282 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

But if it is dismissed without evidence, can we dismiss the dismissal without evidence?

[Repearized Miranda]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Icemix wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

If the IT is true then how the indoctrination endings (blue and green) are only available to you in certain circumstances while the destroy ending is almost always available?

The better you do the bigger the chance of you being indoctrinated, yes that makes sense right? Oh wait it doesn't...

Yea it really doesn't make any sense. The lower your EMS, the less indoctrination attempts there are...

Think of it as your "willpower" to resist it. Through the series, people have been clammoring about this being Shepard (and players) greatest strengths. TIM even loathes at how "you're too idealistic", but respects you because he knew "you'd stick to your convictions!" 

Given into the Reapers - regardless of form nullifies both his statements considering his motives and ideals differ than yours; hence, the previous statement.

How this ties to EMS:

You only get the destroy option (the Vaporization if very low) because essentially you are too weak willed! Yes, Harbinger calls you a flat-out wuss; however, you're supposed to prove him wrong. Low EMS, and he couldn't give two middle tentacles about you. (Hence, you "die" without conversion being a possibility)

This is why the other two options are available at high values because he has "competition" now! Therefore, he will change his tactic - making the battle tougher by offering you another option. Control.

Higher quantity and he's really starting to get irritable! So, he sells you another option: Synthesis while control and destroy are still available. The highest value and you got two fingers of your own!!

Does it make sense?

[Dusen]

Frankly, both sides are just mere speculation at this point, although IT does bring a lot of proof to back it up. That being said however, considering how long it has been since the game was released I'm really beginning to doubt that Bioware ever intended it to be real. Of course they could have planned to release it as the last DLC for ME3, as a final, grand send-off to the series.

I mean, who cares what happens to Omega if we've already defeated the Reapers? By delaying the actual ending until all the other DLC has been released would have been a relatively decent idea (from a storytelling perspective). However, they obviously didn't expect the backlash recieved and thus had to bump it up several months.

As stated before though, it's all speculation at this point. (at least Bioware succeeded in that area)

[100k]

It seems pretty obvious that Bioware had, at one time, been planning on using the star child, hallucinations, dreams, and the ending, as part of some kind of indoctrination theory. No matter how you look at it, there is just TOO much evidence pointing towards indoctrination.

Also--

1) The reapers are not synthetics. The entire twist at the end of ME2 pointed this out. Reapers are a combination of organic and inorganic material. The Leviathan of Dis (ME1, ME3) is an ORGANIC starship. As such, if Shepard (partially synthetic) can survive the crucible's blast in destroy-ending, then it follows that the reapers can as well. So... in the end... NONE of the endings should be able to kill the reapers.

2) The reapers are effectively synthetic gods. The geth and other AIs worship them as deities. As such, couldn't the reapers just TELL synthetics not to attack organics? And if synthetics disobeyed them, couldn't reapers just attack only synthetic races? Hell, couldn't Harbinger just come down to Illium, and shout "YOU SHALL NOT BUILD AI INTELLIGENCE PAST X AMOUNT OF INTELLIGENCE LEVELS, OR I'LL KILL YOU -- THIS IS FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY"?

3) If the "created rebel against the creators", then why haven't the reapers rebelled against the starchild? Oh, the starchild is a reaper? Then what is Harbinger? Who "reaped" his species?

[Repearized Miranda]

Dusen wrote...

Frankly, both sides are just mere speculation at this point, although IT does bring a lot of proof to back it up. That being said however, considering how long it has been since the game was released I'm really beginning to doubt that Bioware ever intended it to be real. Of course they could have planned to release it as the last DLC for ME3, as a final, grand send-off to the series.

I mean, who cares what happens to Omega if we've already defeated the Reapers? By delaying the actual ending until all the other DLC has been released would have been a relatively decent idea (from a storytelling perspective). However, they obviously didn't expect the backlash recieved and thus had to bump it up several months.

As stated before though, it's all speculation at this point. (at least Bioware succeeded in that area)

This is true, but it isn't their fault some didn't get it. For an audience whom claims to be smart making snide remarks regarding predictability!

"I bet they'll use a Magic Button or Space Magic. I wouldn't be surprised if the same remark is made if IT turns out to be true. I hate twists just because as much as the next person, but the audience does not help if they force their hand exuding arrogance because something is predictable thus having it happen (no pun intended).

Either you hate a twist or you hate predictability. I'm guessing it's the later; however, conjuring up a twist is not as easy as it looks because not only do you have/want to do it, but have/want to do it well and it won't seem that way to everybody. (Not everybody liked SS's twist whether or not it was done brilliantly)

[GeoGirl2008]

VampireSoap wrote...

I post this thread to remind everyone that whenever an Indoc Theorist is trying to assert that IT is true, you don't have to look for evidence against the theory. The burden of proof is always on the one who's making the claim, and in this case the 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 confirming the "theory".
2. A video clip with a Bioware developer saying that IT is correct.

3. A DLC that illustrates the whole story using IT.
     and so on....

I encourage you not to answer the 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 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?

I'm comming a bit late to the party here it seems. 

Indoctrination Theory is a THEORY created by fans on the game based on small bits of evidence (maybe not hard evidence, maybe circumstantial, and at times a bit of a stretch) from within the Mass Effect games. 

In science when you prove a theory, it is no longer a theory, it becomes a law. What you are asking for is hard evidence from BioWare stating that this theory is true. You want people to prove Indoctrination is real. 

BioWare will not answer any questions about the IT one way or the other. Their only stance on the issue is that they will not take a stance one way or the other because they don't want to be "prescriptive". 

So the Indoctrination issue will remain a Theory until the EC or other related DLC, or a statment from BioWare comes out.

Like many theorys it will have people for and against it. Many people will believe it as truth and many people will dismiss it as fanciful thinking. Yes the burden of proof may be on the IT Theorists, but if proven it will no longer be a theory. You cannot debunk a theory because of lack of evidence, because the theory will always be there, if you want to disprove a theory, you must come up with a new hypothesis with stronger evidence that will make more logical sense then the old theory.

There are always people out there who take things to extremes and yes some IT theorists may be convinced that it is true, and they may be very zelious in vocalizing this. Just because you dont agree with these people doesnt mean that you should outright dismiss their claims, and force them to convince you or else. People have a right to believe what they want to believe. IMO, the best practice is to look at all sides of an argument before making up your mind about anything. And once you do choose your stance, make polite well thought out arguments on it, rather than forcing people to either convert or be converted. 

Modifié par GeoGirl2008, 25 mai 2012 - 05:42 .

[Getorex]

Dusen wrote...

Frankly, both sides are just mere speculation at this point, although IT does bring a lot of proof to back it up. That being said however, considering how long it has been since the game was released I'm really beginning to doubt that Bioware ever intended it to be real. Of course they could have planned to release it as the last DLC for ME3, as a final, grand send-off to the series.

I mean, who cares what happens to Omega if we've already defeated the Reapers? By delaying the actual ending until all the other DLC has been released would have been a relatively decent idea (from a storytelling perspective). However, they obviously didn't expect the backlash recieved and thus had to bump it up several months.

As stated before though, it's all speculation at this point. (at least Bioware succeeded in that area)

Evidence smevidence.  IT IS NOT TRUE.  The whole IT schtick assumes that Bioware had some plan up their sleeve, that the goofball ending we got is not the "real" ending and was an indoctrination hallucination.  NO.  We have all the evidence we need to call this out as nonsense:  the ending was the ending and Bioware intended it to be THE ending.  IT REQUIRES an add-on DLC to extend the game from the so-called hallucination part and REQUIRES that they have that planned from the beginning.  Nope.  They didn't.  The vast majority of players yelled and screamed over the sucky ending (the ending that was intended to be accepted AS IS by Bioware) so Bioware was then, and only then, forced to go off track and work on the  EC.  This EC has been clearly and definitively stated by Bioware to NOT change or add to the ending, but merely to flesh it out with more cutscenes.  No active play, no player-controlled dialog.  Robo dialog and exposition, that's it.  It has only just been (apparently) confirmed that the various voice actors are being, or have been, recalled to read the robo-dialog script.  They all thought they were DONE.  A few of them were surprised to be called back.  That SCREAMS "unplanned" and unplanned is NOT compatible with Bioware intended IT.  More to the point, the addtional ACTIVE gameplay DLC would have been ready by game release because they would NOT have waiting so long to release it for use.  

Another problem:  any add-on DLC to make IT true would ONLY apply and be playable to those who chose the Red ending.  The other two colors are FAIL according to IT so there would be nothing to play after either decision.  They would NOT offer a DLC that only is playable to SOME people who make a very particular choice.  Never happened in the past and it would be a REALLY BAD MOVE to do so now.  No, the EC is just extra auto-pilot dialog and cutscene to try to make the colors seem less ambiguous.  Ambiguity wasn't the main issue - LOGIC and REASON was the issue.  Violation of storyline and immediately previous player choices was.  The coming out of nowhere of some demigod turd was.  The EC isn't making that go away.

IT is not real, not true, not the intention.  You saw what you get and you get what you saw, nothing more.  No IT.

[Berkilak]

Apart from decrying the logical fallacies in the OP, I will state this, simply: BioWare did not deliberately implement all the "clues" that exist for the dream theories. But those clues do exist, whether or not they were intended as such. And as long as people can piece together a story that makes more sense than what we were actually given, people will continue to believe in those dream theories.

[Getorex]

Berkilak wrote...

Apart from decrying the logical fallacies in the OP, I will state this, simply: BioWare did not deliberately implement all the "clues" that exist for the dream theories. But those clues do exist, whether or not they were intended as such. And as long as people can piece together a story that makes more sense than what we were actually given, people will continue to believe in those dream theories.

The EC will lay even those sad hopes to rest. Finally, FINALLY, the IT fanatics will be put silent. 

All that IT had going for it was the offering of a way out of the current ending for Bioware.  They could have adopted the entirely player-generated IT as a basis for an extended PLAYABLE EC DLC and not had to change a thing.  They didn't do this, however.  They went with the only other option available that also leaves the current ending intact AS IS: to keep the ending AS IS and simply add a bit more cutscene to go with it AS IS.  The EC will show that the Red, Blue, Green endings were not a hallucination, that the star turd was NOT a hallucination, that Shepard was NOT "indoctrinated" and was just Shepard behaving like a moron in a moronical situation.

The EC puts an end to any and all further speculation on IT or not IT.  It is not IT.

Modifié par Getorex, 25 mai 2012 - 06:21 .

[kalle90]

This again? Like so many have said it's a theory.

Additionally it was Bioware's intention to cause massive speculation. The ending of the game is so vague I might just as well believe it was all a dream, IT is true, Shepard died when the laser hit and he went to heaven, it was revealed to be the Matrix, Liara picked Shepard up and mindraped him, after the laser it turned into Krogan bard tale told hundreds of years later changing and exaggerating the story, Harbinger was the Star Child and just fooled Shepard to walk into a deadly beam so the Reapers won, Shepard was simply the one chosen to an alternate universe and after he went through the teleport he appears in Ferelden in Dragon Age 3, the game was simply a Super Mario spinoff after Mario went through the wrong pipe. So many sensible explanations. Most of them better than the "default" option.

Modifié par kalle90, 25 mai 2012 - 06:34 .

[DeathScepter]

IT used the Codex and ingame information to support their theory.

[Berkilak]

Getorex wrote...

Berkilak wrote...

Apart from decrying the logical fallacies in the OP, I will state this, simply: BioWare did not deliberately implement all the "clues" that exist for the dream theories. But those clues do exist, whether or not they were intended as such. And as long as people can piece together a story that makes more sense than what we were actually given, people will continue to believe in those dream theories.

The EC will lay even those sad hopes to rest. Finally, FINALLY, the IT fanatics will be put silent. 

All that IT had going for it was the offering of a way out of the current ending for Bioware.  They could have adopted the entirely player-generated IT as a basis for an extended PLAYABLE EC DLC and not had to change a thing.  They didn't do this, however.  They went with the only other option available that also leaves the current ending intact AS IS: to keep the ending AS IS and simply add a bit more cutscene to go with it AS IS.  The EC will show that the Red, Blue, Green endings were not a hallucination, that the star turd was NOT a hallucination, that Shepard was NOT "indoctrinated" and was just Shepard behaving like a moron in a moronical situation.

The EC puts an end to any and all further speculation on IT or not IT.  It is not IT.

You underestimate the power of fanboy belief structures. As long as people feel that BioWare has violated "their" story, they will attempt to regain control with theories such as this. And you have to admit, there is evidence to support this theory. Of course it isn't BioWare endorsed, but evidence does exist (regardless of developer intent).

Modifié par Berkilak, 25 mai 2012 - 06:56 .

[Pockydon]

It's the indoctrination THEORY! A theory doesn't need proof, it's just simply an idea that has a decent amount of evidence pointing towards it, yet no concrete proof. Your argument is stupid.

[Get Magna Carter]

I think the opening post was saying that if someone claims that Indoctrination Theory is definitely true then they have to supply evidence to prove it.

However, they don't have to if they say it is possibly true

[Zuka999]

You're just going to keep yelling, "GIVE ME ACTUAL EVIDENCE" regardless of what evidence is given.

[EricHVela]

When one simply refuses accept possibilities with evidence instead of finding their own evidence to refute them, it is called a "weak" opposition.

It's basically saying "I reject all assertions that A is true until you can prove to me that A is true" and sit back and reject any evidence that lends support to A being true. Core nihilism proves that everything is false, so this method of rejecting assertions relies on core nihilism being true, something that cannot be proven to be true or untrue due to its basic definition of truth. Many see such methods as cop-outs and call such methods "weak".

[DistantUtopia]

VampireSoap wrote...

And all I want from the very beginning is just simply proofs that can make IT a theory that fits the first definition.

I'm not sure what others have been saying about IT but to me it has never been about the first definition.  it's nice, makes sense much more than the ending we've got and appeals to me more than the literal ending we got.

Whether or not IT is true, we'll have to wait and see when EC comes out.

[sistersafetypin]

Mars8309 wrote...

want proof?
in the dreams shepard has he runs slow. after he gets zapped by harbringer he runs slow to the beam.
When in the Citadel you can shoot at the keeper and it doesn't die or bleed.
Since when does the citadel have parts of the collectors ship and the shadow broker's engines?

want proof play the game.

Proof. Not speculation.

I like what you did there OP! :thumbsup

Modifié par sistersafetypin, 25 mai 2012 - 08:57 .

[Bob3terd]

Omgzorro wrote...

This thread is ridiculous. That's like saying that you can only accuse someone guilty of a crime if they admit to it. But instead, an entire system of law is build around building evidence to sufficiently support claims, as the IT is doing.

Erm no.

Innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt.

If where i to say X exists to you, and you had no knowledge of X before this point, the default position is not to believe in X simply because you dont know either way.

Now X may or may not exist it is however up to me the person who presented the claim to provide evidence to support said claim. If i dont you would be perfectly right to reject the claim based on lack of evidence.

IT has compelling arguments, it however does not have direct evidence to support the claim. As such some people believe it however others are perfectly justified in not because of lack of evidence.

[BigGuy28]

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 25 mai 2012 - 09:56 .

[RADIUMEYEZ]

Modifié par Chris Priestly, 25 mai 2012 - 09:56 .

[o Ventus]

I have yet to see anyone actually saying something like "IT is correct, you're all stupid trollolol".

All I've seen so far is people compiling evidence that supports their case (Support, not confirm) and that they choose to believe it.

Your weird anger to the IT supporters baffles me. It's a "theory" for a reason.

[Bob3terd]

dreman9999 wrote...

TC need to know what Theory means...

theory
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

hypothothesis
a of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis)  or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

Modifié par Bob3terd, 25 mai 2012 - 09:34 .

[D24O]

Of course you would say/think that, you're indoctrinated.

[Deltateam Elcor]

For one to take up a less than happy outlook on a fictional story and how people perceive this FICTIONAL story, then i think one has to rethink his life.