421 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

jijeebo wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The_Shootist wrote...

im commander shep wrote...

Is it agreed Shepard was being indoctrinated/fighting indoctrination during ME3?

If we forget about Indoctrination Theory and the ending for the moment.

No. I see nothing in the IT theory but forlorn hope.

try again. look at the TIM encounter on the citadel, and reanswer. What do you think TIM was using to control Shepard?

The technology that was engineered on Sanctuary I'd bet.

which was based on... INDOCTRINATION

[balance5050]

Soultaker08 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Your point being?

Lets create a fleet of ships with either stealth or reaper IFF and the reaper problem is solved.

No ressources needed for crucible , just some guerilla ships firing together on one reaper after the other , stealthing firing stealthing , tada earth is free...

Yep, putting a reaper IFF on every ship in the galaxy is a great idea.... You realize that people are already being indoctrinated by the thousands right?

[Soultaker08]

balance5050 wrote...
.
Yep, putting a reaper IFF on every ship in the galaxy is a great idea.... You realize that people are already being indoctrinated by the thousands right?

If the reaper IFF would indoctrinate , why not changing EDI like the Geth Heretics.

Since Joker gave her full access a Heretic EDI could easily fly Normandy into the next sun, hope for galaxy gone , reapers win.

[balance5050]

Soultaker08 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
.
Yep, putting a reaper IFF on every ship in the galaxy is a great idea.... You realize that people are already being indoctrinated by the thousands right?

If the reaper IFF would indoctrinate , why not changing EDI like the Geth Heretics.

Since Joker gave her full access a Heretic EDI could easily fly Normandy into the next sun, hope for galaxy gone , reapers win.

This is all explained, please go play ME2.

[KingZayd]

Soultaker08 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
.
Yep, putting a reaper IFF on every ship in the galaxy is a great idea.... You realize that people are already being indoctrinated by the thousands right?

If the reaper IFF would indoctrinate , why not changing EDI like the Geth Heretics.

Since Joker gave her full access a Heretic EDI could easily fly Normandy into the next sun, hope for galaxy gone , reapers win.

the heretics weren't indoctrinated. they CHOSE to worship the old machines

[Soultaker08]

My point simply was not to overinterpret everything , I accept why people like and believe in IT , but sometimes it feels as if IT supporters dont want to discuss , but making it a fact, by using EVERYTHING for IT.

The way it is going (OUTSIDE OF THE GAME) just does not support IT

Modifié par Soultaker08, 17 avril 2012 - 06:44 .

[KingZayd]

Soultaker08 wrote...

My point simply was not to overinterpret everything , I accept why people like and believe in IT , but sometimes it feels as if IT supporters dont want to discuss , but making it a fact, by using EVERYTHING for IT.

The way it is going (OUTSIDE OF THE GAME) just does not support IT

I do agree that some of the evidence is less convicing other bits. Its one of the things i find annoying about the videos. Some of the shakier evidence is given equal standing with stuff that definitely doesn't seem right in  a face value interpretation. The fact is, not all Indoctrination theorists believe in the same indoctrination. Or at least they believe different things about it. And looking all over the game lets you consider some ideas, and reject others.

I don't agree. It certainly looks as if, they didn't expect everyone to be so annoyed by the endings (I think they made a mistake in not making the "fake endings" [as i really hope they are]) satisfying enough.

At this point, to confirm IT and not have anything to show for it, would mean they lose in both respects. Terrible launch, and twist revealed out of game. I think the Outgame supports a poorly executed IT.

[Soultaker08]

One example for me thinking that IT isnt what is going to be revealed in EC is what i saw and heard in the one hour PAX video.

When Bioware answered the questions , they said about IT :" we want content to speak for itself".

This is not rly pro not rly con IT.

But then someone asked about the People on the Citadel after the Reaper took it over.

The answer was that people are safe behind the barriers which make life possible on the citadel.

So far, nothing special.

But then he said something like this:" The citadel stays as it is in the control ending, which means people on citadel are not harmed, but even in the destroy ending the citadel is only fractured and the people are still mostly alive"

Statements like these make me think :" WHY THE HELL would they comment it with such detail if the IT was true?"

They could have said "Content speaks for itself", but they didnt. It was a clear statement , suggesting that every ending is a real ending.

Modifié par Soultaker08, 17 avril 2012 - 07:00 .

[balance5050]

Soultaker08 wrote...

One example for me thinking that IT isnt what is going to be revealed in EC is what i saw and heard in the one hour PAX video.

When Bioware answered the questions , they said about IT :" we want content to speak for itself".

This is not rly pro not rly con IT.

But then someone asked about the People on the Citadel after the Reaper took it over.

The answer was that people are safe behind the barriers which make life possible on the citadel.

So far, nothing special.

But then he said something like this:" The citadel stays as it is in the control ending, which means people on citadel are not harmed, but even in the destroy ending the citadel is only fractured and the people are still mostly alive"

Statements like these make me think :" WHY THE HELL would they comment it with such detail if the IT was true?"

They could have said "Content speaks for itself", but they didnt. It was a clear statement , suggesting that every ending is a real ending.

They were talking about things that are not "prescriptive" to the ending. If they talk about the ending, they are NOT talking about anything that will appear in the DLC. 

[KingZayd]

Soultaker08 wrote...

One example for me thinking that IT isnt what is going to be revealed in EC is what i saw and heard in the one hour PAX video.

When Bioware answered the questions , they said about IT :" we want content to speak for itself".

This is not rly pro not rly con IT.

But then someone asked about the People on the Citadel after the Reaper took it over.

The answer was that people are safe behind the barriers which make life possible on the citadel.

So far, nothing special.

But then he said something like this:" The citadel stays as it is in the control ending, which means people on citadel are not harmed, but even in the destroy ending the citadel is only fractured and the people are still mostly alive"

Statements like these make me think :" WHY THE HELL would they comment it with such detail if the IT was true?"

They could have said "Content speaks for itself", but they didnt. It was a clear statement , suggesting that every ending is a real ending.

Why are people still alive on the citadel? Why haven't the reapers killed them yet? maybe there's an actual battle to be fought when the Shepard wakes up. also look at those explosions.. that's not just a fracture. that's a bigass explosion. You know with indoc theory, the citadel doesn't blow either.. that means people who happen to be alive on the citadel won't be harmed either.

[Soultaker08]

If IT is true there is no control ending and so there is no reference needed.

[KingZayd]

Soultaker08 wrote...

If IT is true there is no control ending and so there is no reference needed.

If IT is true, then without revealing IT, there is no other reference that can be made.

[AIR MOORE]

I love how IT still carries on even though now all the threads are predicated on:

"If we forget the ending..." lol.

[Soultaker08]

then why no "content speaks for itself" ?
reavling what happens on the citadel is not needed if you want to provide closure per content.
and revealing something that wont happen is lieing

[KingZayd]

Soultaker08 wrote...

then why no "content speaks for itself" ?
reavling what happens on the citadel is not needed if you want to provide closure per content.
and revealing something that wont happen is lieing

it's answered because it was a question that was asked. Not answering would be more telling in this case.

[Thornquist]

IT is a coping mechanism. Bioware is not going to deny it because of that fact. It sounds convincing on paper, but ask yourselves this: Did you see the "hints" while playing the game, or after, while watching some edited youtube video?

Many of you will say you did. But I'm guessing most people didnt think about any "indoctrination" before coming angry and frustrated into this forum, ready for some hard-time denial.

[KingZayd]

Thornquist wrote...

IT is a coping mechanism. Bioware is not going to deny it because of that fact. It sounds convincing on paper, but ask yourselves this: Did you see the "hints" while playing the game, or after, while watching some edited youtube video?

Many of you will say you did. But I'm guessing most people didnt think about any "indoctrination" before coming angry and frustrated into this forum, ready for some hard-time denial.

I saw manipulation. Why else would the Starchild probe your mind and take the image that has been haunting you all this time. It's exploiting your emotional vulnerabilities. Most of what he said, didn't make any sense given the infomation you'd already seen. I hadn't considerered indoctrination, but it made so much sense when i did.

[Soultaker08]

Thornquist wrote...

IT is a coping mechanism. Bioware is not going to deny it because of that fact. It sounds convincing on paper, but ask yourselves this: Did you see the "hints" while playing the game, or after, while watching some edited youtube video?

Many of you will say you did. But I'm guessing most people didnt think about any "indoctrination" before coming angry and frustrated into this forum, ready for some hard-time denial.

this, the biggest reason why im not gonna believe in IT

[KingZayd]

Soultaker08 wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

IT is a coping mechanism. Bioware is not going to deny it because of that fact. It sounds convincing on paper, but ask yourselves this: Did you see the "hints" while playing the game, or after, while watching some edited youtube video?

Many of you will say you did. But I'm guessing most people didnt think about any "indoctrination" before coming angry and frustrated into this forum, ready for some hard-time denial.

this, the biggest reason why im not gonna believe in IT

That just makes it a damn good twist.

[Soultaker08]

But if it comes out there is no twist whats gonna happen with the IT supporters? raging at Bioware? im more interested in the reaction on EC than on EC itself

[dreman9999]

balance5050 wrote...

Soultaker08 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
.
Yep, putting a reaper IFF on every ship in the galaxy is a great idea.... You realize that people are already being indoctrinated by the thousands right?

If the reaper IFF would indoctrinate , why not changing EDI like the Geth Heretics.

Since Joker gave her full access a Heretic EDI could easily fly Normandy into the next sun, hope for galaxy gone , reapers win.

This is all explained, please go play ME2.

...But the reaper IFF doesn't indoctrinate anyone...Nothing in ME2 points to that.

[KingZayd]

Soultaker08 wrote...

But if it comes out there is no twist whats gonna happen with the IT supporters? raging at Bioware? im more interested in the reaction on EC than on EC itself

well first i'll see if the EC works. if it works, with no major plotholes (there's probably always gonna be a few tiny things even with a really well written game) then i'll be happy. I'll just remember indoctrination theory as an awesome alternate ending. If it doesn't work, then i'll go back to being completely disappointed in Bioware and i guess i'll just have to use indoc theory as headcanon as it truly is brilliant.

Modifié par KingZayd, 17 avril 2012 - 07:58 .

[Suikoden]

Thornquist wrote...

IT is a coping mechanism. Bioware is not going to deny it because of that fact. It sounds convincing on paper, but ask yourselves this: Did you see the "hints" while playing the game, or after, while watching some edited youtube video?

Many of you will say you did. But I'm guessing most people didnt think about any "indoctrination" before coming angry and frustrated into this forum, ready for some hard-time denial.

The moment Shepard started walking in slow motion like in her dreams, combined with the oily shadows present while talking to TIM on the Citadel, made me think that the entire ordeal was some form of indoctrination.  I'm sure many others recognized these obvious signs as well without having to watch a youtube video.

What sealed it for me during my first playthrough was when Anderson faced my Shepard, and told her she was indoctrinated - I never thought that this was directed at TIM.  The youtube video brought other info to light that reaffirmed my initial thoughts, but it wasn't the deciding factor in my interpretation of the ending as an indoctrination attempt.

Modifié par beutelmarkus, 18 avril 2012 - 12:41 .

[ShepardTheHopeful]

::sighs:: this is still going on. 

To you theorists I give you this. 

Will the IT theory ever be realized as the correct plan of Bioware? 

My answer is thus: www.youtube.com/watch

[Silhouett3]

Not all IT supporters second-guess the writers' intentions and wait some kind of true ending. We are diverse. I doubt many debunkers ever pay attention to them, they are busy getting back to those who interpret, fine. I don't care if Bioware intented it or not; IT ending makes it somewhat coherent where ending at face value violetes basic writing structure and cease to be even a story.