dweller wrote...
zambot wrote...
^^This. I used to like IT yesterday a whole lot better than I do today. After participating in this thread, I now get the same vibes from IT people that I get from overly religous people.
Damn, that's exactly the feeling I've been getting lately as well.
MJF JD wrote...
artistic integrity
balance5050 wrote...
Nah, IT'ers look at the evidence, while naysayers just believe what twitter feeds tell them. IT is like evolution theory, and our clues are like the fossil record.
Valentia X wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
Nah, IT'ers look at the evidence, while naysayers just believe what twitter feeds tell them. IT is like evolution theory, and our clues are like the fossil record.
Uh, not quite, but nice try. IT isn't dead but it's had plenty of holes punched in it.
Valentia X wrote...
Why don't you take a gander at the Why Indoc Theory is Faulty thread. Plenty of IT 'evidence' is reasonably explained.
I'm not dismissing IT as a possibility. But it is not airtight and there are issues with the theory.
Modifié par LelianaHawke, 26 avril 2012 - 08:35 .
LelianaHawke wrote...
I actually think the pulse at the end transports Shepard back to earth, which explains how she survives that blast. But the cinematics team stuffed up and didn't realize that the direction sent Shepard out into space.
Given that all software is buggy, and ME3 has some pretty gamebreaking bugs (cut dialogue, game lockups in stupid and obvious places), it's not out of the question.
The main problem I have with IT arguments is that they seem to think theire evidence is irrefutable, and that anyone who doesn't believe it is dumb. But they haven't successfully argued away many problems, just provided an interesting case worth considering.
balance5050 wrote...
Valentia X wrote...
Why don't you take a gander at the Why Indoc Theory is Faulty thread. Plenty of IT 'evidence' is reasonably explained.
I'm not dismissing IT as a possibility. But it is not airtight and there are issues with the theory.
Already did
Modifié par draken-heart, 26 avril 2012 - 08:38 .
balance5050 wrote...
dweller wrote...
zambot wrote...
^^This. I used to like IT yesterday a whole lot better than I do today. After participating in this thread, I now get the same vibes from IT people that I get from overly religous people.
Damn, that's exactly the feeling I've been getting lately as well.
Nah, IT'ers look at the evidence, while naysayers just believe what twitter feeds tell them. IT is like evolution theory, and our clues are like the fossil record.
Arcian wrote...
Let me clarify:
1: If you chose Destroy, you somehow wake up
magically free of Indoctrination, which according to three games of lore
isn't possible because Indoctrination is utterly permanent. No one in
Mass Effect has EVER escaped indoctrination permanently. Yes, people
with tremendous willpower can resist it for a short while, but a short
while is not the several hours required to fight the final battle. At
best, Shepard would wake up, get his/her bearings for a few minutes and
then turn Reaper Mode and attack friends and allies after being mentally
overpowered by the Reapers.
2: If you chose Synthesis/Control,
you are indoctrinated, losing the game instantly which makes Destroy a
non-choice - thus removing what little choice remained in the RGB scene.
The whole point of Mass Effect is to not force non-choices on the
player, which is precisely what the IDT is doing.
3: The Reapers
do not indoctrinate via hallucinations or mental "dream persuasion" -
they literally, physically damage the brain with electromagnetic energy
and infra/ultrasound, degenerating thought processes to make their
victims susceptible to subliminal control. Permanent. Brain. Damage.
The hallucinations and voices are symptoms, not causes as the IDT would
have us believe. By the time you are experiencing hallucinations and
hearing voices, you have already been irreversibly indoctrinated - thus,
the IDT's presumption that Destroy frees Shepard of indoctrination is
highly erroneous.
Modifié par dweller, 26 avril 2012 - 08:40 .
Valentia X wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
Valentia X wrote...
Why don't you take a gander at the Why Indoc Theory is Faulty thread. Plenty of IT 'evidence' is reasonably explained.
I'm not dismissing IT as a possibility. But it is not airtight and there are issues with the theory.
Already did
Then you accept that there are plausible explanations that don't involve IT?
Modifié par LelianaHawke, 26 avril 2012 - 08:50 .
LelianaHawke wrote...
The plausible explanation is that you're all indoctrinated, and Bioware intended the endings to make no absolute sense.
They did this to encourage fan speculation, of which the indoctrination theory is just one theory.
This would then heighten interest in DLC they could charge for.
The extended DLC will fill in the plotholes of the current endings (hopefully).
While they were originally going to charge for these endings, fan backlash caused them to abandon this plan.
So my plausible explanation isthat this is all just intended speculation, but Bioware was surprised at the negativity of the fans.
Modifié par draken-heart, 26 avril 2012 - 08:55 .
draken-heart wrote...
my plausible explanation theory is that BioWare is getting back at EA for ruining DA, their other big-name franchise.
No proof, but theory fits evidence. /mordin impersonation
Valentia X wrote...
(typing on phone, can't reply to long quoted posts)
That post actually, in fact, gave plausible alternatives for IT theory. That you don't buy it is fine; IT, in my mind, has potential but I personally don't follow it. But IT has not been conclusively proven, and it does not have the evidence to back it up like, say, the theory of gravity. The 'evidence' we have is open to multiple avenues of interpretation; when IT first came up, I offered up a PTSD explanation, which reasonably explains the dream sequences.
Multiple possible explanations does not invalidate a theory, since we're at the stage where nothing can be proven or disproven. But neither do they provide irrefutable proof that a theory is now ironclad fact.
Retour en haut
