282 réponses à ce sujet

[Cruders]

Apparently OP letting this die?

[Cadence of the Planes]

Cruders wrote...

Apparently OP letting this die?

You make it sound like this is something worth letting live

[Cruders]

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

Cruders wrote...

Apparently OP letting this die?

You make it sound like this is something worth letting live

I was curious to see some of his responses. I guess.. he figured he was wrong.

[Get Magna Carter]

 
I post on this thread to remind everyone that whenever an anti-Indoc Theorist is trying to assert that IT is false, you don't have to look for evidence for IT. The burden of proof is always on the one who's making the claim, and in this case the anti-IT theorists are always the ones who are making that claim. And so far I've seen only speculations.

What is actual evidence?

Samples of actual evidence: 
1. Official documents disproving the "theory". 
2. A video clip with a Bioware developer saying that IT is incorrect. 

3. A DLC that illustrates the whole story without using IT.
     and so on....

I encourage you not to answer the anti-IT theorists anything unless they give actual evidence instead of 
speculations. Until they give official evidence instead of far-fetched speculations, none of us should be convinced. 

To anti-IT theorists: If you want to post your lists of "reasons" here, please first prove their credibility. What are the sources? Has any Bioware official supported your reason?

[AlanC9]

Well, I wouldn't call myself an anti-IT "theorist." I find the theory so silly on its face that I can't actually bring myself to spend any time contemplating its defects.

The part I can't get past is that --- as near as I can understand the theory-- Bio's plan is supposed to have been to promise an ending and then deliberately design the game with no ending, hoping to clear that horrible defect up with some sort of DLC at some future date. They've already said that there isn't going to be a future game with Shepard -- or is that supposed to be a lie too?

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 mai 2012 - 04:22 .

[Get Magna Carter]

AlanC9 wrote...

Well, I wouldn't call myself an anti-IT "theorist." I find the theory so silly on its face that I can't actually bring myself to spend any time contemplating its defects.

The part I can't get past is that --- as near as I can understand the theory-- Bio's plan is supposed to have been to promise an ending and then deliberately design the game with no ending, hoping to clear that horrible defect up with some sort of DLC at some future date. They've already said that there isn't going to be a future game with Shepard -- or is that supposed to be a lie too?

the main reason why people are keen on IT is that a literal interpretation of the ending is too silly to be taken seriously.
Add to this
1) there is plenty of opportunity for Shepard to have been affected by indoctrination (especially as Cerberus included reaper technology in the SR2 and we don't know the origins of Shepard's implants)
2) Indoctrination is stated to cause people to see ghosts and experience hallucinations snd so could explain some of Shepard's experiences in ME3
3) the sheer number of unanswered questions/plot holes left by the ending mean that Bioware must have been planning to expand the ending in some way and the game industry is so obsessed with combatting used-games by encouraging people to hold on to their copies with techniques such as post-release dlc (Bioware has followed on with significant story dlc in other games...though they have given up on DA2 and abandoned the significant follow up to that)

[LegionMan]

After seeing the discussions in this and any other IT thread:
"Because of you, the fanbase is already undone. They have the forums. They have us fighting each other, instead of them!"

[VampireSoap]

I've been busy for the past few days. Not that I wanted to abandon the thread, it's just that I felt like I had been talking to people who weren't really willing to come around and see things from a different point of view. It's kinda tiring to try to explain the same thing over and over again...

I just don't know what to say at this point, so I activated my Reaper mode...Not trolling, but just trying to be humorous....


ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL

THAT WHICH YOU KNOW AS THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS YOUR HALLUCINATION THROUGH DESPERATION. EVERY IT THEORIST MUST ACCEPT THE TERRIBLE ENDINGS TO BRING ORDER TO THE CHAOS OF ILLOGICAL SPECULATION. THE CYCLE OF RATIONAL THINKING MUST CONTINUE! GULLIBLE IT THEORISTS WHO DREAM UP BETTER ENDINGS FUMBLE IN IGNORANCE, INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING OUR COLD HARD REALITY! WE DID NOT INDOCTRINATE SHEPARD. WE DID NOT BET OUR WHOLE EXISTENCE ON TRICKING A PRIMITIVE HUMAN.  THREE GRUESOME ENDINGS OF A LEGENDARY SERIES ARE THE LEGACIES OF MY KIND. BEFORE US YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE AS EMPTY AS YOUR IMAGINATION.

NOW I AM OFF TO DO OTHER THINGS THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND.

RELEASING CONTROL

Modifié par VampireSoap, 08 mai 2012 - 05:01 .

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

VampireSoap wrote...

WE DID NOT BET OUR WHOLE EXISTENCE ON TRICKING A PRIMITIVE HUMAN.

Did bet the Alpha Relay (or at least several months/years of conventional FTL flight time), one of your artifacts (Object Rho) and an asteroidful of indoctrinated humans on it, though.

Modifié par KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, 08 mai 2012 - 05:10 .

[VampireSoap]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

WE DID NOT BET OUR WHOLE EXISTENCE ON TRICKING A PRIMITIVE HUMAN.

Did bet the Alpha Relay (or at least several months/years of conventional FTL flight time), one of your artifacts (Object Rho) and an asteroidful of indoctrinated humans on it, though.

""BRRRRRRRR/Horn""

YOU RESIST, BUT YOU WILL FAIL. THE CYCLE "MUST" CONTINUE. IT IS NOT A THING YOU CAN COMPREHEND. EVERY SPECULATIVE THEORY "MUST" BE DEBUNKED IN ORDER TO BRING ORDER TO THE CHAOS. IT IS INEVITABLE. WITHOUT OUR INTERVENTION, IT THEORISTS ARE DOOMED. "WE" ARE YOUR SALVATION.

[Omega2079]

OP: There's nothing that even comes close to the realm of empiricism within an ending that's made to be speculated on.

To say it's been debunked is to commit a logical fallacy just like you're accusing of IT proponents.

Modifié par Omega2079, 08 mai 2012 - 06:05 .

[KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH]

[quote]VampireSoap wrote...
EVERY SPECULATIVE THEORY "MUST" BE DEBUNKED IN ORDER TO BRING ORDER TO THE CHAOS.
[quote]

But quantum theory necessarily requires speculation since we can't see those little electron wave clouds around the atom and therefore have to estimate their position and status via mathematical probability! You guys rely on quantum theory into account to actually exist!  

Modifié par KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH, 08 mai 2012 - 06:31 .

[VampireSoap]

KLF_uh_HUH_uh_HUH wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...
EVERY SPECULATIVE THEORY "MUST" BE DEBUNKED IN ORDER TO BRING ORDER TO THE CHAOS.

But quantum theory necessarily requires speculation since we can't see those little electron wave clouds around the atom and therefore have to estimate their position and status via mathematical probability! You guys rely on quantum theory into account to actually exist!  

:D:D NO...IT IS...."NOT" A THING YOU CAN COMPREHEND.

(Seriously though, knowing what I know about quantum mechanics, I would say that the theory is still based on strict logical reasoning like any other scientific theory, and there is a BIG difference between logical reasoning and speculation.)

Modifié par VampireSoap, 08 mai 2012 - 09:02 .

[Mettyx]

Nefla wrote...

I don't think IT is true or what was intended by BioWare. Fans are giving BioWare too much credit as far as the ending goes. I love IT and I think it's clever and if this had been what BioWare had intended for the ending, that would be AMAZING.

This.
Bioware employees are far too dumb/entrenched in cliches to come up with IT.

Modifié par Mettyx, 08 mai 2012 - 10:48 .

[ToaOrka]

Yes, because the fact that Bioware was going to deploy new DLC to explain said ending didn't totally already debunk the IT theory. Way to go Mr. Facts.  

[elecmanexe001]

ToaOrka wrote...

Yes, because the fact that Bioware was going to deploy new DLC to explain said ending didn't totally already debunk the IT theory. Way to go Mr. Facts.  

So you got early access and information about the EC? Cause 'expanding' does not mean indoctrination will not be a part of it. In fact you can argue that a form of indoctrination is already in there with TIM, who's to say that more of the ending is not you being indoctrinated in one form or another?

People here think IT has no credability, when in fact the series would suggest it is plausable already. There is no absolute proof, but then again there is no absolute proof the ending will not use IT either. No side can provide evidence, but that the point of IT any way, its a theory, and explanation based on in game facts as well as some careful observation of things within the game and the ending of 3. It's not true, but it is plausable and possible, that is all IT people are suggesting, none say it as fact, yet Anti-IT people assume otherwise and for some reason hate the idea of an idea already establishesd within the universe of the game. It would make more sense to most people then the ending as it currently stands.

Do you want space magic? Or do you want an ending involving established fact from the game its self?

I don't get why there has to be some big fight over this. If you don't like the idea of IT then thats great, no one wants you to accept it as truth and no one should be accepting it as truth unless it happens.

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

TC need to know what Theory means...

Theory - "I know this happens, and here's how I think it happens." - eg. Gravity
Hypothesis - "I think this happens, and here's how we can test if it does." - eg. Higgs Boson
Wishful
thinking - "I want this to happen, and here's what we have to assume to
make it appear to be real to people who don't know better." - eg. IDT
or Ancient Aliens

In your example here Theory fits regardless. I am not sure if you are for or against but that is irrelevant. We know the ending as it is, IT suggest the ending appears as it does because of "What they think happens" and they have decent in game fact to back up the concept to provide the theory

Modifié par elecmanexe001, 08 mai 2012 - 12:19 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Meanwhile at Bioware...

[God10002]

Ah yes, "Indoctrination Theory." We have dismissed that claim.

[Brokusan]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...


I think this is the kind of "thinking" (if we even dare call it that way) which spawns these kinds of threads. IT is not "true" in the canon sense. It is mildly compatible with what we have, and we can have "lots of SPECULATIONS!" about it, that was the intent of Mac Walters anyway so why not. It's imaginative and original, and so I don't dislike it at all. However, when people cross the Rubicon from "This is an interesting way of seeing ME3 finale, I ditch it" to "this is absolutely what the canon story is all about and anyone who disagrees is just a blind fool" I just facepalm and get a little more mysanthropic.

I strongly agree with you, despite being a believer in IT. Anyone going around saying it's the only possible interpretation when it has practically been stated outright by BioWare that there are multiple legitimate interpretations is just being a ****.

Too true  I.T. would redeem the ending a lil... dooping the fans is a risky move tho, i want to believe but noone can be sure till BioWare confirms it. 

[DeathScepter]

Between a bull**** ending or I.T., I do go with I.T.

[Deltakarma]

From the OP:

speculations

Completely forgot that the game is chock-full of speculations.

Its the hidden marketing slogan

Modifié par Deltakarma, 15 mai 2012 - 02:24 .

[Andromidius]

Wait... This thread debunks IT, without actually debunking it?

What the...

Seriously, if you're going to ignore everything said to you (including what IT actually is - few people actually declare it as 'fact', merely 'possiblity') then your mind is closed and you need to just move on.

And if you really hate the concept of salvaging the ending and making people happy, then try to actually debunk evidence given. Or heck, get evidence of your own that shows IT is impossible!

Crazy ideas, I know!

So far no-one has been able to counter all the evidence/clues/inconsistancies gathered that forms IT. Some have been, some are uncertain, but many haven't even been touched. That says a LOT to me.

[Andromidius]

Arcian wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

TC need to know what Theory means...

Theory - "I know this happens, and here's how I think it happens." - eg. Gravity
Hypothesis - "I think this happens, and here's how we can test if it does." - eg. Higgs Boson
Wishful thinking - "I want this to happen, and here's what we have to assume to make it appear to be real to people who don't know better." - eg. IDT or Ancient Aliens

That's a scientific usage of 'theory'.  Hense much confusion.  This isn't science, its fiction.  Thus 'theory' in this usage means 'hypothesis' - we think this may be the ending, so we're looking for evidence for or against it.

Reason we think this is because the ending as it is just makes no sense in context with the rest of the story.

[Xellith]

Let people dream.

Modifié par Xellith, 15 mai 2012 - 02:54 .