309 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

froggeh2 wrote...

Ariella wrote...
There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out. 

You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the IT here. Yes the catalyst says TIM couldn't control the reapers because they already controlled him.  However that did not stop TIM from thinking he could control the reapers.

as she demonstrates her lack of understanding, i feel less inclined to elaborate, therefore she feels she is winning when really we are just giving up on trying to help her out.

No, I just don't understand how people can run off on such a werid tangent when everything in the game suggests otherwise, especially as it requires spit, bailing wire, and wishes to hold together. I've also asked questions like when was Shepard indoctrinated? What symptoms did he or she show? What factual basis do you have to claim that the dreams are premonitions? That the fuzzy camera is used as a cinematic device, nothing more. The conversation between Cat and Shepard has Shepard's personality intact, showing no sign of indoctrination.

I'd suggest you guys go back and replay ME2 Mordin's loyalty mission where Maelon talks about the paper Mordin wrote on indoctrination, and what it does to a person. None of those things show up in Shepard at the end.

Thus endth the lesson.

[wheelierdan]

and indoctrinationist telling me my theory is a joke is like saying vampires are totally real, but werewolves, thats a myth.

[NReed106]

If protheans can detect nonobvious indoctrination why did they fall prey to it (leaders who thought they could control reapers anyone???)

Wheelierdan: Except for the evidence of indoc theory. Ya know, a gun with unlimited ammo, ghostly trees being around when getting up from harby's blast, anderson making beating you to the console etc.

Modifié par NReed106, 04 avril 2012 - 03:23 .

[Wolfen919]

wheelierdan wrote...

Wolfen919 wrote...

As far as I can tell the main anti-IT argument so far has been "How come the VI at TIM's base cannot detect Shepard's indoctrination?" Hooray for small plot-hole. We don't know enough about how the VI can detect indoctrinated forces, but the rest of the plot holes that the ending contains can actually be explained pretty well if viewed under IT.

wheelierdan wrote...

how many of these threads need to exist before you all admit that intoxication theory is the only true explanation and has 0 plot holes?

 

How many trolls do we have to shoo away?

please, show me one plothole with the intoxication theory, instead of calling me a troll.  It it a seamless and perfect explanation and you know it, which is why youd rather name call then refute the FACTS.

Sigh.... just shoo already.

[KingDan97]

Nauks wrote...

Saberchic wrote...

The IT theory has holes. It's not perfect. Why favor that over the "it was real" theory?

Because it has less holes than the current real ending?

The current real ending isn't something indoctrination theory can be compared to, because indoctrination theory is not itself an ending but an explanation for the current ending.

The only thing indoctrination theory can be put up against is the other explaination, which is that it was rushed because it was the last thing to be worked on. Given the long precedent in video games of the ending being worked on, and therefore finished last it's at least as likely if not moreso that they ran out of time when perhaps constructing a more indepth ending then to say that things as insignificant as room design is somehow indicative of a great cover up.

That and the fact that multiple Bioware folks have outright stated this is the ending as they intended it. I suppose you'll just counter with the same parroted response of "but they didn't ouitright say that indoctrination isn't real." As I've seen so many times before,

[Keldaurz]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Wolfen919 wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

how many of these threads need to exist before you all admit that intoxication theory is the only true explanation and has 0 plot holes?

 

How many trolls do we have to shoo away?

hes proud of his little joke he came up with. He is gonna spam the hell out of the forums until he gets enough simple minds to tell him he is funny.

Truth is, if we want to speculate, his theory has less gaps than any other, even being a joke. 

And that's something.

[Tiax Rules All]

Ariella wrote...
Thus endth the lesson.

a lesson on what not to think. Your points are wrong. debating them in detail would give them more credit then they are due. If you were closer to understand Indoctrination theory we could do a better back and forth. If i were to accept anything you said I wouldn;t be meeting you half way I would be leaving my evidence by so much that it would only serve to confuse others reading it.

[Wolfen919]

Ariella wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

froggeh2 wrote...

Ariella wrote...
There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out. 

You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the IT here. Yes the catalyst says TIM couldn't control the reapers because they already controlled him.  However that did not stop TIM from thinking he could control the reapers.

as she demonstrates her lack of understanding, i feel less inclined to elaborate, therefore she feels she is winning when really we are just giving up on trying to help her out.

No, I just don't understand how people can run off on such a werid tangent when everything in the game suggests otherwise, especially as it requires spit, bailing wire, and wishes to hold together. I've also asked questions like when was Shepard indoctrinated? What symptoms did he or she show? What factual basis do you have to claim that the dreams are premonitions? That the fuzzy camera is used as a cinematic device, nothing more. The conversation between Cat and Shepard has Shepard's personality intact, showing no sign of indoctrination.

I'd suggest you guys go back and replay ME2 Mordin's loyalty mission where Maelon talks about the paper Mordin wrote on indoctrination, and what it does to a person. None of those things show up in Shepard at the end.

Thus endth the lesson.

Yes they do. Watch the video. Thanks.

[Tiax Rules All]

Wolfen919 wrote...


Yes they do. Watch the video. Thanks.

seriously though

watch it, its in my Sig

Modifié par Tiax Rules All, 04 avril 2012 - 03:25 .

[killnoob]

wheelierdan wrote...

and indoctrinationist telling me my theory is a joke is like saying vampires are totally real, but werewolves, thats a myth.

do not question other people's religious beliefs, show some rrespect please :wizard:

Modifié par killnoob, 04 avril 2012 - 03:27 .

[wheelierdan]

Keldaurz wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Wolfen919 wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

how many of these threads need to exist before you all admit that intoxication theory is the only true explanation and has 0 plot holes?

 

How many trolls do we have to shoo away?

hes proud of his little joke he came up with. He is gonna spam the hell out of the forums until he gets enough simple minds to tell him he is funny.

Truth is, if we want to speculate, his theory has less gaps than any other, even being a joke. 

And that's something.

exactly, what you fail to realise is that i used the exact same "logic" and "reasoning" as the indoctrination theory to make my point, and it amuses me to no end that someone can call my theory silly, yet still believe in indoctrination.

Tell me, if your theory is true, why does the game kick you out to before you pass the point on no return, so we can replay the entire end and then play the mystery dlc that will be the true ending?  if they intended this why not just have a game over, new game plus?

[froggeh2]

Ariella wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

froggeh2 wrote...

Ariella wrote...
There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out. 

You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the IT here. Yes the catalyst says TIM couldn't control the reapers because they already controlled him.  However that did not stop TIM from thinking he could control the reapers.

as she demonstrates her lack of understanding, i feel less inclined to elaborate, therefore she feels she is winning when really we are just giving up on trying to help her out.

No, I just don't understand how people can run off on such a werid tangent when everything in the game suggests otherwise, especially as it requires spit, bailing wire, and wishes to hold together. I've also asked questions like when was Shepard indoctrinated? What symptoms did he or she show? What factual basis do you have to claim that the dreams are premonitions? That the fuzzy camera is used as a cinematic device, nothing more. The conversation between Cat and Shepard has Shepard's personality intact, showing no sign of indoctrination.

I'd suggest you guys go back and replay ME2 Mordin's loyalty mission where Maelon talks about the paper Mordin wrote on indoctrination, and what it does to a person. None of those things show up in Shepard at the end.

Thus endth the lesson.

So your telling me that when the catalyst lays out three options for Shepard, which all result in her dying, and Shepard doesn't question this?  How is Shepard to know its not a trap? Yes you are right Shepard's personality is definately intact.

[Ariella]

Wolfen919 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Ariella wrote...
...Why is this so hard to understand?...

i feel the same way.

Difference between me and you is I have hard facts from the game, from interviews etc, where you have inferences and basically faith. There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out.

So you deny every point that this video delivers? 
 

Sorry, but in my opinion this video makes more sense than the current ending; by far!


edit: by the way there's an explanation as to why "control" would be available to shepard as seen in the video. 

Your proof is a youtube video? something that can be edited in any number of ways, rather than going by personal experience of playing the blessed game several times? Heck I've played all three games in the last month or so, so my memory is still pretty fresh on what indoctrination is, what it does, and how it degenates a person. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS IN SHEPARD AT THE END OF THE GAME! The IT is just wishful thinking and as you and Tiax (who's namesake is a nutjob in himself) are present this as fact, it's your burden to prove it, not mine to disprove if you actually want to go by the rules of debate,

[Wolfen919]

KingDan97 wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Saberchic wrote...

The IT theory has holes. It's not perfect. Why favor that over the "it was real" theory?

Because it has less holes than the current real ending?

The current real ending isn't something indoctrination theory can be compared to, because indoctrination theory is not itself an ending but an explanation for the current ending.

The only thing indoctrination theory can be put up against is the other explaination, which is that it was rushed because it was the last thing to be worked on. Given the long precedent in video games of the ending being worked on, and therefore finished last it's at least as likely if not moreso that they ran out of time when perhaps constructing a more indepth ending then to say that things as insignificant as room design is somehow indicative of a great cover up.

That and the fact that multiple Bioware folks have outright stated this is the ending as they intended it. I suppose you'll just counter with the same parroted response of "but they didn't ouitright say that indoctrination isn't real." As I've seen so many times before,

I won't even bother arguing whether or not Bioware's true ending was the way explained via IT, but it sure darn makes more sense than Bioware's ending as is. Truth is, are they going to change anything or add anything significant? Hell no. However the off chance that Bioware can somehow make all this go away, they would probably lose less of their fans in doing so. Either way Bioware lost my money and my respect. 

[Wolfen919]

Ariella wrote...


Your proof is a youtube video? something that can be edited in any number of ways, rather than going by personal experience of playing the blessed game several times? Heck I've played all three games in the last month or so, so my memory is still pretty fresh on what indoctrination is, what it does, and how it degenates a person. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS IN SHEPARD AT THE END OF THE GAME! The IT is just wishful thinking and as you and Tiax (who's namesake is a nutjob in himself) are present this as fact, it's your burden to prove it, not mine to disprove if you actually want to go by the rules of debate,

The video is basically saving me from writing every single thing that IT explains. It explains a lot of the questions that you have already given me, but rather than answer, I'd rather direct you to the source.

wheelierdan wrote...
exactly, what you fail to realise is that i used the exact same "logic" and "reasoning" as the indoctrination theory to make my point, and it amuses me to no end that someone can call my theory silly, yet still believe in indoctrination.

Tell me, if your theory is true, why does the game kick you out to before you pass the point on no return, so we can replay the entire end and then play the mystery dlc that will be the true ending?  if they intended this why not just have a game over, new game plus?

  

The theory doesn't have to be true, rather it does explain the ending fairly well, to a point that a lot of us could consider it "believable". The current ending however is not believable at all and just seems completely made up under pressure or someone who hasn't written any of ME's plot/story. Do I personally believe Bioware will fix this crap via DLC? nah. IT theory can still be a true explanation of the game's true meaning, no?

Did they intend it this way? Maybe... I don't know what Bioware intended at all. Jeez. If I were Bioware say 1 month ago, I would have made this the one true ending and apologize. At the moment though, the fact that they haven't acted on the ending, there's a very slim chance that IT is true, however it's still the only ending I'm willing to accept.

Good day.

Modifié par Wolfen919, 04 avril 2012 - 03:36 .

[Atraiyu Wrynn]

The problem with IT is two-fold.

1) The believers are utterly convinced of it to the point where they have completely backed off of Bioware. If IT is wrong than you've blown the opportunity to put pressure on Bioware to fix the ending.

2) It's completely unfalsifiable. If no new ending is announced at pax, and we go a year from now without the real ending that IT predicts, there will still be true believers here insisting the ending is indoctrination.

[Tiax Rules All]

wheelierdan wrote...

and indoctrinationist telling me my theory is a joke is like saying vampires are totally real, but werewolves, thats a myth.

come on dude. They are all not drunk on the normandy or whatever. I get it, I get the joke, I get the point of it is to poke fun at IDT and deminsh it. Its a standard practice of debating. making ones point into a joke so others associate the evidence with sillyness. I get it.

but your "theory" is not correct. and never will be correct by any stretch of the imagination in and dimention of existance. so claiming its on the same level with IDT is crazy and trolling.

[Bananables]

90% of the time people de-merit IT this is what they say

SPECULATIONS!

SPACEMAGIC!

HALLUCINATIONS!

DREAMS!

do you really think these people are credible?

[Tiax Rules All]

Ariella wrote...
Your proof is a youtube video? something that can be edited in any number of ways, rather than going by personal experience of playing the blessed game several times? Heck I've played all three games in the last month or so, so my memory is still pretty fresh on what indoctrination is, what it does, and how it degenates a person. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS IN SHEPARD AT THE END OF THE GAME! The IT is just wishful thinking and as you and Tiax (who's namesake is a nutjob in himself) are present this as fact, it's your burden to prove it, not mine to disprove if you actually want to go by the rules of debate,

no **** the video is edited. its to fit it all into a nice video and to clearly show the points and overlay important soundbytes over the corrosponding video clips. nothing is created by the author, just compiled. get a grip. The video is the proof. Its there, its in game.

no matter how we try to prove you will deny out of spite.

Im done, you ask for proof then dont watch the proof. good day.

[wheelierdan]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

and indoctrinationist telling me my theory is a joke is like saying vampires are totally real, but werewolves, thats a myth.

come on dude. They are all not drunk on the normandy or whatever. I get it, I get the joke, I get the point of it is to poke fun at IDT and deminsh it. Its a standard practice of debating. making ones point into a joke so others associate the evidence with sillyness. I get it.

but your "theory" is not correct. and never will be correct by any stretch of the imagination in and dimention of existance. so claiming its on the same level with IDT is crazy and trolling.

its exactly the same logic.  i took a theme of the game (intoxication) you took a theme of from the game (indoctrination)  We both agree that both of these things exist in the game.  I then went through the story and cherry picked supporting circumstancial evidence and removed all of the context. claiming symbolism.  Everything i assert is my theory is a true, what isnt true is that ive taken them out of the context they were originally shown in.

The IT theory is fan fiction, so is mine.  The difference is some people can't face the ending to such a degree they've forgotten it was just a story to begin with.

There is not a single fact in the game that directly supports your theory, the only way it works is if we accept your symbolic evidence.

[Ariella]

froggeh2 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

froggeh2 wrote...

Ariella wrote...
There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out. 

You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the IT here. Yes the catalyst says TIM couldn't control the reapers because they already controlled him.  However that did not stop TIM from thinking he could control the reapers.

as she demonstrates her lack of understanding, i feel less inclined to elaborate, therefore she feels she is winning when really we are just giving up on trying to help her out.

No, I just don't understand how people can run off on such a werid tangent when everything in the game suggests otherwise, especially as it requires spit, bailing wire, and wishes to hold together. I've also asked questions like when was Shepard indoctrinated? What symptoms did he or she show? What factual basis do you have to claim that the dreams are premonitions? That the fuzzy camera is used as a cinematic device, nothing more. The conversation between Cat and Shepard has Shepard's personality intact, showing no sign of indoctrination.

I'd suggest you guys go back and replay ME2 Mordin's loyalty mission where Maelon talks about the paper Mordin wrote on indoctrination, and what it does to a person. None of those things show up in Shepard at the end.

Thus endth the lesson.

So your telling me that when the catalyst lays out three options for Shepard, which all result in her dying, and Shepard doesn't question this?  How is Shepard to know its not a trap? Yes you are right Shepard's personality is definately intact.

Hello... Shepard at his/her core is a soldier, and he she has said time and again "I'm going to stop the r4eapers or die trying". If Shepard's death could save billions even trillions of lives and end the cycle, s/he'd do it in a heartbeat. It's part of being a solider, knowing you might have to make that ultimate sacrifice no matter what YOU want to save others. I don't know why that seems out of character to you,especially since Sacrifice has been one of the themes of Mass Effect since its inception.

And if I may point out, Shepard took on a mission where s/he expected to die in way back in ME 2. Coming back from the Citadel in that situation was a one way trip and Shepard knew it. The idea that Shepard wouldn't be willing to lay down his or her life to save others, especially the entire galaxy from the Reapers forever just shows how weak the IT is. This has been Shepard focus and almost obession since the start. There's no way that Shepard's going to say "to hell with this, I wanna live" with so much riding on those choices. No, Shepard would take the hit, anything else to save him or herself at the expense of the galaxy WOULD be out of character.

[Wolfen919]

wheelierdan wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

and indoctrinationist telling me my theory is a joke is like saying vampires are totally real, but werewolves, thats a myth.

come on dude. They are all not drunk on the normandy or whatever. I get it, I get the joke, I get the point of it is to poke fun at IDT and deminsh it. Its a standard practice of debating. making ones point into a joke so others associate the evidence with sillyness. I get it.

but your "theory" is not correct. and never will be correct by any stretch of the imagination in and dimention of existance. so claiming its on the same level with IDT is crazy and trolling.

its exactly the same logic.  i took a theme of the game (intoxication) you took a theme of from the game (indoctrination)  We both agree that both of these things exist in the game.  I then went through the story and cherry picked supporting circumstancial evidence and removed all of the context. claiming symbolism.  Everything i assert is my theory is a true, what isnt true is that ive taken them out of the context they were originally shown in.

The IT theory is fan fiction, so is mine.  The difference is some people can't face the ending to such a degree they've forgotten it was just a story to begin with.

There is not a single fact in the game that directly supports your theory, the only way it works is if we accept your symbolic evidence.

Except with your ending I would consider it a joke, while IT I would consider not far from brilliant. Your point is logical, but no one would honestly accept Intox Theory. Let's just say IT is a better fan fiction and call it a day. We all know Bioware won't use IT as a cop out. 

[wheelierdan]

i can actually agree with that. The problem is so many people believe IT is fact. so much fact that is in fact the divine plan bioware has had all along... Purely as fan fiction it is brilliant. But so many people believe its true.

[Wolfen919]

wheelierdan wrote...

i can actually agree with that. The problem is so many people believe IT is fact. so much fact that is in fact the divine plan bioware has had all along... Purely as fan fiction it is brilliant. But so many people believe its true.

I dunno if people consider it fact, but I would say that we all hope Bioware didn't make a ****** poor ending as well as lie to the fans saying the ending won't be just A B C.  TROLOLOLLOLOLOL. 

[wheelierdan]

you seem to have a good head on your shoulders, but you havent been reading what people have had to say about IT, even in this thread, they believe it isnt fanfiction they believe they've uncovered the true meaning of the end itself.