ce sujet

[CARL_DF90]

SLana wrote...

CARL_DF90 wrote...

Hey, I think you missed a few details op. First, in the Arrival DLC for ME2, Shepard was directly exposed to Reaper indoctrination tech while inside the project lab.

I didn't play Arrival and I don't want to, and it is reflected in my war assets, so what, no indoctrination for me?

Heh, I wish that was the case. We all know it happens regardless. Arrival just provides additional context is all.

[evisneffo]

There were about a dozen posts in this thread I wanted to answer but let me start with this.

EHondaMashButton wrote...

So NOBODY wants to tackle this?
*image snipped*
What logical explanation is there for this, but IT?

Maybe, you'll have to explain this one to me, but why does this point infallibly to IT? OK, I don't have all the information on the Illusive Man's eyes, but inferring from the discussion they seem to be the result of indoctrination. Shepard suddenly acquiring those eyes as s/he chooses to take control of the Reapers is suspicious, why? S/he is explicitly told that s/he will die, will lose everything, as the indoctrinated tend to do. In accepting this, Shepard proceeds to physically melt down into a wispy essence that controls/merges with/becomes the Reapers (not sure how you choose to spin that). It's like indoctrination taken out to dinner and upgraded from a fling to a marriage with kids. At that point, why wouldn't Shepard and/or his/her implants show the physical signs of indoctrination?

There's no clear logical reason why this couldn't have happened as it happened. I don't understand why IT is necessary to explain why Shepard shows signs of indoctrination upon choosing to subject him/herself to ultra-indoctrination.


-------------

Anyway, here's my two cents, with nods to previous posters whom I can't quote without making this too bulky.

I don't like IT. Not because there isn't enough evidence for it, but because everything is evidence for it. It can be made to explain anything. (Like intoxication theory, but intoxication theory is clearly true so that doesn't count.) For one thing, games contain asset reuse, glitches, bugs, design shortcuts. Don't put too many eggs in that basket.

I don't like IT, not because I like the endings as they are but because with IT there is no ending. To nick a quote, if you accept IT you accept that you have been sold an incomplete game and regardless of what you believe about the theory, you should be ANGRY. Calling "genius" makes you seem like a foolish consumer who is happy to be jerked around.

Rejecting IT does not mean I don't care about BW. I try to see things from their perspective.  It simply just does not make sense for them to commit commercial suicide for a gimmick. Even if it really was a joke, or an attempt at story-telling too incomprehensibly epic to be implemented where it should have been, the time to follow up on it has come and gone, and what is happening now is having observable, undesirable consequences. Remember that BioWare is first and foremost a business. There is a post by Mr. Priestly on this very forum containing those precise words if you need to be told again.

I could live with IT leaving it well alone, if not for the fact that some have started shoving it in others' faces and demanding that dissenters take the step of disproving the theory. Well, I can't do that, not with a theory that doesn't give me falsifiable claims. Besides, I believe that what happened is what happened. You believe that what happened is not what happened. I think the onus is on you to do the proving, yes?

I'll stop here, because like that other poster I don't like fanning the flames of ending speculation.

Modifié par evisneffo, 02 avril 2012 - 05:51 .

[SLana]

evisneffo wrote...

I could live with IT leaving it well alone, if not for the fact that some have started shoving it in others' faces and demanding that dissenters take the step of disproving the theory. Well, I can't do that, not with a theory that doesn't give me falsifiable claims. Besides, I believe that what happened is what happened. You believe that what happened is not what happened. I think the onus is on you to do the proving, yes?

Right. That's the problem. I don't mind people believing in anything they want, as long as they don't try to force me to trust in this too. I don't like the endings but I don't post threads like "C'mon, how you people can believe in Green Space Magic for real?"  to insult people who have an opinion different from my own and I don't think anybody except BioWare have rights to completely prove or disprove any theories.

[VampireSoap]

Wow...I got so many replies regarding religion all of a sudden. I just want to clarify something.

Do you admit that the deity or deities whcih you believe in are just "magical beings in the sky"?

If yes --> Then I am deeply sorry, it was just a figure of speech and I was not aware that there was actually such a group of people. Sorry that you get hit by such a random shot. Please also pray to your magical deity and tell Him that I am sorry.


If no --> Then I don't have to apologize, right?

Modifié par VampireSoap, 02 avril 2012 - 06:14 .

[pixelface]

because it is a very possible explanation and has a good percentage of being true by all the evidence that there is, and if you really are a science student than you know that evidence makes the truth not what your personal believes are, as for my personal believes i don't really think that that is what their intentions were.

[AlanC9]

evisneffo wrote...
I don't like IT, not because I like the endings as they are but because with IT there is no ending. To nick a quote, if you accept IT you accept that you have been sold an incomplete game and regardless of what you believe about the theory, you should be ANGRY. Calling "genius" makes you seem like a foolish consumer who is happy to be jerked around.

You've kind of missed the value of IT to the believer, though. Being a believer means that you have Secret Knowledge. None of us actually got an ending, but it's the players who don't believe in IT who are the real suckers because they don't even know that they didn't get an ending. I can see how thinking yourself one of the elite players who Really Know What's Going On would make up for not getting the promised ending.

[bobito64]

VampireSoap wrote...

bobito64 wrote...

The idea that is simply bad writing itself is implausible for a number of reasons.

1. The best writing team in the games industry doesn't suddenly become so bad that they produce a piece of nonsensical rubbish. An individual writer might foul up like that but an excellent team would be less likely to.

2. The design team would also have to have been producing nonsense (the eyes, the breath, the bullet would in Shepard's side among other things).

3. So too would the gameplay team. In the last combat in the game you take down three husks, each with a single bullet, and a marauder with three bullets. The husks die with one shot even if you shoot themm in the leg or arm. When was the last fight in a game ever so preposterously easy?

1. Why not? Why can't the best writing team suddenly become bad? Things change. It doesn't violate the laws of nature. Besides, do you think the IT is good writing?

2. Why not? The game is rushed. Under the stress of meeting the deadline, the best team can make serious mistakes. DAII is a very nice example.

3. Why would infinite bullets and one shot one kill prove the IT? Why would the strange trees and all that prove IT? What's the basis of making that logical leap?

By the way, Marauder Shields can actually kill Shepard.......

I'm sorry but it really makes no sense to put these things down to the game being rushed. Shepard's blue "indoctrinated" eyes in two of the endings, the scene showing Shepard taking a breath in ruined London at the end of the other, the animation showing Shepard suffering from a bullet wound to the side, these are all things that had to be put into the game. If the game was rushed then you might expect to find content missing not extra details that someone has spent time creating.

Similarly the game being rushed does not explain the final piece of combat against the three husks and the marauder. If time was pressing, the easiest thing to do would have been to make this fight on the same gameplay setting and mechanics as the rest of the game. It would not be an overly difficult fight for the player to win in any case. Yes the marauder can kill Shepard but only if you stand there and let it. This is combat of a different design and difficulty level to anything else in the game. It was something that was added not taken away. It would have required additional time.

These features are there because Bioware chose to put them there and allocated extra time and resources to do so. 

[AnoXxi]

VampireSoap wrote...

Wake up, people! Bad writing is just bad writing. There is no way game writers will hide the plots so sophisticated that it takes speculations in this depth to piece the story together. I kept laughing while I was watching the indoctrination theory video clip. I thought the guy was just being funny, but now so many people actually believe it. No wonder so many people right now still believe in magical beings in the sky....The pathway to truth is through reason and logic. When there is a situation presented to us, we don't make an assumption and then assume that assumption is right and make up all the details from there, we look at the data, the facts and then decide whether there is truth in this claim.

It's just my personal point of view, I'm sorry if it sounds offensive to some people. It is never my intention to provoke anyone.

Bioware ended the Game on a note where the gamer decides and imagines what really happened. So why do the people have to wake up if this is what they dream? Don't know about others, but I thought the ME3 ending was rather clever and had an amazing twist. Do people really want the ending to repeat over and over again? Let the COD games show what happens when you keep repeating the same freaking ending. What do you get? A bunch of little 'indoctrinated' scrubs buying in to anything with the words C.O.D, is this really how everyone wants mass effect? I sure don't want Mass Effect to be another freaking COD

[Mordimor]

VampireSoap wrote...
 No wonder so many people right now still believe in magical beings in the sky....

I believe in magical beings in the sky.

Yep

Not so sure about IT tho.

Modifié par Mordimor, 02 avril 2012 - 07:23 .

[AlanC9]

bobito64 wrote...
Similarly the game being rushed does not explain the final piece of combat against the three husks and the marauder. If time was pressing, the easiest thing to do would have been to make this fight on the same gameplay setting and mechanics as the rest of the game. It would not be an overly difficult fight for the player to win in any case. Yes the marauder can kill Shepard but only if you stand there and let it. This is combat of a different design and difficulty level to anything else in the game. It was something that was added not taken away. It would have required additional time.

These features are there because Bioware chose to put them there and allocated extra time and resources to do so. 

Of course. Nobody's arguing that the new animations and so on for that combat were there by accident.

(Actually, I think three husks are more dangerous than a single marauder.)

[VampireSoap]

Mordimor wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...
 No wonder so many people right now still believe in magical beings in the sky....

I believe in magical beings in the sky.

Yep

Not so sure about IT tho.

Just out of curiosity. Do you also happen to believe in unicorns and santa claus? You don't have to answer me if you don't want to. I respect your xxgious freedom.:happy:

[Spanky Magoo]

spacehamsterZH wrote...



I have. It's really well done, and I enjoyed watching it. I don't think any of it was intentional, though.

Yea, thats how I see it at this point, I honestly think they had the interns working on the endings. However just because its unintentional doesnt mean they cant run with it now.

[SLana]

VampireSoap wrote...
Just out of curiosity. Do you also happen to believe in unicorns and santa claus? You don't have to answer me if you don't want to. I respect your xxgious freedom.:happy:

You know, mocking people isn't the best way to advance your point of view. I'm not a religious person but I find your way to comment someone's beliefs... let's just say disturbing. I wonder who do you think you are to have full right  to judge people, especially by their religion.

[VampireSoap]

SLana wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...
Just out of curiosity. Do you also happen to believe in unicorns and santa claus? You don't have to answer me if you don't want to. I respect your xxgious freedom.:happy:

You know, mocking people isn't the best way to advance your point of view. I'm not a religious person but I find your way to comment someone's beliefs... let's just say disturbing. I wonder who do you think you are to have full right  to judge people, especially by their religion.

Asking someone if they believe in unicorns and santa claus means you think you have the full right to judge people by their religion? Logical, flawless logical. I am ashamed and should not stay on earth any longer,

[SLana]

VampireSoap wrote...

SLana wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...
Just out of curiosity. Do you also happen to believe in unicorns and santa claus? You don't have to answer me if you don't want to. I respect your xxgious freedom.:happy:

You know, mocking people isn't the best way to advance your point of view. I'm not a religious person but I find your way to comment someone's beliefs... let's just say disturbing. I wonder who do you think you are to have full right  to judge people, especially by their religion.

Asking someone if they believe in unicorns and santa claus means you think you have the full right to judge people by their religion? Logical, flawless logical. I am ashamed and should not stay on earth any longer,

Yeah. You ask out of curiosity, and I also just wonder So go back on earth and stay close to the topic. We discuss ME3, not religion or Santa along with unicorns.

Modifié par SLana, 02 avril 2012 - 08:28 .

[kalle90]

You know, you should really start a scientific project on this.

Evidence of the current ending being real:
- Because this is what we see at the end of the game ("It's always been like this")
...

Evidence against it:
- Shrubs where there wasn't any
- Anderson
- Eyes
- These days not every game comes with a proper ending
...

Heck, for scientific purposes you could even check out intoxination theory, dream theory etc.

Then come back with the results. Error margins and all.

[VampireSoap]

kalle90 wrote...

You know, you should really start a scientific project on this.

Evidence of the current ending being real:
- Because this is what we see at the end of the game ("It's always been like this")
...

Evidence against it:
- Shrubs where there wasn't any
- Anderson
- Eyes
- These days not every game comes with a proper ending
...

Heck, for scientific purposes you could even check out intoxination theory, dream theory etc.

Then come back with the results. Error margins and all.

After your comment being posted, I don't think I have to

Modifié par VampireSoap, 02 avril 2012 - 08:28 .

[Strategyking92]

The ending is ridiculously clever if the Indoctrination theory is correct.

But it isn't, bad writing is just bad writing, too many signs point to a rushed development schedule.

[VampireSoap]

SLana wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

SLana wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...
Just out of curiosity. Do you also happen to believe in unicorns and santa claus? You don't have to answer me if you don't want to. I respect your xxgious freedom.:happy:

You know, mocking people isn't the best way to advance your point of view. I'm not a religious person but I find your way to comment someone's beliefs... let's just say disturbing. I wonder who do you think you are to have full right  to judge people, especially by their religion.

Asking someone if they believe in unicorns and santa claus means you think you have the full right to judge people by their religion? Logical, flawless logical. I am ashamed and should not stay on earth any longer,

Yeah. You ask out of curiosity, and I also just wonder So go back on earth and stay close to the topic. We discuss ME3, not religion or Santa along with unicorns.

Yeah, I was already halfway to the starship that headed to Vulcan. Then it just suddenly occurred to me that the indoctrination theory isn't exactly a religion. Please don't laugh, that was a tough one.

Modifié par VampireSoap, 02 avril 2012 - 08:32 .

[kamikazekeeg]

I don't believe either way for the Indoctrination Theory, as I could live with them just revising the current ending. If it ends up being true, and the ending comes through based on that, it will make for a quite a fantastic end. I don't think there's a reason to flat out say it's wrong, but saying it has to be the only option isn't right either lol I think folks should just keep an open mind till it actually releases or they feel like discussing it.

[kalle90]

VampireSoap wrote...

kalle90 wrote...

You know, you should really start a scientific project on this.

Evidence of the current ending being real:
- Because this is what we see at the end of the game ("It's always been like this")
...

Evidence against it:
- Shrubs where there wasn't any
- Anderson
- Eyes
- These days not every game comes with a proper ending
...

Heck, for scientific purposes you could even check out intoxination theory, dream theory etc.

Then come back with the results. Error margins and all.

After your comment being posted, I don't think I have to

Why exactly? The science guy inside you doesn't want to unravel the absolute truth?

You can conclude with absolute certainty it's just bad writing because...

[VampireSoap]

kamikazekeeg wrote...

I don't believe either way for the Indoctrination Theory, as I could live with them just revising the current ending. If it ends up being true, and the ending comes through based on that, it will make for a quite a fantastic end. I don't think there's a reason to flat out say it's wrong, but saying it has to be the only option isn't right either lol I think folks should just keep an open mind till it actually releases or they feel like discussing it.

What? No, no. I really don't get it. Tell me if I'm wrong because I'm really not sure. According to the IT, don't the Reapers destory everything and all that you hold dear is gone? What is the point of Shepard winning the fight in his head? I don't understand why that's a fantastic ending. But you must have your reasons, no?

[SLana]

VampireSoap wrote...
Yeah, I was already halfway to the starship that headed to Vulcan. Then it just suddenly occurred to me that the indoctrination theory isn't exactly a religion. Please don't laugh, that was a tough one.

So, can I have your ticket if the ship is still there?  I would gladly discuss what I call "Green Space Magic" with you but this is the wrong topic, so I'll just wish you a nice day

[kamikazekeeg]

VampireSoap wrote...

What? No, no. I really don't get it. Tell me if I'm wrong because I'm really not sure. According to the IT, don't the Reapers destory everything and all that you hold dear is gone? What is the point of Shepard winning the fight in his head? I don't understand why that's a fantastic ending. But you must have your reasons, no?

I don't believe it means that at all.  What I get from it, is that the ending still hasn't finished and there is more to accomplish. If the IT happens and Shepard wins the fight for his mind, he can still work to finish off the Reapers. A fantastic ending to me, just means some proper closure, even if it might not be a happy ending or anything like that.  Even a depressing ending can be good if it makes sense.

[Darth Wolfenbarg]

While a lot of the pieces fit, the design doesn't. Games tell their stories through design, and the way the endgame was set up doesn't mesh well with the Indoctrination Theory. With the lowest EMS where your fleet gets curb stomped and you are barely equipped to even tackle the mission, your only option is to destroy the Reapers. If the theory worked, then your only option in that scenario should be failure of some kind.