300 réponses à ce sujet

[kilgorek]

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

askanec wrote...

I believe the pieces of evidence in the Indoctrination Theory are the result of fans grasping for straws. People will believe what they want to believe, and then find "supporting evidence" later.

Just like how someone who thinks "the world is out to get him" will start to see conspiracies and enemies everywhere.

Indeed.

None of the IT crowd can point to a thread, post or website discussing IT prior to the ending of ME3 happening.  No one put all this together and shared it as a guess before we all discovered how horrible the ending turned out to be.

Whaaaa? Of course we didn't. We hadn't PLAYED THE GAME YET. You can't form an educated opinion on something until you've experienced it.

Then IT is a result of a bad ending and people grasping for anything that isn't a horrible ending.  This isn't a "chicken or egg" question.  IT was compiled AFTER the ending was seen, not before.  Therefore, it's the result of a bad ending instead of an actual attempt by the writers.

Holy backward logic Batman.

How does this make any sense? Is this Star-Child's account?

[SolidisusSnake1]

I want to believe, I really do.

[cndman]

verrrry interesting... i will now wait for pax

[Caz Tirin]

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

askanec wrote...

I believe the pieces of evidence in the Indoctrination Theory are the result of fans grasping for straws. People will believe what they want to believe, and then find "supporting evidence" later.

Just like how someone who thinks "the world is out to get him" will start to see conspiracies and enemies everywhere.

Indeed.

None of the IT crowd can point to a thread, post or website discussing IT prior to the ending of ME3 happening.  No one put all this together and shared it as a guess before we all discovered how horrible the ending turned out to be.

Whaaaa? Of course we didn't. We hadn't PLAYED THE GAME YET. You can't form an educated opinion on something until you've experienced it.

Then IT is a result of a bad ending and people grasping for anything that isn't a horrible ending.  This isn't a "chicken or egg" question.  IT was compiled AFTER the ending was seen, not before.  Therefore, it's the result of a bad ending instead of an actual attempt by the writers.

Holy backward logic Batman.

How does this make any sense? Is this Star-Child's account?

Thank you for proving why you can't understand.

[kilgorek]

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Hraedonius wrote...

"Lazy writing" is an explanation that is much more plausible than "an elaborate set of clues that merely appears to be lazy writing." Even granting the premise, one still has to explain the point of the Stargazer ending followed by the appeal to "expand the legend" through DLC: is that also part of the cunning plot to release an unfinished game?

If it was a case of lazy writing...The game would end in the scene with Anderson and Shepard.
Also, the clues were built up during the last 3 games....
Read this to understand...
http://social.biowar...ndex/10946125/1 

There's also plenty of other articles and essays pointing out the flaws of the Indoctrination THEORY.  For some reason, the majority of the IT crowd no longer consider IT to be theory, bt rather cold, indisputable fact.  Even though the entire concept has theory in the name.

Also, there's plenty of things that point away from IT as pointed out in many articles and essays.  Funny how the IT sheep refuse to even acknowledge those, or worse say they're wrong when the article or essay is pointing to literary techniques and models that have been used for centuries.

Speaking of literary techniques and models...  lazy writing doesn't just mean they stopped writing at some point.  It refers to the quality going to crap.  Which it did.  Which is why people needed a real ending.  Which is how IT formed because people refused to accept that anyone would crap all over a franchise like that.  Funny how the IT crowd refuses to acknowledge that little gem.

No matter how many times you spout this, it doesn't make any more true. The majority DO NOT regard it as fact. We just regard it as very plausible. There is a difference.

YOU might not, but that would put you in the minority.  Besides, it doesn't need me, or anyone else, "spouting" it, it's already true.

Wrong. You see a few randoms making claims that it is fact and then you assume. It's clear that you spend no time in the actual IT thread because that is not what wer are doing at all.

Except I do read the IT thread.  And if anyone brave enters that thread to disgree, they get shouted down and told "IT is fact!" even if they don't use those exact words.  So perhaps you're the one that isn't spending time in the IT thread?

The only people I see getting shouted down are trolls who come in to state their ideas as fact. And the people who want to argue against the theory without reading the first page of the f'n thread.

[FS3D]

daecath wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...
No matter how many times you spout this, it doesn't make any more true. The majority DO NOT regard it as fact. We just regard it as very plausible. There is a difference.

YOU might not, but that would put you in the minority.  Besides, it doesn't need me, or anyone else, "spouting" it, it's already true.

You can want it to be fact all you want. You can believe it's fact, you can even accept it as fact. Just like if you want you can accept that horse manure tastes like cotton candy, or that the sky is orange with green polka dots. Just because you accept something as fact, doesn't make it fact. Until Bioware comes out and says "Hey guys, congratulations, you figured it out, and here's the undeniable proof that this was what we had in mind all along, and we aren't just covering our backsides with a convenient theory," then it will remain a theory.

It's not a theory. It's an idea. At best it's a hypothesis, but it is definitely, not by any stretch of the imagination, a theory.

I think we all need to stop using the word theory to mean conjecture, and guess-work. It's the wrong usage.

[kilgorek]

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

askanec wrote...

I believe the pieces of evidence in the Indoctrination Theory are the result of fans grasping for straws. People will believe what they want to believe, and then find "supporting evidence" later.

Just like how someone who thinks "the world is out to get him" will start to see conspiracies and enemies everywhere.

Indeed.

None of the IT crowd can point to a thread, post or website discussing IT prior to the ending of ME3 happening.  No one put all this together and shared it as a guess before we all discovered how horrible the ending turned out to be.

Whaaaa? Of course we didn't. We hadn't PLAYED THE GAME YET. You can't form an educated opinion on something until you've experienced it.

Then IT is a result of a bad ending and people grasping for anything that isn't a horrible ending.  This isn't a "chicken or egg" question.  IT was compiled AFTER the ending was seen, not before.  Therefore, it's the result of a bad ending instead of an actual attempt by the writers.

Holy backward logic Batman.

How does this make any sense? Is this Star-Child's account?

Thank you for proving why you can't understand.

I can't understand backward logic, you're right. You can't come up with a theory on something you know nothing about. You have to play the game and see the ending in order to gether all of the evidence and then make a hypothesis.

I am really confused at what you're trying to get at. And you being all haughty is just proving that you're the type of person you're criticizing who support IT.

[balance5050]

PAX is going to be amazing this year, not matter what they do it will ****** some people off. But if I.T. is true then I'm going to be soooo happy.

[curufinwe03]

Thanks for pointing that out OP. It has been a long time since i played Hordes of the Underdark and I totally forgot about that dream sequence. It may not be evidence for the indoctrination theory, but it is still an interesting fact.
If the theory is true and Walters is "vindicated" we may ask him about that. Was it an inspiration, or just coincidence?

[Acturas]

Thanks OP

[balance5050]

Anti I.T. arguments are always so hollow... a lot like Star kid's logic.

[humansrsuperior]

Do I think BioWare was actually going for Indoctrination in the ending?  No.  Do I like the idea of it, beyond the simple fact it is much better than the face value ending we got?  Yes.  I think it's brilliant.  Is it flawless?  No.  But can it be fleshed out?  Yes.  And Bioware could really run with it, if they so chose, and did it properly.  Does that mean I think it was a good idea to still flat out lie and say we'll get the fulfilling, wrapped up closure ending we all wanted, when that absolutely is not what we got, whether it was Starchild or IT?  No.  Because that's not what indoctrination is, that's not an ending.    It leaves the Reapers undefeated and leaves the game hanging with nothing wrapped up at all.  And if this was their plan, they shouldn't have flat. out. lied. 

[Caz Tirin]

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...
Whaaaa? Of course we didn't. We hadn't PLAYED THE GAME YET. You can't form an educated opinion on something until you've experienced it.

Then IT is a result of a bad ending and people grasping for anything that isn't a horrible ending.  This isn't a "chicken or egg" question.  IT was compiled AFTER the ending was seen, not before.  Therefore, it's the result of a bad ending instead of an actual attempt by the writers.

Holy backward logic Batman.

How does this make any sense? Is this Star-Child's account?

Thank you for proving why you can't understand.

I can't understand backward logic, you're right. You can't come up with a theory on something you know nothing about. You have to play the game and see the ending in order to gether all of the evidence and then make a hypothesis.

I am really confused at what you're trying to get at. And you being all haughty is just proving that you're the type of person you're criticizing who support IT.

Let me spell it out for you then.

You claim that all the evidence was there from the start.  Technically, that's true.

However, what you're missing is that no one put the pieces together BEFORE the ending.  Why do you think that is?  Could it be because somehow all these folks just completely missed all the clues through ME1 and ME2?  OR is it more likely that people saw the ending, couldn't believe how horrible it was, and went searching for an answer?

Now, if you still don't understand and you still think it's backward logic, you need to look up what backward logic really is and there's nothing further I can do to help you understand.

[NAWhisperBlade]

Holy crap you're right I totally forgot about this.

[SC0TTYD00]

It seems that every couple of days there is more and more evidence that points to the IDT. If it's true then BW trolled us all. When it comes out I can say nothing except, "Yes I fell for it" and bow to BW's awesomeness. I'm really excited now, don't break my heart BW.

[SC0TTYD00]

Also I do not believe its Backward logic.

Many people didnt know that Bruce Willis's character in the 6th sense was actually a ghost until it was slapped right in people's faces at the end people realised all the clues were there at the beginning. I was one of those people who got tricked.

[PRC_Heavy_Z]

Keep in mind people, even if the DLC is going to implement Indoctrination theory, that's only a half victory.

when or if shepard get up from the indoctrination experience, he still has a war to finish :/

Either way, let's hope Bioware don't screw this up...

[Fhaarkas]

@topic - I have something along similar lines in my mind for ME3. Wow.

Yes I suspect BioWare is trolling their fanbase.

[SC0TTYD00]

I bet the IDT theory was planned all along and Bioware intend to finish the battle with some kick ass dlc, they have heard peoples feedback about seeing their assets in action etc and have been trying to add it into the DLC too. This is what I think might happen.

[Caz Tirin]

SC0TTYD00 wrote...

Also I do not believe its Backward logic.

Many people didnt know that Bruce Willis's character in the 6th sense was actually a ghost until it was slapped right in people's faces at the end people realised all the clues were there at the beginning. I was one of those people who got tricked.

This has been brought up before in relation to IT.  The difference that completely separates them, however, is that Sixth Sense was written with that ending in mind from the start.  There have been many articles and interviews that have proven that IT is not what was intended when ME was being drawn up half a decade ago.  It centered around Dark Energy.

[balance5050]

Caz Tirin wrote...

SC0TTYD00 wrote...

Also I do not believe its Backward logic.

Many people didnt know that Bruce Willis's character in the 6th sense was actually a ghost until it was slapped right in people's faces at the end people realised all the clues were there at the beginning. I was one of those people who got tricked.

This has been brought up before in relation to IT.  The difference that completely separates them, however, is that Sixth Sense was written with that ending in mind from the start.  There have been many articles and interviews that have proven that IT is not what was intended when ME was being drawn up half a decade ago.  It centered around Dark Energy.

I'm sorry but you argue like a girl, youcan't keep jumping from one subject to the other, the point was we couldn't make the theory without seeing the ending and now you're arguing semantics about when they planned the ending. The Geoff Keighly AMA on Reddit proved that they had the idea for "player speculation" early in development.

[dreman9999]

Caz Tirin wrote...

SC0TTYD00 wrote...

Also I do not believe its Backward logic.

Many people didnt know that Bruce Willis's character in the 6th sense was actually a ghost until it was slapped right in people's faces at the end people realised all the clues were there at the beginning. I was one of those people who got tricked.

This has been brought up before in relation to IT.  The difference that completely separates them, however, is that Sixth Sense was written with that ending in mind from the start.  There have been many articles and interviews that have proven that IT is not what was intended when ME was being drawn up half a decade ago.  It centered around Dark Energy.

True,but your ingnoring the fact that t[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">he pesentation of ME is similarto stories like inception, total recall, and blade runner. An issue of the ]world that story takes place is told to the viewer and all the rules about it,
all the signs and detail is taught to the viewer. Once the last bit of the
ending is show, there signs that point to the fact that something is wrong.

Example: In Inception, it's stated that in dreams people jump from place to place never
knowing how they got there and when they got there...They are just there. This
is show in the ending of the movie when the main character jumps from the plane, to the airport he was
going to land on to finally his home suddenly. This is also an element of
progression in movies...We don't know if what being used in the last scene is
an element of progressing the film or an element us to express the scene is in
a dream. When the main character test if it's a dream or not....We never see if
the top falls or keeps spinning.

To truly understand
why people believe Shep is indoctrinated, there fact to consider that the plot
makes very clear in the story...

fact 1. People are
indoctrinated by being near reaper tech. 

fact 2. People that
at are under the process of indoctrination here whispers.

Fact 3.Shepard is
near allot of reaper tech through out ME1 and ME2.

Fact 4. Shepard is
hit by an indoctrination field in the arrival dlc, in which he see's visions
and hears voices....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5vKMfh6gBk

fact5.Indoctrination does not just go
away...http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Rana_Thanoptis



'If Rana survived
Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2, she will appear in an ANN Report on
indoctrination. She has apparently murdered several top asari officials and
then committed suicide. While in custody, Thanoptis reported "voices"
in her head (a typical symptom of indoctrination) to investigators."



Fact 6. The reapers can manipulate
dreams...http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ldIJFRvDUp4#t=690s



Fact 7.You hear whispers in sheps dreams....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIKewKW9bb0&feature=related
....... 



....

When the ending starts...The point when you’re cut down by harbinger things get very weird. Harbinger,
as a reaper that can sense organics and came to stop Shepard, suddenly leaves.
Shepard gets a gun with unlimited ammo. Anderson some
how gets in front of Shepard. TIM comes out of no where and has impossible
power and uses indoctrination in a way that it can not be used...If Shep was
not indoctrinated before, TIM would not be able to control him the way he does
or Anderson. And the fact that the only time we see indoctrination that can
controls the movement of people was with Saren and Benezia who where unable to
brake free form indoctrination. Yet, once TIM is dead, Shepard and Anderson are
free to move....If TIM was truly indoctrinated and had indoctrinated Anderson and
Shepard...The reapers would be controlling them at this point. Then there's the
bleed from Shepard’s left side when he was shot in the right shoulder by Marauder
Shields. Then everything with the star child and the choice he wants you to
pick is what Saren wanted in ME1. And then jokers last scene which is
impossible and makes no sense. The final hint, being that dreams are impossible
and makes no sense. And if you pick the destroy choice, you see Shep waking up.
Cleary something is wrong with the last scene.
In the ending there is a constant feeling that something is wrong. Everyone who saw the ending felt something was wrong and/or were utterly confused by it. Nothing about the ending made sense. Base on what we know before, do we realy take the ending as face value.

Modifié par dreman9999, 04 avril 2012 - 06:46 .

[Tritium315]

The difference here is that all the endings were present in the game at launch. Even if Bioware planned all this from the beginning it's still ****ing retarded of them.

[kilgorek]

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

Caz Tirin wrote...

kilgorek wrote...
Whaaaa? Of course we didn't. We hadn't PLAYED THE GAME YET. You can't form an educated opinion on something until you've experienced it.

Then IT is a result of a bad ending and people grasping for anything that isn't a horrible ending.  This isn't a "chicken or egg" question.  IT was compiled AFTER the ending was seen, not before.  Therefore, it's the result of a bad ending instead of an actual attempt by the writers.

Holy backward logic Batman.

How does this make any sense? Is this Star-Child's account?

Thank you for proving why you can't understand.

I can't understand backward logic, you're right. You can't come up with a theory on something you know nothing about. You have to play the game and see the ending in order to gether all of the evidence and then make a hypothesis.

I am really confused at what you're trying to get at. And you being all haughty is just proving that you're the type of person you're criticizing who support IT.

Let me spell it out for you then.

You claim that all the evidence was there from the start.  Technically, that's true.

However, what you're missing is that no one put the pieces together BEFORE the ending.  Why do you think that is?  Could it be because somehow all these folks just completely missed all the clues through ME1 and ME2?  OR is it more likely that people saw the ending, couldn't believe how horrible it was, and went searching for an answer?

Now, if you still don't understand and you still think it's backward logic, you need to look up what backward logic really is and there's nothing further I can do to help you understand.

So, now you're changing your argument to include ME 1 and ME 2? What clues exactly are you talking about? The clues that Shepard was indoctrinated were not clear (if in fact that is the case) until ME 3. Now, if there are any real clues in ME 1 and ME 2 that point toward indoctrination, they could have only been looked at and regarded as such after the completion of ME 3 by the player. This is because, according to the theory, that the majority of ME 3 was the onset of an indoctrination attempt on Shepard. The entire game was leading up to that point. Any thing that might be considered clues in the first two games could not have been taken into account until after the fact, because the symptoms of indoctrination and what might be clues were not prevelant until the third game. Considering those two games in the theory is kind of like the old slaying "hindsight is 20/20."

And I doubt they even had IT planned the way it is presented here (again if it's true) in the first two games. That would be some remarkable foresight.