230 réponses à ce sujet

[liggy002]

JShepppp wrote...

My main problem with the Reapers was how they basically became morons. Now if that could be solved then I'd be a little happier. The moron premise is the premise that the Reapers are all morons.

The current ending follows the moron premise because Shepard makes it WITH THE CATALYST'S HELP to the Crucible.

The IT theory also follows the moron premise because (a) they can kill Shepard outright with "fast" indoctrination and ( still, if Shepard is lying on the ground, the Reapers should just kill him outright.

Preserving Shepard for being "special" is counterintuitive to "efficient" Reaper nature and follows the moron premise.

I may be too broad here, but no ending will be better to me than the current one unless it violates the moron premise. But IT I think adheres to the moron premise more than the current ending, so I personally don't prefer it.

For those that do - good that you and your Sheps found closure. I respect that and idealistically and vainly hope that we do not see hate messages about IT in either support or criticism of it.

More than the current ending?!  Good god man!

[Pewter77]

JShepppp wrote...

My main problem with the Reapers was how they basically became morons. Now if that could be solved then I'd be a little happier. The moron premise is the premise that the Reapers are all morons.

The current ending follows the moron premise because Shepard makes it WITH THE CATALYST'S HELP to the Crucible.

The IT theory also follows the moron premise because (a) they can kill Shepard outright with "fast" indoctrination and ( still, if Shepard is lying on the ground, the Reapers should just kill him outright.

Preserving Shepard for being "special" is counterintuitive to "efficient" Reaper nature and follows the moron premise.

I may be too broad here, but no ending will be better to me than the current one unless it violates the moron premise. But IT I think adheres to the moron premise more than the current ending, so I personally don't prefer it.

For those that do - good that you and your Sheps found closure. I respect that and idealistically and vainly hope that we do not see hate messages about IT in either support or criticism of it.

Theres not much about this, but I'll say that them not want to indoctrinating Shepard fast is simply not being able to. Like how Saren was strong willed, so is Shepard and the only way is to slowly do it over time. As for killing him, if the dream starts at the beam, it would seem that they did try to kill him but flung him into rubble and assumed he was dead (not sure if indoctrination works two ways here so they could detect him though if it was a dream than it could have happened incredibly fast anyway). But I don't think its going against the moron principle to try and get someone like shepard on your side instead of killing him straight out. They want to minimize casualties of the reapers, so having Shepard (a huge figure for hope in the universe) tell everyone to stop attacking would give them the edge they need to not lose as many reapers as they would with just shepard dead. 

[dreman9999]

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

TheLostGenius wrote...

what the heck is an IT?

An idea that is erroneously called a theory with no evidence supportin it, that people who are graspin at emergency induction port are usin. Amounts to "It was all a dream"

So you just walked into a room full of people, while wearing a shirt that says "Everyone here is idiots!", and you expect your opinion to be respected?

If I wanted to call everyone an idiot I would. Besides the Indoctrination Idea can't be called a theory, much less a legitimate endin.

And no, I'd wear the shirt, walk to the middle of the room, climb on the table call everyone an idiot and say that they're wrong, put up a banner, and then ask for any questions.

May you should look up what a theory is befrore saying what one is. Also, IT has a lot of facts supporting it.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

[dreman9999]

JShepppp wrote...

My main problem with the Reapers was how they basically became morons. Now if that could be solved then I'd be a little happier. The moron premise is the premise that the Reapers are all morons.

The current ending follows the moron premise because Shepard makes it WITH THE CATALYST'S HELP to the Crucible.

The IT theory also follows the moron premise because (a) they can kill Shepard outright with "fast" indoctrination and ( still, if Shepard is lying on the ground, the Reapers should just kill him outright.

Preserving Shepard for being "special" is counterintuitive to "efficient" Reaper nature and follows the moron premise.

I may be too broad here, but no ending will be better to me than the current one unless it violates the moron premise. But IT I think adheres to the moron premise more than the current ending, so I personally don't prefer it.

For those that do - good that you and your Sheps found closure. I respect that and idealistically and vainly hope that we do not see hate messages about IT in either support or criticism of it.

1.It's clear you don't understand what is going on. Shepard at the end of the gameis not key to the reapers defeat...The crucible is. Anyone can trigger it. Not Shepard alone. The thing is hat even if they kill Shepard, it does not garrentee victory. If you take note to most of the reapers plans, it involves indoctrinating a person of high importance to be a sleep agent who sabatoges the forces the reaper are trying to take down. Shepard would be perfect for it.

2. You also not noticing tthe contact points for indoctrination attempts...That the main thing people who don't understand the theory miss. In the lore reapers and reaper tech have been stated and shown to indoctrinate people through ether prolong exposer or on and off contact as well as contact with husk and reaper agents  being that they also give offindoactrination waves.. This mean Shepard has been in on and off contactwith reaper tech since eden prime....That's mean Shepard has 3 years wurth of on and off contact with reapers and reaper tech...Including objectr rho in arrive which hit him with an indoctriation wave.

3. You alsom have to note the sign ofindoctrination...It been shown that reapers can effect dreams, the person being indoctrinated hears whispers and halutionations. Shepard, after years of contact with reaper tech, suddenly has stragedreams with whisper(I'm not taking about the dead crew...
 )And the fact that noone can prove the child at the fall of earth is real.

Thereis lots of thing supporting it. You just have to take time to look and see.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 

[Makrys]

dreman9999 wrote...

JShepppp wrote...

My main problem with the Reapers was how they basically became morons. Now if that could be solved then I'd be a little happier. The moron premise is the premise that the Reapers are all morons.

The current ending follows the moron premise because Shepard makes it WITH THE CATALYST'S HELP to the Crucible.

The IT theory also follows the moron premise because (a) they can kill Shepard outright with "fast" indoctrination and ( still, if Shepard is lying on the ground, the Reapers should just kill him outright.

Preserving Shepard for being "special" is counterintuitive to "efficient" Reaper nature and follows the moron premise.

I may be too broad here, but no ending will be better to me than the current one unless it violates the moron premise. But IT I think adheres to the moron premise more than the current ending, so I personally don't prefer it.

For those that do - good that you and your Sheps found closure. I respect that and idealistically and vainly hope that we do not see hate messages about IT in either support or criticism of it.

1.It's clear you don't understand what is going on. Shepard at the end of the gameis not key to the reapers defeat...The crucible is. Anyone can trigger it. Not Shepard alone. The thing is hat even if they kill Shepard, it does not garrentee victory. If you take note to most of the reapers plans, it involves indoctrinating a person of high importance to be a sleep agent who sabatoges the forces the reaper are trying to take down. Shepard would be perfect for it.

2. You also not noticing tthe contact points for indoctrination attempts...That the main thing people who don't understand the theory miss. In the lore reapers and reaper tech have been stated and shown to indoctrinate people through ether prolong exposer or on and off contact as well as contact with husk and reaper agents  being that they also give offindoactrination waves.. This mean Shepard has been in on and off contactwith reaper tech since eden prime....That's mean Shepard has 3 years wurth of on and off contact with reapers and reaper tech...Including objectr rho in arrive which hit him with an indoctriation wave.

3. You alsom have to note the sign ofindoctrination...It been shown that reapers can effect dreams, the person being indoctrinated hears whispers and halutionations. Shepard, after years of contact with reaper tech, suddenly has stragedreams with whisper(I'm not taking about the dead crew...
 )And the fact that noone can prove the child at the fall of earth is real.

Thereis lots of thing supporting it. You just have to take time to look and see.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 

Most of the anti-ITers do not take the time to study the theory unfortunately, and is usually why they can never specifically present a credible argument against it. Other than the usual, "Oh, so it was just all a dream then? Right."

If you have facts/convincing arguments against the IT then bring them forth! We'll listen! All we're doing is presenting our case, but when someone gets on here and just spouts "You're all wrong!", with nothing further to say... you think your words have any real weight? I'm all for healthy discussions, so if you have an argument for or against the IT, then like I said, bring it forth and we'll discuss. But if you just come in here to bash senselessly, there's the door.

[HiddenKING]

dreman9999 wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

TheLostGenius wrote...

what the heck is an IT?

An idea that is erroneously called a theory with no evidence supportin it, that people who are graspin at emergency induction port are usin. Amounts to "It was all a dream"

So you just walked into a room full of people, while wearing a shirt that says "Everyone here is idiots!", and you expect your opinion to be respected?

If I wanted to call everyone an idiot I would. Besides the Indoctrination Idea can't be called a theory, much less a legitimate endin.

And no, I'd wear the shirt, walk to the middle of the room, climb on the table call everyone an idiot and say that they're wrong, put up a banner, and then ask for any questions.

May you should look up what a theory is befrore saying what one is. Also, IT has a lot of facts supporting it.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

You're the one that doesn't know what a theory is. 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The Indoctrination Idea uses out of context information to support a speculation that has no concrete evidence to support it. If anythin you can call it a Hypothesis, but it's no more true than if I say "The Tooth Fairy is real." 

Modifié par HiddenKING, 02 mai 2012 - 02:04 .

[DiebytheSword]

HiddenKING wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

TheLostGenius wrote...

what the heck is an IT?

An idea that is erroneously called a theory with no evidence supportin it, that people who are graspin at emergency induction port are usin. Amounts to "It was all a dream"

So you just walked into a room full of people, while wearing a shirt that says "Everyone here is idiots!", and you expect your opinion to be respected?

If I wanted to call everyone an idiot I would. Besides the Indoctrination Idea can't be called a theory, much less a legitimate endin.

And no, I'd wear the shirt, walk to the middle of the room, climb on the table call everyone an idiot and say that they're wrong, put up a banner, and then ask for any questions.

May you should look up what a theory is befrore saying what one is. Also, IT has a lot of facts supporting it.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

You're the one that doesn't know what a theory is. 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The Indoctrination Idea uses out of context information to support a speculation that has no concrete evidence to support it. If anythin you can call it a Hypothesis, but it's no more true than if I say "The Tooth Fairy is real." 

You know, if I thought you were actually defending the integrity of the word "theory" I'd give you a lot of credit.  But you are not; you are being purposefully obtuse.  Hypothesis is a better word, but there is both widespread support and plenty of in context information that points to many things in the end being in Shepards head, a battle of wills, rather than a straight up literal ending.

Of course, you don't care about any of that, you're just trolling IT supporters.

I think IT has some solid ideas, but I don't think its 100% right either.  That said, we'll see what EC does to clarify that.  In the meantime, stop trollololing over the word theory.  It doesn't change the fact that the catalyst was in Shepards head to extract the image of the kid.  It doesn't change the fact that the Reapers are in Shepards head any way you cut it, even if the end was literal.

So yeah, at least in part, it was a daydream.

Expend some energy on thinking about that instead of coming up with creative ways to troll people you disagree with.

[AlRPG]

If you take many of the game occurrences with the idea that the I.T is wrong, then they make little to no sense. Even with the theory it takes belief and many assumptions to make sense. Poor writing.... end off. However, by altering the ending and referencing the weird S### in the DLC, it can be saved.

[HiddenKING]

DiebytheSword wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

TheLostGenius wrote...

what the heck is an IT?

An idea that is erroneously called a theory with no evidence supportin it, that people who are graspin at emergency induction port are usin. Amounts to "It was all a dream"

So you just walked into a room full of people, while wearing a shirt that says "Everyone here is idiots!", and you expect your opinion to be respected?

If I wanted to call everyone an idiot I would. Besides the Indoctrination Idea can't be called a theory, much less a legitimate endin.

And no, I'd wear the shirt, walk to the middle of the room, climb on the table call everyone an idiot and say that they're wrong, put up a banner, and then ask for any questions.

May you should look up what a theory is befrore saying what one is. Also, IT has a lot of facts supporting it.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

You're the one that doesn't know what a theory is. 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The Indoctrination Idea uses out of context information to support a speculation that has no concrete evidence to support it. If anythin you can call it a Hypothesis, but it's no more true than if I say "The Tooth Fairy is real." 

You know, if I thought you were actually defending the integrity of the word "theory" I'd give you a lot of credit.  But you are not; you are being purposefully obtuse.  Hypothesis is a better word, but there is both widespread support and plenty of in context information that points to many things in the end being in Shepards head, a battle of wills, rather than a straight up literal ending.

Of course, you don't care about any of that, you're just trolling IT supporters.

I think IT has some solid ideas, but I don't think its 100% right either.  That said, we'll see what EC does to clarify that.  In the meantime, stop trollololing over the word theory.  It doesn't change the fact that the catalyst was in Shepards head to extract the image of the kid.  It doesn't change the fact that the Reapers are in Shepards head any way you cut it, even if the end was literal.

So yeah, at least in part, it was a daydream.

Expend some energy on thinking about that instead of coming up with creative ways to troll people you disagree with.

The Indoctrination Idea is supported by speculation and evidence that is circumstancial at best. 

[AlRPG]

HiddenKING wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

TheLostGenius wrote...

what the heck is an IT?

An idea that is erroneously called a theory with no evidence supportin it, that people who are graspin at emergency induction port are usin. Amounts to "It was all a dream"

So you just walked into a room full of people, while wearing a shirt that says "Everyone here is idiots!", and you expect your opinion to be respected?

If I wanted to call everyone an idiot I would. Besides the Indoctrination Idea can't be called a theory, much less a legitimate endin.

And no, I'd wear the shirt, walk to the middle of the room, climb on the table call everyone an idiot and say that they're wrong, put up a banner, and then ask for any questions.

May you should look up what a theory is befrore saying what one is. Also, IT has a lot of facts supporting it.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

You're the one that doesn't know what a theory is. 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The Indoctrination Idea uses out of context information to support a speculation that has no concrete evidence to support it. If anythin you can call it a Hypothesis, but it's no more true than if I say "The Tooth Fairy is real." 

You know, if I thought you were actually defending the integrity of the word "theory" I'd give you a lot of credit.  But you are not; you are being purposefully obtuse.  Hypothesis is a better word, but there is both widespread support and plenty of in context information that points to many things in the end being in Shepards head, a battle of wills, rather than a straight up literal ending.

Of course, you don't care about any of that, you're just trolling IT supporters.

I think IT has some solid ideas, but I don't think its 100% right either.  That said, we'll see what EC does to clarify that.  In the meantime, stop trollololing over the word theory.  It doesn't change the fact that the catalyst was in Shepards head to extract the image of the kid.  It doesn't change the fact that the Reapers are in Shepards head any way you cut it, even if the end was literal.

So yeah, at least in part, it was a daydream.

Expend some energy on thinking about that instead of coming up with creative ways to troll people you disagree with.

The Indoctrination Idea is supported by speculation and evidence that is circumstancial at best. 

It may be circumstanicial, but there is alot of it.  Or it was  SPACE MAGIC , which is major speculation.

[HiddenKING]

AlRPG wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

TheLostGenius wrote...

what the heck is an IT?

An idea that is erroneously called a theory with no evidence supportin it, that people who are graspin at emergency induction port are usin. Amounts to "It was all a dream"

So you just walked into a room full of people, while wearing a shirt that says "Everyone here is idiots!", and you expect your opinion to be respected?

If I wanted to call everyone an idiot I would. Besides the Indoctrination Idea can't be called a theory, much less a legitimate endin.

And no, I'd wear the shirt, walk to the middle of the room, climb on the table call everyone an idiot and say that they're wrong, put up a banner, and then ask for any questions.

May you should look up what a theory is befrore saying what one is. Also, IT has a lot of facts supporting it.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

You're the one that doesn't know what a theory is. 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The Indoctrination Idea uses out of context information to support a speculation that has no concrete evidence to support it. If anythin you can call it a Hypothesis, but it's no more true than if I say "The Tooth Fairy is real." 

You know, if I thought you were actually defending the integrity of the word "theory" I'd give you a lot of credit.  But you are not; you are being purposefully obtuse.  Hypothesis is a better word, but there is both widespread support and plenty of in context information that points to many things in the end being in Shepards head, a battle of wills, rather than a straight up literal ending.

Of course, you don't care about any of that, you're just trolling IT supporters.

I think IT has some solid ideas, but I don't think its 100% right either.  That said, we'll see what EC does to clarify that.  In the meantime, stop trollololing over the word theory.  It doesn't change the fact that the catalyst was in Shepards head to extract the image of the kid.  It doesn't change the fact that the Reapers are in Shepards head any way you cut it, even if the end was literal.

So yeah, at least in part, it was a daydream.

Expend some energy on thinking about that instead of coming up with creative ways to troll people you disagree with.

The Indoctrination Idea is supported by speculation and evidence that is circumstancial at best. 

It may be circumstanicial, but there is alot of it.  Or it was  SPACE MAGIC , which is major speculation.

Entirely subjective. 

[Flextt]

You have 4 decisions:
- Decide you like the ending. (it happens, but not to me)
- Decide you simply do not like the ending and turn away from ME
- Decide you like the IT for its way of salvaging the ME 3 ending
- Decide you don't like the ending and the number of reused assets in support of IT is simply Bioware being lazy.

Which is the least depressing? Number 3. (I think genuinely liking the ending is impossible). So even if there are only indications and conjecture in favor of IT, it remains a solace for people being frustrated by the ending, hence it's overwhelming popularity. I don't think it is true, but it would be an easy way for Bioware to turn this around.

[Apollo-XL5]

MattFini wrote...

Yep, I like this too.

Not a huge fan of I.T., but I see it as the only viable way out of this disaster of an ending.

I still think BioWare should use this, and make post-game DLC (yes, I know what they've said) that gives us a real final mission. One that's up so the trilogy's standards. P:E sure as hell wasn't it.

there is no need for post game dlc, since the EE wil add to/flesh out current endings. what they nee to do is make a Priority earth 2.0 dlc that makes the whole earth part longer and more exciting.

[Numara]

Nice reading, i wanted to share my opinion about IT, (and srry for my english not my mother language)
1. I think the ending after the beam laser, its not a dream, i really think Shep its actually alive and walking into the blue light going to the citadel, BUT i believe for many reasons (that IT covers perfectly, nosenses dialogues, hums, superpower TIM, the kid as catalyst....etc) that Shep is hallucitaning about what he/she is hearing and seeing after the laser.
2. So if BW says nothing about it we cant be 100% sure if Shep is dreaming on earth, hallucitaning at the citadel or all its really happening, we cant know because we play as shepard, and shepard has no clue about he/she being indoctrinated or not. So i think it all depend of ur point of view.

And my point of view that at last for me does a liltle sense, is Shep is hallucitaning about all the things that are happening at the citadel, actually i think anderson and TIM arent there, that the catalyst is harvy messing wiht shep, and about the choices i think the 3 of them are valid all depens of your shepard, -control: yaii be the god of the reapers and makes them happy -sintesis join the enemy last goal and share drinks with saren -destroy: say bye harvy, i miss a 4th option there: conventional victory( or defeatXD) depending on you EMS ( but lets not go there)
3. About the normandy ·heroic· scape and crash XD, i want ( repeat WANT) to believe joker went to recue the sore team and seeing shep wasnt there, he flied to the citadel and found the super explosion and got to , ehem run and crash , mmm i hope on earth or the hell i dont know who will pick shepard body ( if theres body, dependng on your ending) at the citadel... dady hacket?

So i dont know how will BW make it with the EC to make sense and fill the "plot holes", but fans actually are rewritung the ending very well, lets see what happens XD

Srry ( again) for my english, and oops didnt mean the text to be that long...

[Junthor]

Excellent points, OP.

[dreman9999]

HiddenKING wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

TheLostGenius wrote...

what the heck is an IT?

An idea that is erroneously called a theory with no evidence supportin it, that people who are graspin at emergency induction port are usin. Amounts to "It was all a dream"

So you just walked into a room full of people, while wearing a shirt that says "Everyone here is idiots!", and you expect your opinion to be respected?

If I wanted to call everyone an idiot I would. Besides the Indoctrination Idea can't be called a theory, much less a legitimate endin.

And no, I'd wear the shirt, walk to the middle of the room, climb on the table call everyone an idiot and say that they're wrong, put up a banner, and then ask for any questions.

May you should look up what a theory is befrore saying what one is. Also, IT has a lot of facts supporting it.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

You're the one that doesn't know what a theory is. 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The Indoctrination Idea uses out of context information to support a speculation that has no concrete evidence to support it. If anythin you can call it a Hypothesis, but it's no more true than if I say "The Tooth Fairy is real." 

Yes...Guess what....The ending would be a a fact and phenomenw that need to be explained, everything in the IT theory would be sets of statements devised to explain it.....Meaning IT is still a theaory...Your point?

And yes, it does use concrete evedece to support it.
.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 

Everything in that link is concrete evedence.

Modifié par dreman9999, 02 mai 2012 - 03:07 .

[DiebytheSword]

HiddenKING wrote...

The Indoctrination Idea is supported by speculation and evidence that is circumstancial at best. 

Your response to my challenge was to double down on calling the Hypothesis out on "circumstantial evidence" and "speculation".  Yet you did not answer my challenge; whether or not the image of the star child is pulled from Shepard's head, or the child was always in Shepard's head from the beginning, the end is still pulled from or planted in Shepard's head by the Catalyst/GUARDIAN.

The guiding intellegence of the Reapers is in Shepard's head.

That is neither speculation, nor circumstantial.  It is fact.  You do not have any ground to refute this, amuse me and try.

If this is not the case, by all means tell me your hypothesis about why the child is shaped like a child that only Shepard saw.  Then explain how the Reapers came by this image, and why they chose to use it. 

No U, indeed.

[ReXspec]

The IT is the best chance Bioware has at fixing the ending aside from a total retcon. It makes sense, and I agree with you OP (although I've always agreed with IT).

Bump.

[dreman9999]

DiebytheSword wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

The Indoctrination Idea is supported by speculation and evidence that is circumstancial at best. 

Your response to my challenge was to double down on calling the Hypothesis out on "circumstantial evidence" and "speculation".  Yet you did not answer my challenge; whether or not the image of the star child is pulled from Shepard's head, or the child was always in Shepard's head from the beginning, the end is still pulled from or planted in Shepard's head by the Catalyst/GUARDIAN.

The guiding intellegence of the Reapers is in Shepard's head.

That is neither speculation, nor circumstantial.  It is fact.  You do not have any ground to refute this, amuse me and try.

If this is not the case, by all means tell me your hypothesis about why the child is shaped like a child that only Shepard saw.  Then explain how the Reapers came by this image, and why they chose to use it. 

No U, indeed.

Also, based on this defintion..IT is a theory any way...

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/theory 
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural andsubject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actualfact. 

[Edorian27]

And here I think.. I would LOVE BW for confirming IT with the DLC and giving me a cutscene with Shep Indoctrinated gunning down his companions or running around as a husk, or winning depending of the ending you chose. 

The shock of my beloved Tali when "her" Shep comes up and works for the reapers..yeah! So bitter, if they actually dare to do so  some closure, I would say...

I'd really respect them for the guts to do so!

[OdanUrr]

I thought there was a massive IT thread already? What's the difference between this one and that one?

[dreman9999]

Edorian27 wrote...

And here I think.. I would LOVE BW for confirming IT with the DLC and giving me a cutscene with Shep Indoctrinated gunning down his companions or running around as a husk, or winning depending of the ending you chose. 

The shock of my beloved Tali when "her" Shep comes up and works for the reapers..yeah! So bitter, if they actually dare to do so  some closure, I would say...

I'd really respect them for the guts to do so!

It would be more then that...Think,"Oh my god, my Shepard just betrade us as we were about to activate the crucible!"..
The reapers want Shep as a sleeper agent. They want him to sabotage the allied forces.

[DiebytheSword]

dreman9999 wrote...

DiebytheSword wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

The Indoctrination Idea is supported by speculation and evidence that is circumstancial at best. 

Your response to my challenge was to double down on calling the Hypothesis out on "circumstantial evidence" and "speculation".  Yet you did not answer my challenge; whether or not the image of the star child is pulled from Shepard's head, or the child was always in Shepard's head from the beginning, the end is still pulled from or planted in Shepard's head by the Catalyst/GUARDIAN.

The guiding intellegence of the Reapers is in Shepard's head.

That is neither speculation, nor circumstantial.  It is fact.  You do not have any ground to refute this, amuse me and try.

If this is not the case, by all means tell me your hypothesis about why the child is shaped like a child that only Shepard saw.  Then explain how the Reapers came by this image, and why they chose to use it. 

No U, indeed.

Also, based on this defintion..IT is a theory any way...

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/theory 
a[color=rgb(51,51,51)"> ] [/color]explanation[color=rgb(51,51,51)"> ] [/color]status[color=rgb(51,51,51)"> ] [/color]still[color=rgb(51,51,51)"> ] [/color]and[color=rgb(51,51,51)">subject ] [/color]experimentation,[color=rgb(51,51,51)"> ] [/color]contrast[color=rgb(51,51,51)"> ] [/color]well-established [color=rgb(51,51,51)">propositions ] [/color]are[color=rgb(51,51,51)"> ] [/color]as[color=rgb(51,51,51)"> ] [/color]matters[color=rgb(51,51,51)"> ] [/color]actualfact. 

I'm not going to feed the troll and work with him on a definition that he has narrowed to suit his needs.  He's on my activity feed as a BSN aquaintance, I know how he operates.

At this table, we are going to feast on facts, and it looks like he's starving.

[dreman9999]

OdanUrr wrote...

I thought there was a massive IT thread already? What's the difference between this one and that one?

We can debate in this one and the other isjust  people buncing ideas.

[HiddenKING]

dreman9999 wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

TheLostGenius wrote...

what the heck is an IT?

An idea that is erroneously called a theory with no evidence supportin it, that people who are graspin at emergency induction port are usin. Amounts to "It was all a dream"

So you just walked into a room full of people, while wearing a shirt that says "Everyone here is idiots!", and you expect your opinion to be respected?

If I wanted to call everyone an idiot I would. Besides the Indoctrination Idea can't be called a theory, much less a legitimate endin.

And no, I'd wear the shirt, walk to the middle of the room, climb on the table call everyone an idiot and say that they're wrong, put up a banner, and then ask for any questions.

May you should look up what a theory is befrore saying what one is. Also, IT has a lot of facts supporting it.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/

You're the one that doesn't know what a theory is. 

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

The Indoctrination Idea uses out of context information to support a speculation that has no concrete evidence to support it. If anythin you can call it a Hypothesis, but it's no more true than if I say "The Tooth Fairy is real." 

Yes...Guess what....The ending would be a a fact and phenomenw that need to be explained, everything in the IT theory would be sets of statements devised to explain it.....Meaning IT is still a theaory...Your point?

And yes, it does use concrete evedece to support it.
.http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 

Everything in that link is concrete evedence.

Some are facts, other depend entirely for the player to play the game in a specific way, and others are irrelevant. But none of your points can be used to prove with absolute certainty that Shepard is Indoctrinated.