282 réponses à ce sujet

[furryrage59]

If it helps ease the pain of the ending for some people, let them believe.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Nefla wrote...


But they didn't present it as a cliffhanger ending and if they had, then making a DLC to resolve the cliffhanger would just be odd. Also if IT was true wouldn't BioWare have said so and not let all the ending rage continue?

The DLC was just my conjecture based on ME2 where we arguably got two major plot driven/post suicide mission quests; Shadow Broker and Arrival. Something similar for ME3 isn't out of the realm of possibility. The more I think about the more I feel like IT is what Bioware had in mind if not as a conclusion then to set up a future content release. If I'm right and it's the latter then I think Bioware might have pulled off one of the greatest ploys ever.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 03 mai 2012 - 06:28 .

[Foxhound2121]

I'm sorry but the OP has to have some form of mental handicap if he doesn't know by now that the ending was speculation.

Then he continues to be upset because IT is speculation... what?

[AlanC9]

What do you mean by "the ending was speculation"?

[Foxhound2121]

AlanC9 wrote...

What do you mean by "the ending was speculation"?

It came straight from the horse's mouth.

Modifié par Foxhound2121, 03 mai 2012 - 07:07 .

[Nefla]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Nefla wrote...


But they didn't present it as a cliffhanger ending and if they had, then making a DLC to resolve the cliffhanger would just be odd. Also if IT was true wouldn't BioWare have said so and not let all the ending rage continue?

The DLC was just my conjecture based on ME2 where we arguably got two major plot driven/post suicide mission quests; Shadow Broker and Arrival. Something similar for ME3 isn't out of the realm of possibility. The more I think about the more I feel like IT is what Bioware had in mind if not as a conclusion then to set up a future content release. If I'm right and it's the latter then I think Bioware might have pulled off one of the greatest ploys ever.

But if that were the case, why keep it a secret? The ending has created so much negative backlash that many people will never buy BioWare games or DLCs ever again. Don't get me wrong, I wish for this. For the ending we got to be an indoctrinated dream and not just crappy writing but I can't get my hopes up, not again.

[Cruders]

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

Try an accredited dictionary. like Oxford dictionary and Merriam-webster:
theory Pronunciation:/ˈθɪəri/noun (plural theories)
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:
Darwin’s theory of evolutiona set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based:a theory of education[mass noun]:
music theoryan idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action:my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged
Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

[/list]the·o·ry noun \\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\\plural the·o·riesDefinition of THEORY[/i]
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <intheory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wavetheory of light>
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Modifié par Cruders, 03 mai 2012 - 08:00 .

[Brokusan]

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.

I thought i saw something familiar about the moving corridors in the citadel... Im an IT believer... even if i dont want to be... some of the evidence just makes more sense.... Especially the engines from the shadow broakers ship which shepard is told by liara she destroyed escaping cerberus... ALSO check out the eyes on the endings... only one without husk eyes on shep is the destroy ending

having played countless hours on countless playthroughs there were a lot of times my gut told me something was up... maybe i'm just crazy like the other IT's but one can hope

Modifié par Brokusan, 03 mai 2012 - 08:27 .

[Cruders]

Modifié par Cruders, 03 mai 2012 - 09:05 .

[nlag]

I don't think that it would be called "Theory" if there were clear and definitive evidence or an announcement from devs. It would be called Indoctrination FACT!.

[Cruders]

VampireSoap wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...

Your premise is false at its core, so by your own argument, I can dismiss your thread without evidence. However, since I'm a nice guy, I'm going to outline reasons why rather than putting myself above everyone else.

Except that I'm not the one who's making the claim. How can you dismiss anything I say without giving any ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT? I'm already in a denial position.

Because you are doing the same.
You are asserting that the IT is false with no evidence to support that claim

de·bunk verb[/i] \\(ˌ)dē-ˈbəŋk\\Definition of DEBUNK[/i]transitive verb:[/b] to expose the sham or falseness of <debunk[/i] a legend>

false adj[/i] \\ˈfȯls\\fals·erfals·estDefinition of FALSE[/i]1: not genuine <false documents> <false teeth>2a[/i] : intentionally untrue <false testimony>b[/i] : adjusted or made so as to deceive <false scales> <a trunk with a false bottom>c[/i] : intended or tending to mislead <a false promise>3: not true <false concepts>4a[/i] : not faithful or loyal : treacherous <a false friend>b[/i] : lacking naturalness or sincerity <false sympathy>5a[/i] : not essential or permanent —used of parts of a structure that are temporary or supplementalb[/i] : fitting over a main part to strengthen it, to protect it, or to disguise its appearance <a false ceiling>6: inaccurate in pitch <a false note>7a[/i] : based on mistaken ideas <false pride>b[/i] : inconsistent with the facts <a false position> <a falsesense of security>8: threateningly sudden or deceptive <don't make any falsemoves>

I don't see anything the definition of "false" that applies to IT, therefore the burden of proof now lies with you to actively disprove the theory and thus make it false.

I don't necessarily support nor object to the IT. However, I do not support your attempts to "debunk" it without doing anything.

Modifié par Cruders, 03 mai 2012 - 09:07 .

[KosakNZ]

VampireSoap wrote...

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.

There may not be any hard evidence non-circumstantial evidence that IT is the correct ending interpretation. But hard eveidence that the "face value" interpretation is wrong (that what is happening is unreal) is all over the place. Several things before the final conversation seem to be direct attempts to hint that what is happening isn't real, and if they aren't then the sequence has gaping (plot) holes in it.

Then there is the final conversation, where nonsense is babbled at us and for some reason Shepard acts like what is being said is perfectly reasonable and we are given no option to press any of the many flawed statements made.

We can't prove IT, but we can't prove any interpretation of the ending. IT is just the one with the least plot holes.

Modifié par KosakNZ, 03 mai 2012 - 09:06 .

[stysiaq]

Foxhound2121 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What do you mean by "the ending was speculation"?

It came straight from the horse's mouth.

please, clarify.

[atis]

I dont think bioware is that smart to have set up the game for the indoc theory but I do think it could be used as one posibility to solve the ending problem

[CT Grey]

People always see more than was intended or otherwise some of things would have never come as big as they eventually became. There are far too numerous examples that says so and in this case the audience (read fans) has created something that is plausible but not intended. Look the ending subjectively and you'll see they ran out of ideas, money and time to execute something absolutely brilliant. In fact, you'll see these things all over the course of the game. Things set in places that were never executed but yet, hinted. Therefore, as long as Bioware doesn't say it is, it isn't and the ending was just meh.

[Foxhound2121]

stysiaq wrote...

Foxhound2121 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What do you mean by "the ending was speculation"?

It came straight from the horse's mouth.

please, clarify.

because te developers and writers said so.

[TheBigM145]

First, I never said that IT was totally unsupported. That's not what Occam's Razor is about. The razor is about "urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect." The far simpler explanation that the ending is what it appears to be (as unfulfilling and inconclusive as it might be). The razor suggests that in all probability the simplest answer is correct.

There is one thing though that I need to point out about the "facts" that were stated in this thread to support IT though. It has to be kept in mind that while in all playthroughs of the game the *events* of Arrival occur, they don't necessarily happen to Shepard. I know, that creates a logical fallacy as to the beginning of the game but what's new about that, Here's the War Asset entry for the 103rd Marine Division I'm talking about:

Admiral Hackett dispatched marines to the planet Aratoht to rescue a deep cover agent, Dr. Amanda Kenson. The teams were killed in an explosion that wiped out both the colony and the system's relay. The Alliance spent weeks piecing together scattered radio transmissions, learning that the marines felt they had no choice but to send an asteroid into the relay to prevent invasion by the Reapers. While it bought the Alliance some time, the men and women lost on the mission were a severe blow to the 103rd Marine Corps.

Thus while I agree that there's a strong likelihood Object Rho took a crack at indoc, nothing in Arrival can be used to point to IT in *every* case.

[Omgzorro]

VampireSoap wrote...


I am a science student in the university of Berkeley. And I can tell you I have done a lot of mathematics, but I'm not sure if all of them are on "reasonable" level. I will only say this to you, I need NOTHING to disprove something that has NOT been proven yet.

Oh god, this explains everything. Leave him alone, guys. This is just his attempt to brag about his institution of choice to gain some sort of arbitrary authority in this conversation. The fact that I'm not yet a college student and can't afford to go to Berkeley doesn't mean I'm going to defer to your expertise on when it's safe to believe in something.

By the way, I'm still patiently waiting for you to respond to my explaination of the legal example and admit that I'm right. Normally I wouldn't care, but people who use their educational institution as a way to gain leverage in a conversation and somehow justify the amount of time and money they've spent on education just bother the hell out of me. (<--Sorry for the run-on.)

Modifié par Omgzorro, 03 mai 2012 - 03:05 .

[RyuujinZERO]

Omgzorro wrote...

By the way, I'm still patiently waiting for you to respond to my explaination of the legal example and admit that I'm right. Normally I wouldn't care, but people who use their educational institution as a way to gain leverage in a conversation and somehow justify the amount of time and money they've spent on education just bother the hell out of me. (<--Sorry for the run-on.)

This ^ - or rather, in case you missed it:

 I live in the USA, and I am perfectly understanding of our legal system, thank you. I'm going to dissect this for you, alright? You seem to be having some trouble. 

1) You said in your original post that the three main examples of proof all had to stem directly from BioWare, the company in question.
2) In my legal example, the party in question would be the defendent, and by applying the same principles as you have applied here, the only way he could be proven guilty was if he admitted his guilt.

...I can't argue with that logic. What we lack in this discussion is a judge and jury. So short of a formal admission from the defendent (Bioware) of whether IT was their intention, we cannot make a judgement and we can argue both sides til we're blue in the face and nobody is going to back down

Well, I don't much care either way, call me impartial in the IT debate xD 

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 03 mai 2012 - 03:15 .

[macrocarl]

VampireSoap wrote...

Omgzorro wrote...

Yeah, I think the crux of the issue is that you just don't know what a theory is. No one has proven it, but they've compiled a strong amount of evidence for their case and they've chosen to believe it. I'm pretty sure the only reason you made this thread is to tout some sense of misguided superiority. Probably because you don't fully understand the theory.

Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanaton and prediction for a class of phenomena, such as Einstein's theory of relativity.

Now, tell me, is IT qualified to be called a theory?

Yes. Have you looked at all the stuff people have found to support the theory? Seen all the pictures posted etc.? It's a theory not gospel. Don't sweat it.

[RyuujinZERO]

macrocarl wrote...

Yes. Have you looked at all the stuff people have found to support the theory? Seen all the pictures posted etc.? It's a theory not gospel. Don't sweat it.

He was being pedantic - in academic terms, Indoctrination Theory is a hypothesis.

The hypothesis has not been formally tested or reviewed and therefore is not a theory... strictly speaking it's not even a hypothesis, because the points put forward by the author of the "theory" are untestable (Short of bioware formally confirming or denying it, there is no way to gather data in support of, or to refute the claims made).

But, it is pedantics *shrug*



Once the EC comes along that'll be as good as confirmation/refutation...

Modifié par RyuujinZERO, 03 mai 2012 - 03:52 .

[dreamgazer]

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?

Logic goes both ways: no way you can disprove the theory without documented evidence showing that IT theory is unequivocally shown to not be what they intended, such as a document saying "this theory was never intended for Mass Effect 3".

The only thing we have -- the "compelling evidence", if you will -- is the Final Hours app that suggests that they kicked the idea around and, at the time of the making-of material, suggested that they ditched the idea.  Minds change; they could have decided otherwise a few months prior to release, or offered a red herring during development.  All that's there is the fact that they were considering the idea, and that, in some backwards fashion, is a motive. 

I don't know what of the theory I concretely believe or not, outside of the fact that I think BioWare definitely intended on including suggestions, hints, and foreshadowing components that point to Shepard suffering the effects of indoctrination across the game -- and it playing a part in the surreal nature of the catalyst's conversation.  It's too big of a plot device and emphasized WAY too much to completely ignore it as an intended component for the final game, especially after Shepard has come in such close contact to Reaper tech over the series' span (and considering the heavy evidence that the "Arrival" DLC adds to that possibility).  But until they point-blank say otherwise, even AFTER the DLC comes out and they choose to allow that theory to remain a plausibility without bald-faced proving or disproving it, it can't really be officially dismissed -- only dismissed out of interpretation. 

[Cadence of the Planes]

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?

Don't think too highly of yourself - no one has to answer to you. You ask an indoctrination theorist to provide evidence for it being true, and you get an equal and opposite response:

1. Official documents confirming the "theory" is NOT True 
2. A video clip with a Bioware developer saying that IT is NOT correct. 

3. A DLC that illustrates the whole story NOT using IT.
     and so on.... 

I've said it before and I'lll say it again:

Those who think IT is true = speculating
Those who think IT is false = also speculating


If you argue that you're NOT speculating, then provide me with proof. /endthread

Modifié par Cadence of the Planes, 03 mai 2012 - 04:24 .

[dreman9999]

Foxhound2121 wrote...

stysiaq wrote...

Foxhound2121 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

What do you mean by "the ending was speculation"?

It came straight from the horse's mouth.

please, clarify.

because te developers and writers said so.

No, the devs said they wanted the end to speak for itself and they can't tell more because EC is coming up...That was from Pax.

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 mai 2012 - 04:41 .

[tanisha__unknown]

It's not proven, but actually quite plausible.