115 réponses à ce sujet

[CARL_DF90]

@ dunstan1993

Heh, I like you.

[Icemix]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

*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.

We do know its not true. They would cut off the story at the climax and give it to us as unplanned DLC months after the release of the game? 
Yeah its not true, start dealing with it.

[Korubrus]

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.

Yes the ending stays as is. But that does not mean that its not IT.

There is still a slight possibility that they can keep the endings and cinematics but have it all evolve into the IT theory - thus keeping the same ending, just adding to it to create a different perspective.

IMHO IT theory wasn't what Bioware had intended, but they could easily use it to rectify the endings without "Changing" the endings, just adding to it. I hold on to the hope anyway.

Apparently someone mentioned that one the theories out there is correct, but I only know of two theories:
A) Indoctonation Theory
 The ending sucked theory

I really hope they arn't saying is correct... They are arn't they ? 

[Icemix]

Korubrus wrote...

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.

Yes the ending stays as is. But that does not mean that its not IT.

There is still a slight possibility that they can keep the endings and cinematics but have it all evolve into the IT theory - thus keeping the same ending, just adding to it to create a different perspective.

IMHO IT theory wasn't what Bioware had intended, but they could easily use it to rectify the endings without "Changing" the endings, just adding to it. I hold on to the hope anyway.

Apparently someone mentioned that one the theories out there is correct, but I only know of two theories:
A) Indoctonation Theory
 The ending sucked theory

I really hope they arn't saying is correct... They are arn't they ? 

They will never use fan fiction. You can safely asume its

Hopes crushed.

[Icinix]

There is more than one theory in indoctrination theory. Not everyone believes indoctrination theory requires destroy to bring it to conclusion, although it does seem to make the most sense in the theory itself.

As for the ending itself, its a nifty way of dropping hints at making sure people hang on to their future games rather than trade them in during the first week.

As for evidence against indoctrination theory, its as weighty as indoctrination theory evidence itself. So we won't know until the DLC comes out.

[CARL_DF90]

Icemix wrote...

CARL_DF90 wrote...

*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.

We do know its not true. They would cut off the story at the climax and give it to us as unplanned DLC months after the release of the game? 
Yeah its not true, start dealing with it.

Wow. Reading comprehension, logic, and reason must really NOT be your strong points if you really missed what I was saying again. Jeez.

[Icemix]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

Icemix wrote...

CARL_DF90 wrote...

*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.

We do know its not true. They would cut off the story at the climax and give it to us as unplanned DLC months after the release of the game? 
Yeah its not true, start dealing with it.

Wow. Reading comprehension, logic, and reason must really NOT be your strong points if you really missed what I was saying again. Jeez.

Are we not discussing if IT is true or not? If so, I am inclined to question your logic and reason in believing that IT is true and is what Bioware planned all along.

[CARL_DF90]

*sighs* And the real tragedy here is that was NOT what I was saying at all. Oy.

[Icemix]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

*sighs* And the real tragedy here is that was NOT what I was saying at all. Oy.

Then its irelevant to the discussion and I find no reason to care about it.

[CARL_DF90]

Again, point missed.

[Icemix]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

Again, point missed.

Then what is your point exactly? Please simplify it for my simple mind. 

[LaZy i IS]

CARL_DF90 wrote...
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. 

The only one that could apply to the Indoctrination "Theory" is 2), but how is IT to be considered probable from the circumstantial evidence and circular logic used as evidence for it? <_<

AlRPG wrote...
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? 

No. You can LOGICALLY assume that reaper tech has something to do with the eyes since all 3 were exposed to it, for it to suggest that sheperd is also indoctrinated requires IT to be assumed true. -> Circular logic. 

Icinix wrote...
As for evidence against indoctrination theory, its as weighty as indoctrination theory evidence itself.

Evidence for is hardly weighty. 

I'm not gonna outright say that IT is wrong, since there is not enough evidence for a proof either way and I honestly don't care which is right as long as the ending gets better.
Here's hoping that the Extended cut is worth the wait. 

Modifié par LaZy i IS, 02 mai 2012 - 09:57 .

[Alikain]

I believe in the Indoctrination Theory because
1) in ME1 Saren wanted synthesis
2) in ME2 Tim wanted control
3) in both ME1 to ME3 Shepard wanted to destroy.

If you go by this points you can understand the ending. Am only hoping that DLC clarify it more for everyone.

[Icinix]

LaZy i IS wrote...

Icinix wrote...
As for evidence against indoctrination theory, its as weighty as indoctrination theory evidence itself.

Evidence for is hardly weighty. 

I'm not gonna outright say that IT is wrong, since there is not enough evidence for a proof either way and I honestly don't care which is right as long as the ending gets better.
Here's hoping that the Extended cut is worth the wait. 

I would say things like plotIDs being set for choosing destroy is pretty weighty.

[Doctoglethorpe]

A simplier question would be why not.

Seriously, two words.  Doesn't get much more simple then that. 

And seriously, why not?  What could possibly stop them from doing it if they wanted to?  Not saying its true, just asking a simple question. 

[llbountyhunter]

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.

they had a gameplay section of shepard being indoctrinated and losing conrtol of the player (ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL). however IT is not saying this, its saying that you reamin in control while still bieng indoctrinated.

actually the fact that bioware inteded to use any form of indoctrination in the end is a big plus for IT.

[Navasha]

When a person becomes indoctrinated, their beliefs, goals, and even way of thinking starts to align with the reapers.

Indoctrination isn't some simple mind control scheme where the person loses control of their body to the reapers.... they actually start believing the reapers to be right and want to help them.

Since the Blue and Green endings are both the goals of the reapers and NOT shepards, its actually pretty logical to assume that Shepard abandoning his whole mission to take up the banner of the reapers is not too far of a stretch to explain it by indoctrination.

[TOBY FLENDERSON]

Considering that the most recent survey Marizan sent us to asks "do you think the IT is a good idea?" I see it as alive and well considering if fixes most of the problems without throwing out what already happened.

[Poizun85]

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.

I don't understand how the IDC is prnounced dead? If the current ending is Shepherd indoctrinated "clarifying" the current endings is a very vague statement.They could go many different ways with this so not sure how it is dead? They could just clarify that he was IN FACT indoctrinated and continue from there.

[OdanUrr]

Alikain wrote...

I believe in the Indoctrination Theory because
1) in ME1 Saren wanted synthesis
2) in ME2 Tim wanted control
3) in both ME1 to ME3 Shepard wanted to destroy.

If you go by this points you can understand the ending. Am only hoping that DLC clarify it more for everyone.

I just want to point out that Saren did what he did to save his ass and was tricked by Sovereign into believing the Reapers wanted the "synthesis" solution. They didn't then and they don't now. Shepard fights Saren not because he wants "synthesis" but because he wants to bring back the Reapers who will promptly wipe out every (technologically-advanced) civilization in the galaxy.

Also, if memory serves, at no point in ME2 does TIM say he wants to control the Reapers. Sure, at the end we learn he wanted to use the Collector Base against them, but from there to controlling the Reapers is a big leap and it wasn't established in ME2, it was established in ME3.

Third, Shepard has always wanted to stop the Reapers. He says so himself at the end of ME1. Stopping someone does not imply destroying that someone, but the reverse is quite true. In ME2, if he's a Paragon (for the purposes of this dicussion, let's assume he is), he destroys the Collector Base and the Human Reaper because it was a monstrosity, result of the deaths of thousands of humans, humans who died in a most gruesome way. In ME3, the Crucible is the result of a joint-effort between every major civilization in the galaxy. The Crucible is the product of galactic cooperation, not mass-murder.

Lastly, every option succeeds in stopping the Reapers, but each comes at a price, which I won't mention since this is the no-spoilers forum. The crux of the matter is, which do you think is the best choice to stop the Reapers now that you know what each will imply?

[llbountyhunter]

OdanUrr wrote...

Alikain wrote...

I believe in the Indoctrination Theory because
1) in ME1 Saren wanted synthesis
2) in ME2 Tim wanted control
3) in both ME1 to ME3 Shepard wanted to destroy.

If you go by this points you can understand the ending. Am only hoping that DLC clarify it more for everyone.

I just want to point out that Saren did what he did to save his ass and was tricked by Sovereign into believing the Reapers wanted the "synthesis" solution. They didn't then and they don't now. Shepard fights Saren not because he wants "synthesis" but because he wants to bring back the Reapers who will promptly wipe out every (technologically-advanced) civilization in the galaxy.

Also, if memory serves, at no point in ME2 does TIM say he wants to control the Reapers. Sure, at the end we learn he wanted to use the Collector Base against them, but from there to controlling the Reapers is a big leap and it wasn't established in ME2, it was established in ME3.

Third, Shepard has always wanted to stop the Reapers. He says so himself at the end of ME1. Stopping someone does not imply destroying that someone, but the reverse is quite true. In ME2, if he's a Paragon (for the purposes of this dicussion, let's assume he is), he destroys the Collector Base and the Human Reaper because it was a monstrosity, result of the deaths of thousands of humans, humans who died in a most gruesome way. In ME3, the Crucible is the result of a joint-effort between every major civilization in the galaxy. The Crucible is the product of galactic cooperation, not mass-murder.

Lastly, every option succeeds in stopping the Reapers, but each comes at a price, which I won't mention since this is the no-spoilers forum. The crux of the matter is, which do you think is the best choice to stop the Reapers now that you know what each will imply?

I think you might want to replay the series.

[OdanUrr]

llbountyhunter wrote...

I think you might want to replay the series.

Why?

[AlanC9]

Let's just assume IT theory is true. How would the EC actually play if that's the case?

[HellbirdIV]

Actually, I am going to compare Indoctrination Theory to religion.

There is such a thing as individual perspective, contemplation, intelligent reasoning involved in both. I can say that I am religious, but I do not adhere to the doctrines of any established religion - I don't believe in the Abrahamic God, I don't believe in what's written in the Hindu sutras, I just believe there is something greater than our understanding because life is too damn beautiful to be a happy accident.

Likewise everyone who "believes" in the Indoctrination Theory has their own view on it. The videos people make presenting the IT show their idea of how the ending represents indoctrination, and believing that Shepard is being indoctrinated and the whole ending is a messed-up dream sequence does not mean I automatically agree with every single point the videos make.

Scientific theories are formed by taking the evidence we can find, combining them and studying them in minute detail to figure out the most likely scenario for how things happened or work. The Indoctrination Theory does have a lot of strong evidence pointing towards the same thing, some of it which might not be intentional and some that might be, depending on what you personally believe.

To me, the evidence presented is enough to say that it is highly likely Shepard is being indoctrinated and BioWare just aren't admitting it because they want it to be a surprise to garner more publicity and speculation, though it's backfired because of the violent backlash to the existing ending.

Personally, I believe that regardless if you picked one of the endings that make Shepard end up indoctrinated, you'll still have some kind of satisfying ending come from that... assuming that Control and Synthesis actually -do- indoctrinate Shepard in reality, because that's one of the few points where I'm sceptical to the Indoctrination Theory "canon".

There is no reason to belittle people for believing the Indoctrination Theory. It is a perfectly valid opinion to hold, and it proves that the fans are dedicated, passionate and intelligent enough to say "We don't have to take everything at face value".

Modifié par HellbirdIV, 02 mai 2012 - 05:43 .

[Icemix]

 Ok lets make some points here.
1.If IT was true(which is not), then the game did not ship with its ending. Nobody does that.
2. No one is stupid enough to stop the story at its climax, and then continuing it months after you were already torn away from the story.
3.The whole idea that the battle with the Reapers is going in Shepards head is beyond retarded. The Reapers do not take risks, they are machines. If they can end Shepard with a laser beam that can destroy a dreadnought in a single shot, they are going to do it and be over with it. They are not going to toy with his mind, its just stupid to asume so.
4.They have tried to include indoctrination, but it has been scrapped. So probably most of the scenes that make sense for the IT are just leftover from their original plan.
5.The EC was not planned, asuming that fan fiction like IT will make it in the EC is stupid.


IT is not true, stop grasping at emergency induction ports.
Lots of speculations from everyone!!!!!

Modifié par Icemix, 02 mai 2012 - 05:58 .