1057 réponses à ce sujet

[NM_Che56]

Hi,

I haven't seen one of these, FYI.

A lot of people don't seem to care for IT.  A good number seem to like it.  Aside from it not appealing to your personal tastes and style of narrative, I'm assuming that some people don't like it because they see holes in the theory. 

So, why don't we do this:

You post why IT doesn't work and then someone who supports IT can try to address that concern.

Sound like a plan?

Ok.  GO!

*EDITED TO KEEP PEOPLE ON TOPIC*

Modifié par Master Che, 13 avril 2012 - 05:13 .

[rachellouise]

Things will fit if people want them to fit. These topics always become arguments. It doesn't really matter if someone believes IT or not, or if you have the same opinion or not.

Modifié par rachellouise, 13 avril 2012 - 04:27 .

[crappyjazzy]

I think it's an interesting and imaginative theory.

[NM_Che56]

rachellouise wrote...

Things will fit if people want them to fit. These topics always become arguments. It doesn't really matter if someone believes IT or not (or it's different to what you think)

I'm trying to be positive, but ultimately it decends into a poop throwing contest when someone starts to mock somoene else for believing it or not. 

"It's stupid and you're dumb for thinking otherwise" or "You're too dumb to get it"?

[Nauks]

It's hard to keep a civil discussion about I.T. without the knee-jerk "it's fake because it's fake" comments, void of any real counter arguments or analytical thought.

[Ponei]

Please someone explain to me:

a) Why Shepard is breathing at the end
If he is on the Citadel how did he survive the explosion (no space magic please)
c) If he is in London, project Lazarus 2.0?

Yeah i still believe this^ means IT is not a theory after all.

Modifié par Ponei, 13 avril 2012 - 04:38 .

[NM_Che56]

Fair enough, I'll start.

I saw a vlog from gamermd83 where she identified a "loop hole". She took issue with the claim that star brat was really a Reaper projection into Shepard's consciousness by indicating that the artbook says the kid represents Sheps guilt and nothing more.

My response: The image of a child was chosen for that particular reason. They knew it would affect him/her.

Argument: When did Shepard ever show sympathy towards kids? WHY WOULD THAT EVEN MATTER?

Response: Children elicit empathy and nuturing instincts in most people. Children represent helplessness and vulenerability. So given that Shepard is a well adjusted, normal human, then s/he would not be impervious to the charms of a cherubic face.

[Dead_Meat357]

crappyjazzy wrote...

I think it's an interesting and imaginative theory.

It makes sense of the nonsense at the end of the game. That's why people like it. They want things to make sense. Much of the indoctrination theory's evidence is pretty hard to refute in the current context of the game, but some of what's presented is really pretty lame and a bit of a stretch. While I think the theory has a few holes it does have fewer holes than the endings themselves have. Which is interesting by itself.

Honestly Indoctrination is the only thing that can save the ending in my opinion. The ending is so bad and full of deus ex machina that it needs to be thrown out entirely. The indoctrination theory basically gives them a blank check to say this all represents Shepard's struggle against it, and then throw it all out and write a good ending. That's what I think they should do but BioWare is too proud to admit they were wrong and that they wrote a ****ty ending.

For financial and time reasons I can see why this may not appeal to them, in which case I'd say save it for Mass Effect 4.

Modifié par Dead_Meat357, 13 avril 2012 - 04:38 .

[NM_Che56]

Ponei wrote...

Please someone explain to me why:

a) Shepard is breathing at the end
If he is on the Citadel how did he survive the explosion (no space magic please)
c) If he is in London, project Lazarus 2.0?

With IT theory,as I understand it:

a) Shepard never left Earth.  From the point after he regains consciousness after the beam hit to him taking in a breath is the Reapers attack on his mind.  It's all in his head.

 See a
c) See b

[KevShep]

Someone who is against the IT please tell me this...

Why do you hear Shepard's voice in the back ground mimicking the catalyst's own voice? Shepard is repeating everything the catalyst is saying out loud but his lips are not moving!

[NM_Che56]

Dead_Meat357 wrote...

crappyjazzy wrote...

I think it's an interesting and imaginative theory.

It makes sense of the nonsense at the end of the game. That's why people like it. They want things to make sense. Much of the indoctrination theory's evidence is pretty hard to refute in the current context of the game, but some of what's presented is really pretty lame and a bit of a stretch. While I think the theory has a few holes it does have fewer holes than the endings themselves have. Which is interesting by itself.

Honestly Indoctrination is the only thing that can save the ending in my opinion. The ending is so bad and full of deus ex machina that it needs to be thrown out entirely. The indoctrination theory basically gives them a blank check to say this all represents Shepard's struggle against it, and then throw it all out and write a good ending. That's what I think they should do but BioWare is too proud to admit they were wrong and that they wrote a ****ty ending.

For financial and time reasons I can see why this may not appeal to them, in which case I'd say save it for Mass Effect 4.

Without debating the reasons why people like it or discussing the disatisfaction with the current ending, were there any holes you cared to expound on?

Modifié par Master Che, 13 avril 2012 - 04:39 .

[TheTrueObelus]

Main issue with IT...you have less choice than the crappy ending that Bioware actually wrote.

Lets break down the ending choices.

With "control" or "synthesis" you are indoctrinated. You dont wake up. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick "destroy" and you escape indoctrination but you die (because of low war assets). Nothing is resolved. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick destroy and escape being indoctrinated and wake up (because you have enough war assets). But that means you didn't actually witness the end of the game...you still have to defeat the Reapers. So this would also mean they gave us a totally unfinished game. This is beyond lame.

So basically the only way to win and the only choices that mattered were the few that gave you the "perfect" destroy ending. Having only one choice basically means you have no choice.

[NM_Che56]

KevShep wrote...

Someone who is against the IT please tell me this...

Why do you hear Shepard's voice in the back ground mimicking the catalyst's own voice? Shepard is repeating everything the catalyst is saying out loud but his lips are not moving!

In all fairness, I lack fancy speakers or headphones so I don't hear that.  I just hear some reverb with a kid's voice.  Not saying it's not there, but this probably won't stand out for a lot of people.

[NM_Che56]

TheTrueObelus wrote...

Main issue with IT...you have less choice than the crappy ending that Bioware actually wrote.

Lets break down the ending choices.

With "control" or "synthesis" you are indoctrinated. You dont wake up. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick "destroy" and you escape indoctrination but you die (because of low war assets). Nothing is resolved. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick destroy and escape being indoctrinated and wake up (because you have enough war assets). But that means you didn't actually witness the end of the game...you still have to defeat the Reapers. So this would also mean they gave us a totally unfinished game. This is beyond lame.

So basically the only way to win and the only choices that mattered were the few that gave you the "perfect" destroy ending. Having only one choice basically means you have no choice.

see KevShep's post below.

Modifié par Master Che, 13 avril 2012 - 04:46 .

[rachellouise]

It would be awesome if we /did/ play as an indoctrinated character, but I think it might be hard to make the player think "wait, is this what I want, or what they want" etc. The sort of confusion Saren and TIM show.

[Ponei]

Master Che wrote...

Ponei wrote...

Please someone explain to me why:

a) Shepard is breathing at the end
If he is on the Citadel how did he survive the explosion (no space magic please)
c) If he is in London, project Lazarus 2.0?

With IT theory,as I understand it:

a) Shepard never left Earth.  From the point after he regains consciousness after the beam hit to him taking in a breath is the Reapers attack on his mind.  It's all in his head.

 See a
c) See b

Exactly, i modified my post to support the IT 

[NM_Che56]

FORMAT REMINDER: Aside from it not appealing to your personal tastes and style of narrative, I'm assuming that some people don't like it because they see holes in the theory.

So, why don't we do this:

You post why IT doesn't work and then someone who supports IT can try to address that concern.



Please refrain from complaining about the current ending or questioning the motives behind why people like IT. That is not the subject of this thread.

This is for people who have a hard time swallowing the Theory and giving people a chance to explain it...or discover why it doesn't work.

[Captain_Obvious]

I have only one problem with indoctrination theory. It's not in the game. It's something that we came up with to explain what is in the game. I call shenanagins, because the game is supposed to explain the ending. It's a coping mechanism for a ***** ending, in my opinion.

[NM_Che56]

Ponei,

AHHHHHHHHHHh

[KevShep]

TheTrueObelus wrote...

Main issue with IT...you have less choice than the crappy ending that Bioware actually wrote.

Lets break down the ending choices.

With "control" or "synthesis" you are indoctrinated. You dont wake up. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick "destroy" and you escape indoctrination but you die (because of low war assets). Nothing is resolved. Reapers win. Everyone dies. Everything you did up till that point was completely meaningless. Game over.

You pick destroy and escape being indoctrinated and wake up (because you have enough war assets). But that means you didn't actually witness the end of the game...you still have to defeat the Reapers. So this would also mean they gave us a totally unfinished game. This is beyond lame.

So basically the only way to win and the only choices that mattered were the few that gave you the "perfect" destroy ending. Having only one choice basically means you have no choice.

In indoctrination the only way they can indoctrinate you is for you to willingly give into there "suggestions" (as the codex puts it). In the "end" your giving those same kind of "suggestions" by the catalyst and if you support him ("hugging him") then you will be indoctrinated ("and burn like in the dream"). This is why shepards body is burned in both choices!

[NM_Che56]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

I have only one problem with indoctrination theory. It's not in the game. It's something that we came up with to explain what is in the game. I call shenanagins, because the game is supposed to explain the ending. It's a coping mechanism for a ***** ending, in my opinion.

Off topic.

Do you see anything in the theory itself that doesn't make sense or seems contradictory?

[KevShep]

Master Che wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Someone who is against the IT please tell me this...

Why do you hear Shepard's voice in the back ground mimicking the catalyst's own voice? Shepard is repeating everything the catalyst is saying out loud but his lips are not moving!

In all fairness, I lack fancy speakers or headphones so I don't hear that.  I just hear some reverb with a kid's voice.  Not saying it's not there, but this probably won't stand out for a lot of people.

 Its bioware's way to reach out to the player.

BTW its alot better to listen to the left headphone only (femshep) because she has a higher tone. It is hard to hear but it IS there! 

[Nauks]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

I have only one problem with indoctrination theory. It's not in the game. It's something that we came up with to explain what is in the game. I call shenanagins, because the game is supposed to explain the ending. It's a coping mechanism for a ***** ending, in my opinion.

That depends thought, on how you interpret the events in the game, one might look twice at things like:

*The dreams and what purpouse they serve, as well as the kid, and why Shepard is so overly emotional about it.
*The Arrival DLC, Shepard getting a large dose of Reaper artifact goodness, and what effect that should rightly have.

Modifié par Nauks, 13 avril 2012 - 04:47 .

[IronSabbath88]

Captain_Obvious wrote...

I have only one problem with indoctrination theory. It's not in the game. It's something that we came up with to explain what is in the game. I call shenanagins, because the game is supposed to explain the ending. It's a coping mechanism for a ***** ending, in my opinion.

I respectfully disagree. Indoctrination has ALWAYS been a big part of the Mass Effect universe, so to call it something "we came up with" is utterly false. BioWare came up with it. It's been part of the Mass Effect lore since the very beginning when we found out Saren Arterius was an indoctrinated servant of Sovereign, and the affects were expanded on from there.

Then in Mass Effect 2, we see the Arrival DLC where Shepard gets knocked out by a Reaper artifact and proceeds to spend two days near it while he's unconcious.

Mass Effect 3 shows a LOT of descriptive signs of the indoctrination process. From the "oily shadows" described by the Rachni Queen in Mass Effect 1, to the whispers in Shepard's dreams, possible hallucinations, and after Thessia, Shepard is seen to be getting more and more easily irritated. In my mind, all the signs of an indoctrination or at least an indoctrination attempt are all there. The lore shows it's perfectly possible. What's to stop Shepard from being immune to the affects? Shepard isn't super human, regardless whether or not we wish to believe that.

If people seriously think indoctrination on the game's HERO would be a bad thing, then I just don't understand why. It would be one hell of a ballsy move.

[STEEEEVE]

I don't like IT because
1.) It's unfalsifiable
2.) The devs have made numerous statements that they want the ending to stand on its own, not be a metaphor
3.) I don't like fan fiction, and that's literally all IT is. BAD fan fiction at that.
4.) Indoctrination theory makes Shepard's story incomplete, which is exactly the opposite of what ME3 is. It's the conclusion of Shepard's story. IT people will say "well bioware lied about all this other stuff" sorry, but that doesn't fly. Their word still has more authority towards lore than your fan fiction.


Basically, no matter what you want to believe, it could not be more clear that the Developers did not make Mass Effect 3 with the idea of ending it like Indoctrination says it ends.  If it's not Bioware's story, it's not 'real' in the sense of the universe.  The end.

Modifié par STEEEEVE, 13 avril 2012 - 04:51 .