115 réponses à ce sujet

[Cadence of the Planes]

Legion64 wrote...

Why would Bioware make 3 choices for the player to choose from but have only one be a correct one and have the other ones be wrong and pretty much make them a waste? When was there ever a wrong decision when it came to choices in ME3? If the other two endings consider Shepard indoctrinated, and Destroy is the so called only good option, then wouldn't that make the ending worse? Considering that there was no real choice in the ending and that there was only one correct ending according to those who believe in the Indoctrination Theory. That makes no sense for Bioware to do. Bioware wanted the ending to be where the player picked from a number of choices and determine the future of the galaxy.

Not sure what you mean by "real" in the sentence: *Considering that there was no real choice in the ending*
There were three choices. According to IT, two of them would lead to Shepard's indoctrination, one of them would not.

 When was there ever a wrong decision when it came to choices in ME3?  

 

I mean, again, who said the decisions were wrong? Some decisions are better than others.
I'll give you an example of a decision from ME2 that wasn't so good and ended the game immediately:

Trying to Romance Morinth.


If this is you trying to debunk IT, you'll need to do a lot better. But at the end of the day, no matter how much we debate back and forth about why it's valid or not- we'll both be speculating.  

I dunno, perhaps that's what the game makers wanted.

[Cadence of the Planes]

VampireSoap wrote...

Legion64 wrote...

You'd be surprise Han, if you have seen my recent other Indoctrination Theory thread, people still believe in it. God knows why.

Creationism was pronounced dead the moment evolution was accepted by professional science community 200 years ago, yet today there are still billions of people believe the earth is 6000 years old. How do you explain that? Sometimes, ignorance and wishful thinking can not be explained by any rational means.

Funny that you mention science, but use a rather unscientific method in an attempt to make a point: by applying an anectodal example to the matter at hand, and hoping that someone will approach IT in the same way. Allow me to stoop to your level, and counter with another analogy: For millenia, people believed that the earth was flat, because they didn't consider investigating subtle clues about its spherical shape.... "the ground is flat and therefore the earth must be flat too." That, too, was debunked by scientific minds that decided to look beyond what was immediately apparent. See how easily anecdotes can be twisted?

You then label those who disagree with you as ignorant, and irrational.

Ah, the irony. 

Modifié par Cadence of the Planes, 02 mai 2012 - 02:22 .

[Legion64]

Exactly, why would Bioware waste making three choices and have only one being the correct one to escape this indoctrination? That would kind of ruin the point of making a choice in the first place. If these 3 choices were suppost to be the biggest ones in the Mass Effect series, and it turns out that 2 lead you to indoctrination and one is the 'correct' one, then that is kind of stupid. To me, it makes the ending worse.

[AlRPG]

Legion64 wrote...

Exactly, why would Bioware waste making three choices and have only one being the correct one to escape this indoctrination? That would kind of ruin the point of making a choice in the first place. If these 3 choices were suppost to be the biggest ones in the Mass Effect series, and it turns out that 2 lead you to indoctrination and one is the 'correct' one, then that is kind of stupid. To me, it makes the ending worse.

Look at Mass effect 2, destoying the collector base was "CANNON" so maybe the destroy option is...... come on Bioware (EA) are hardly going to kill of this money spining franchise like that.

[Legion64]

If Destroy is canon, that just ruins the Mass Effect series even more. Like forcing Liara as a players romance, and having Shepard talk for himself instead of you. An RPG shouldn't have canon, if you even want to call Mass Effect an RPG anymore.

Modifié par Legion64, 02 mai 2012 - 02:19 .

[Cadence of the Planes]

Legion64 wrote...

If Destroy is canon, that just ruins the Mass Effect series even more. Like forcing Liara as a players romance, and having Shepard talk for himself instead of you.

I don't know, I think the game makers didn't want to force it upon the player- they wanted to leave it hanging in mystery and let people speculate (obviously that backfired). It'll be interesting to see where they'll go from here.

Modifié par Cadence of the Planes, 02 mai 2012 - 02:20 .

[Legion64]

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

Legion64 wrote...

If Destroy is canon, that just ruins the Mass Effect series even more. Like forcing Liara as a players romance, and having Shepard talk for himself instead of you.

I don't know, I think the game makers didn't want to force it upon the player- they wanted to leave it hanging in mystery and let people speculate (obviously that backfired). It'll be interesting to see where they'll go from here.

We will have to wait and see with the Extended Cut. And hopefully it will bring enough clarification to where all of this speculation ends.

[AresKeith]

the IT wasn't disproved, at PAX they said let the DLC speak for itself

[Icemix]

AresKeith wrote...

the IT wasn't disproved, at PAX they said let the DLC speak for itself

That was the exact moment when it got debunked. They said that they are not going to tell the fans how to interpret the ending and that the content speaks for itself. You need to be beyond stupid to believe in IT after that.

[VampireSoap]

AlRPG wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

AlRPG wrote...

Why does the indoctrination codec almost word for word detail the experiences and weird S### that happens in the game?

None of those details can lead to the IT conclusion. How can you go from Shepard's blue eyes to Shepard being indoctrinated for years? Base on what do you make that logical leap?

Yeah, this kind of problem shows up a lot in the study of logic. You'll see if you ever decide to take a class for logic in college.

Every indocrinated character sharing one trait which appears on yours after you complete a certain act that "helps" the reapers would suggest LOGICALLY that your character was too indocrinated. No? <_<

This is your logic:
Major Premise:Every couple shares the same bed at night
Minor Premise: I am a man
Observation: One night you found that there was a woman in bed with me

And then you draw the conclusion that I am very much in love with this woman and that we've had sex every night since we were 18.

Little did you know this woman could be my ONS lover, my sister, my mom or whatever....
It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to tell you how illogical it is. My advise, go to college, study more. Period.

[TreguardD]

Han Shot First wrote...

People still believe in the IT?

Indocrtination Theory was pronounced dead the moment Bioware announced that the extended ending DLC would only clarify the existing ending, and not introduce changes.

It was never more than wishful thinking on the part of some fans who couldn't accept that the disappointing ending we got, was the actual ending.

For the record: They didn't say anything about not extending it.

:innocent:

[CARL_DF90]

Hey there OP. To answer your post watch this vid here from start to finish. It should answer your questions quite well. Also, it would be quicker and more enjoyable than going through the almost 2,000 page thread in the story section of the forum.




EDIT NOTE: I hope everyone here remembers the meaning of the key word "theory" when talking about the I.T.

theory- 1) a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena. 2) a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.

Simply put, the I.T. has yet to be proven or disproven. Even though I personally like it, I'm going to wait and see because the ball's in Bioware's court on this one.

Modifié par CARL_DF90, 02 mai 2012 - 08:32 .

[UnstableMongoose]

To answer your question, OP, I believe that you have made a critically erroneous assumption. I have no reason to believe that there is a single interpretation of the ending that is the "true" interpretation. IT can never be wrong, much as a non-IT interpretation of the ending can never be wrong.

BioWare said early on that they wanted to leave it up to speculation. The only way to reasonably leave things up to speculation is to ensure that multiple interpretations of the ending are always viable, and that there is not an official "canon" interpretation of the ending. Doubtlessly, every writer that worked on the project has their own pet theory, and some may even share interpretations. However, I very much doubt that there is a single interpretation of the ending that was intended to be the only "true" interpretation.

[kankan9000]

.. Simply can't ask some arrogant kids to do much logical deduction based on facts or just be patient enough to go through the videos to actually know about IT before making comments.

[Icemix]

 IT is not true because of the simple fact that if it was true, it would mean that the game just build up to the climax of the story and just cut off. Which means that the game did not ship with its ending, and no matter how evil EA is, they would never do that. So pull your heads out of your assses, stop grasping at straws and accept that the ending is just bad.

[CARL_DF90]

Oy. Real mature Icemix. Anywho, apparently you among others were not paying attention to my previous post when you decided to embarress yourself. And FYI, there are two things to remember as well as my above post. First, there was a planned section of ME3 that had Shep fully indoctrinated but was pulled at the last minute for whatever reason (I don't try to understand why Bioware does half the things they do). Second, when dealing with or talking about EA or ANY big company the rule of thumb is to never put ANYTHING past them.

[dunstan1993]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

Oy. Real mature Icemix. Anywho, apparently you among others were not paying attention to my previous post when you decided to embarress yourself. And FYI, there are two things to remember as well as my above post. First, there was a planned section of ME3 that had Shep fully indoctrinated but was pulled at the last minute for whatever reason (I don't try to understand why Bioware does half the things they do). Second, when dealing with or talking about EA or ANY big company the rule of thumb is to never put ANYTHING past them.

Is there evidence of that?

[CARL_DF90]

There was a post about it but alas I didn't save the link with the info.

Modifié par CARL_DF90, 02 mai 2012 - 08:29 .

[Icemix]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

Oy. Real mature Icemix. Anywho, apparently you among others were not paying attention to my previous post when you decided to embarress yourself. And FYI, there are two things to remember as well as my above post. First, there was a planned section of ME3 that had Shep fully indoctrinated but was pulled at the last minute for whatever reason (I don't try to understand why Bioware does half the things they do). Second, when dealing with or talking about EA or ANY big company the rule of thumb is to never put ANYTHING past them.

I know, and that is maybe why IT makes so much sense. But its not true and the reason is incredibly simple.

[CARL_DF90]

Again, read my post from one hour ago please.

[Icemix]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

Again, read my post from one hour ago please.

I've seen every single video that has to do with the ending of ME3. IT was the only thing that kept pushing me to do a second playthrough, but alas its not true, and it has been disproven by Bioware themself.

[CARL_DF90]

*sighs* Point, missed. I was not talking about the vid. I meant the text after the link, and there are other things to consider. First, Bioware has not outright said that the I.T. is wrong or not. They have effectively danced around the subject. Second, there is more than enough evidence to both support the I.T. and to debunk it. Until Bioware releases the EC we simply don't know. Saying one way or the other that the I.T. is right or wrong at this point is shorted sighted because we don't know one way or the other. Hence, my emphasis on the meaning behind the word theory.

Modifié par CARL_DF90, 02 mai 2012 - 08:42 .

[dunstan1993]

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Legion64 wrote...

You'd be surprise Han, if you have seen my recent other Indoctrination Theory thread, people still believe in it. God knows why.

Creationism was pronounced dead the moment evolution was accepted by professional science community 200 years ago, yet today there are still billions of people believe the earth is 6000 years old. How do you explain that? Sometimes, ignorance and wishful thinking can not be explained by any rational means.

Funny that you mention science, but use a rather unscientific method in an attempt to make a point: by applying an anectodal example to the matter at hand, and hoping that someone will approach IT in the same way. Allow me to stoop to your level, and counter with another analogy: For millenia, people believed that the earth was flat, because they didn't consider investigating subtle clues about its spherical shape.... "the ground is flat and therefore the earth must be flat too." That, too, was debunked by scientific minds that decided to look beyond what was immediately apparent. See how easily anecdotes can be twisted?

You then label those who disagree with you as ignorant, and irrational.

Ah, the irony.