282 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob3terd]

o Ventus wrote...

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.

Again hypothesis not theory.

To be frank your obviously not seeing what i am because i have seen several threads, one of which essentially said "why are you people so blind".
One key point on the move from hypothesis to theory is peer review, i very much doubt OP is angry. Pointing out flaws is not somthing that involves emotion for me, the fact it angers them hints that their position may be based of emotion rather than rationality.

[GeoGirl2008]

Bob3terd wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

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.

Again hypothesis not theory.

To be frank your obviously not seeing what i am because i have seen several threads, one of which essentially said "why are you people so blind".
One key point on the move from hypothesis to theory is peer review, i very much doubt OP is angry. Pointing out flaws is not somthing that involves emotion for me, the fact it angers them hints that their position may be based of emotion rather than rationality.

I would have to respectfully disagree that this is not a hypothesis but a theory.  As you state, a hypothesis is moved to theory by peer review, of which there has be a substantial amount in this case.

There are many many fans of the game who have noticed the same evidence put forward by several people via you-tube videos and blogs which have been created and contributed to by many different people. Most of them have noticed the same things and come to the same conclusion, that intentionally or not BioWare has placed hints in the game that Shepard is on the path to Indoctrination.

I would say that is a peer reviewed hypothesis, due to the fact that the people who came up with the hypothesis were fans of the game and the people who have reviewed and supported it are also fans of the game. 

Therefore logically one can call it a theory. 

Whether or not you support said theory is up to you, but I think we should stop arguing semantics.

[ichik]

The final hours has a proof that at least they considered this possibility, nothing more, nothing less.

[Xellith]

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?

Ok so the relays were destroyed. Everyone in the galaxy died.  Good stuff.

[Kurrabin]

IT is a theory with good enough support that can be used to salvage the current endings. It has enough qualifications and evidence to be considered as a theory (but not a certain truth).

If IT is false, which is possible, then ME3 will have failed its audience (almost all of it).

If IT turns out to be true, then many of the audience (probably not all, given the opposition) will be happy.

Nothing more.

[IndridColdx]

 I believe the Indoctrination Theory was brought up at PAX.  When the question arose lead producer Mike Gamble said, and I quote...
"The Indoctrination Theory kind of illustrates how committed the fan-base is, the thing is we don't want to comment either way on it and here's why, we don't want to be prescriptive for how people interpret the ending, especially with the extended cut DLC coming out, we don't want to be prescriptive with how people think things should have ended, we want the content to speak for itself, and we'll let it do so."
It seems to me that if the Indoctrination Theory were untrue, they would have shot it down right there and gave one of their canned responses saying "we are very proud of the ending we made" and go on to say something in the nature of the extended cut DLC is only meant to answer unanswered questions and fill plot-holes. 
I don't think the Indoc Theory is quite as far-fetched as some people are making it out to be and I do think there are some things in game that support it.  Who is to say it wasn't Bioware's intent to mind-blow everybody and just keep it under wraps until the extended cut DLC hit.  

They could have intended on releasing this DLC a few months after the game shipped
> fan hatred arose when it was released
> Bioware announces DLC
> we fell right into their hands.  

It is Bioware we are talking about here and I definitely would not put it passed them to do something like that.  Although I do admit I may be giving them to much credit.  If the Indoc Theory proves to be true and they intended it since the beginning, Bioware is smarter than all of us.  Especially the OP.  

[rabidhanar]

Right now, Bioware is setting up for a massive disappointment of fans if the IT theory is false. Because of such quotes from the producers similar to the one posted above, the fans fo the IT theory keep up hope that the theory will indeed be correct. If the Theory was Debunked officially, IT theory fans would be unhappy, but in the grand scheme of things, it is my own opinion that they will be happier in the long run. The EC is building up anticipation right now as we get closer to a presumed release date. If suddenly all that anticipation for the validity of the IT theory is for naught, emotional responses will occur. It is much like popping a balloon in that respect. Pop it as it is being inflated and it will not react nearly as loudly as if you had fully inflated it.

[Fox544]

VampireSoap wrote...

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

You're not offering a different point of view, you're trolling. People already understood that BW didn't confirm it. What you're doing is marching around with an infuriating smug sense of superiority demanding "proof" while knowing there is no direct confirmation.

Oh and to counter what you said on page 1 about if it constituted as a theory. Yes, yes it does. Your definition was this,

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.


The theory of evolution and the theory of gravity prove this. A theory is typically something that can't be seen but the effects can be witnessed. We can't see gravity but we can see its effects. Same with IT. We can see the small hints as mentioned a thousand times but there is no banner saying "HES INDOCTRINATED"!

Modifié par Fox544, 29 mai 2012 - 05:11 .