282 réponses à ce sujet

[VampireSoap]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

So wading through footage and codexes of lore and matching them all up isn't testing? I mean I get what you're saying but other than reading every dang codex and then finding in game cinematics and dialog to support IT how much more can we do? I'm serious. What would be a better method? Anyway, theory, hypothesis, flim flam, I don't care what peopel call it! It's still fun

So that's it. Isn't it? You believe in something because you LIKE it. OK....

And I'm glad that you talked about your own method of finding out the "truth". It seems that you did everything almost every theist did in the history of mankind ------ you "wade through" history and pick the facts that kinda associated to your "theory"....and then discard everything else.

Sorry, it's just not how science works.

Interpretation is not like hard science. All this debate matches the realm of social science where you take a position and support it with evidence.

I'm an atheist myself and the reason people bellieved n God for so long wasn't evidence or lack there of but because the human mind has a hard time grasping that well this is it. Since most people lived in pretty horrible conditions for most of existence that wasn't really something they wanted to consider.

Science has always been to best tool for humanity to understand reality, and we talk about evidence in science.

As for your explanation for people believing in God, I just don't understand how believing in something that is not real can help you through the "horrible conditions". The more align with reality your thoughts are, the more likely you are gonna survive. From my point of view, it is imperative for the poor and the weak to stop believing and start thinking, start understanding more about the reality as it is because that way they'll actually have a better chance.

[KosakNZ]

VampireSoap wrote...

The false dilemma fallacy is one of the most comman types of fallacy.

So is straw man. Congrats on attacking me for a using a fallacy I did not use.... using a fallacy

VampireSoap wrote...

But I am not the one who's making the claim, I am dismissing the claim.

And only that claim, you have singled out IT among the endless number of possible interpretations specifically. Your topic isn't labelled "All ending theories debunked", it is labelled "Indoctrination Theory Debunked".

VampireSoap wrote...

And it is not an either/or question. Whether the ending is as it appears
to be does not have any impact on the credibility of IT at all.

Never said it did.

VampireSoap wrote...
The
fact is, there are many, many other interpretations, and that both the
ending interpretation and IT can be wrong.

Isn't this what I said?

VampireSoap wrote...
Even if the EC shows that the
ending is not what it seems to be still doesn't necessary make IT
right.

Still agreeing with me....

[UnstableMongoose]

VampireSoap wrote...

KosakNZ wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

1. For those of you who like to compare this to a case, I will only say this, an "evidence" that has not been acknowledged by the court is no evidence at all. Circumstantial, direct, or whatever. Just forget it. Until Bioware comes out and confirms your "Shepard's blue eyes leading to indoctrination", those are all just speculations.

The problem with this is it works both ways. Until Bioware confirms that the face value interpretation of the ending is real, and all the plot holes and things hinting at unreality were unintended, then you cannot say that ending is the correct interpretation either. After all no evidence has been acknowledged by the "court" yet, for any position.

But I am not the one who's making the claim, I am dismissing the claim. And it is not an either/or question. Whether the ending is as it appears to be does not have any impact on the credibility of IT at all. The fact is, there are many, many other interpretations, and that both the ending interpretation and IT can be wrong. Even if the EC shows that the ending is not what it seems to be still doesn't necessary make IT right.

The false dilemma fallacy is one of the most comman types of fallacy.

Stop randomly quoting logical fallacies and processes from Wikipedia pages without having any clue about what you're talking about. It doesn't make you right. Your inability to link the elements of logic you mention out of context in a reasonble manner to your points is not endearing you to anyone.

If I've been over this once, I've been over it a thousand times. IT is an analysis of a fictional ending to a fictional story based on fictional elements--outlining how those story elements connect to suggest IT as a possible ending is all the "proof" that is required to establish it as a valid interpretation of the endings.

If you wish to make the statement that IT was in no way intended by BioWare, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that the elements BioWare put into the story that suggest IT were completely unintentional down to the last one. Seeing as you have no interviews or direct quotes from any of the writers or artists stating that IT was completely unintentional, you are unable to meet that burden of evidence. 

You could make the claim that all of the suggestions of IT are unintentional, but without stronger evidence, you're essentially commiting argumentative suicide by Occam's Razor (dozens of independent and unfounded assumptions that elements that appear to be interlinked are actually coincidence). If it was only one or two elements, the Razor would be on your side. The sheer volume of material supporting IT as an interpretation, however, means that it is not.

[AlanC9]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
IT has a lot of similarties to the blockbuster film Inception. Indoctrination has been foreshadowed so much in the ME trilogy that it makes the most sense. We also had day 1 DLC so charging for additional ending DLC isn't implausible though I suspect  they probably would have made it free but just charged for the other DLC (all in an effort to prolong interest in ME3). 

You missed the problem. Bio would be charging for content in a DLC -- specifically, an actual ending -- that they had promised would be in the game. This might not bother you too much , but if you don't think this would infuriate many gamers you have lost your mind.

They might have been able to get away with something like this if they had announced weeks ago that the ending was so much of a mess that they were going to have to clear it up with paid DLC. It's too late now.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 mai 2012 - 08:40 .

[The Smoking Man]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

If I've been over this once, I've been over it a thousand times. IT is an analysis of a fictional ending to a fictional story based on fictional elements--outlining how those story elements connect to suggest IT as a possible ending is all the "proof" that is required to establish it as a valid interpretation of the endings.

If you wish to make the statement that IT was in no way intended by BioWare, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that the elements BioWare put into the story that suggest IT were completely unintentional down to the last one. Seeing as you have no interviews or direct quotes from any of the writers or artists stating that IT was completely unintentional, you are unable to meet that burden of evidence. 

You could make the claim that all of the suggestions of IT are unintentional, but without stronger evidence, you're essentially commiting argumentative suicide by Occam's Razor (dozens of independent and unfounded assumptions that elements that appear to be interlinked are actually coincidence). If it was only one or two elements, the Razor would be on your side. The sheer volume of material supporting IT as an interpretation, however, means that it is not.

Actually, I would argue that the burden of proof lies on anyone pushing any explanation for the ending, and there is not enough evidence to confirm any one of them, nor could there be enough evidence to "confirm" at all by the same kind of reasoning behind that nothing is "proven" under the scientific method. This means we should conclude that, as of yet, the ending is meaningless.

Modifié par The Smoking Man, 03 mai 2012 - 08:44 .

[VampireSoap]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

KosakNZ wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

1. For those of you who like to compare this to a case, I will only say this, an "evidence" that has not been acknowledged by the court is no evidence at all. Circumstantial, direct, or whatever. Just forget it. Until Bioware comes out and confirms your "Shepard's blue eyes leading to indoctrination", those are all just speculations.

The problem with this is it works both ways. Until Bioware confirms that the face value interpretation of the ending is real, and all the plot holes and things hinting at unreality were unintended, then you cannot say that ending is the correct interpretation either. After all no evidence has been acknowledged by the "court" yet, for any position.

But I am not the one who's making the claim, I am dismissing the claim. And it is not an either/or question. Whether the ending is as it appears to be does not have any impact on the credibility of IT at all. The fact is, there are many, many other interpretations, and that both the ending interpretation and IT can be wrong. Even if the EC shows that the ending is not what it seems to be still doesn't necessary make IT right.

The false dilemma fallacy is one of the most comman types of fallacy.

Stop randomly quoting logical fallacies and processes from Wikipedia pages without having any clue about what you're talking about. It doesn't make you right. Your inability to link the elements of logic you mention out of context in a reasonble manner to your points is not endearing you to anyone.

If I've been over this once, I've been over it a thousand times. IT is an analysis of a fictional ending to a fictional story based on fictional elements--outlining how those story elements connect to suggest IT as a possible ending is all the "proof" that is required to establish it as a valid interpretation of the endings.

If you wish to make the statement that IT was in no way intended by BioWare, the burden of proof falls on you to prove that the elements BioWare put into the story that suggest IT were completely unintentional down to the last one. Seeing as you have no interviews or direct quotes from any of the writers or artists stating that IT was completely unintentional, you are unable to meet that burden of evidence. 

You could make the claim that all of the suggestions of IT are unintentional, but without stronger evidence, you're essentially commiting argumentative suicide by Occam's Razor (dozens of independent and unfounded assumptions that elements that appear to be interlinked are actually coincidence). If it was only one or two elements, the Razor would be on your side. The sheer volume of material supporting IT as an interpretation, however, means that it is not.

I mean, I just can't understand why you and some other people are still saying that I am making a claim.

OK, so if you told me that you slept with my mom all those years ago, and then there was me.

And then I said, "No, you did not. Please show me the DNA test result."

Am I making a claim by denying you as my father? I'm sorry, I just can't get it. Please help me out here, will you?

Modifié par VampireSoap, 03 mai 2012 - 08:57 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

VampireSoap wrote...

Science has always been to best tool for humanity to understand reality, and we talk about evidence in science.

As for your explanation for people believing in God, I just don't understand how believing in something that is not real can help you through the "horrible conditions". The more align with reality your thoughts are, the more likely you are gonna survive. From my point of view, it is imperative for the poor and the weak to stop believing and start thinking, start understanding more about the reality as it is because that way they'll actually have a better chance.

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

[VampireSoap]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

Then perhaps we should evolve further, learn to look beyond fear and embrace logic.

[Icemix]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Science has always been to best tool for humanity to understand reality, and we talk about evidence in science.

As for your explanation for people believing in God, I just don't understand how believing in something that is not real can help you through the "horrible conditions". The more align with reality your thoughts are, the more likely you are gonna survive. From my point of view, it is imperative for the poor and the weak to stop believing and start thinking, start understanding more about the reality as it is because that way they'll actually have a better chance.

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

Ah yes meaning, an old guy in the sky that wants your money. Religion is single handedly the biggest cause of death in human history.

Modifié par Icemix, 03 mai 2012 - 08:59 .

[Deltakarma]

Excuse me, dont mind me stepping in,

"And as for complaints that the game's three endings don't provide enough variety? As late as November, the developers were considering at least one drastically different ending that was eventually scrapped. The sequence would have seen the player lose control of Commander Shepard, revealing that he or she had actually been indoctrinated by the Reapers. This ending was eventually cut for technical reasons, as the team was having a hard time making the gameplay mechanic work alongside dialogue choices."

This clearly states that the game was setting up for a way of IT. And how they said they cut it and how we still have remnants of "Indoctrination" in the game? Clearly they were either:

1. SOOOOOOOOOO Lazy to scrap the oily-shadow figure dream. This directly is stated by the queen herself, Lady Rachni. After all, they can see/hear it? I dunno, i interpret both ways but who gives.

2. They put it their on purpose so they can have an outbreak of fans like this to push on a new way of "clarity" or "game-changing" SP DLC. It clearly shows that BiowEAr might have "introduced" a new way to get people to buy DLC. We have micro-transactions giving them money, and DLC. They will surely take both of those with ease since, hey, we are fans. This is my speculation of it.

3. This is all just one big massive troll from Bioware and they wanted this whole thing to happen. They wanted to give out a "somewhat" rushed game, wanted to destroy the ending of the trilogy, add MP, and just make your choices mean sh*t. And this goes back to #2 where its a ploy for us to give them money.

Edit: 4. We can actually blame EA. Nuff said.

Now back on to the IT, its plausible. The game has pretty much been foreshadowing indoctrination and makes it a HUGE INTRICATE thing for the story. It was showin in ME1 all the way to the end of ME2. Hell, some people might go as far to auto-dismiss the theory by saying TIM put some kind of machine into Shepard to stop the Indoc. process. But that makes no sense either. If you read the comic(forgot which) it shows the origin of TIM and how he got those sexy blue eyes that my male Shep has been dieing for.

So, from the title of this thread, you ultimately cant say want proof to show its real and then deny the parts that show evidence. There are countless things to prove indoc, in the game and you are either blind or just ignorant of something. Read and watch, it helps.

People will always believe in something to get away from the fact one of the best RPG developing companies just took a huge stinky poopoo over their own child. I believe in IT a bit, and I sure as hell only believe things that shows proof.

Yes, you are right to say that you either believe or deny it, its your opinion. Just leave them alone so the IT fan-base can get on with their business. I sure as hell am not going to compare this to religion since you pretty much asked for things similarly to those who question if he.she.it is actually in our clouds. Just find your own facts if you want and dont have others scavenge around so you can confirm/deny on your own.

Modifié par Deltakarma, 03 mai 2012 - 08:58 .

[Atakuma]

Icemix wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Science has always been to best tool for humanity to understand reality, and we talk about evidence in science.

As for your explanation for people believing in God, I just don't understand how believing in something that is not real can help you through the "horrible conditions". The more align with reality your thoughts are, the more likely you are gonna survive. From my point of view, it is imperative for the poor and the weak to stop believing and start thinking, start understanding more about the reality as it is because that way they'll actually have a better chance.

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

Ah yes meaning, an old guy in the shy that wants your money. Religion is single handedly the biggest cause of death in human history.

That's not even remotely true. It's actually laughable.

[Icemix]

Atakuma wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

VampireSoap wrote...

Science has always been to best tool for humanity to understand reality, and we talk about evidence in science.

As for your explanation for people believing in God, I just don't understand how believing in something that is not real can help you through the "horrible conditions". The more align with reality your thoughts are, the more likely you are gonna survive. From my point of view, it is imperative for the poor and the weak to stop believing and start thinking, start understanding more about the reality as it is because that way they'll actually have a better chance.

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

Ah yes meaning, an old guy in the sky that wants your money. Religion is single handedly the biggest cause of death in human history.

That's not even remotely true. It's actually laughable.

I think this proves my point in a funny matter.
 

[AlanC9]

I'm pretty sure infectious disease is a bit worse than religion.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Icemix wrote...

Ah yes meaning, an old guy in the shy that wants your money. Religion is single handedly the biggest cause of death in human history.

Humans are tribal by nature. Organzining for war is how civilization came into being. Religion creates bonds between people making the tribe more cohesive. The more united the tribe the easier conquering other groups would be.

Without religion new secular religions takeover. Ideology will always be present in humans. It helps make sense of the world.

[VampireSoap]

Atakuma wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

Ah yes meaning, an old guy in the shy that wants your money. Religion is single handedly the biggest cause of death in human history.

That's not even remotely true. It's actually laughable.

I'm not sure if that's true, but sure there were A LOT of people died because of The Crusade. And judging from what's happening right now in the middle east. I mean, seriously? Religion is harmless?

[MegaSovereign]

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?

[Icemix]

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...

[MegaSovereign]

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...

[macrocarl]

RyuujinZERO wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

So wading through footage and codexes of lore and matching them all up isn't testing? I mean I get what you're saying but other than reading every dang codex and then finding in game cinematics and dialog to support IT how much more can we do? I'm serious. What would be a better method? Anyway, theory, hypothesis, flim flam, I don't care what peopel call it! It's still fun

It is testing; of a sort. The question is whether the data you can garner from those sources is sufficient to convince a peer review board.  In practice, it is not - the very fact we're even having this discussion proves that much   (opinion is strongly divided even amongst the laymen population... and a science review board is MUCH more critical). 

I'm not sure this thread is a peer review board any more than the IT thread is, but there are a lot of people working on it. Is Shep indoctrinated? Well, let's go back through all 3 games and hunt down clues... And there's a lot. Personally I've actually tried to find things on the contrary at the end of ME3 that would go against IT and the only thing I can come up with is BW went insane and wrote a weird ending.

@VampireSoap  No, I haven't waded through to find just what I need or whatever to make IT a real 'theory'. (see above)

I mean, come on, even if it's not IT, something weird is going on, right?

And finally, just for the record, I'm actually putting my money on that teh EC will still be open, meaning that if you suspect indoctrination than the EC will be interpretted as a more fleshed out 'dream'. If I was BW I'd fine tune the ending so that folks who want to read the ending at face value can and those who have theories as to what in the heck is going on can have them too!

[dreamgazer]

VampireSoap wrote...

1. For those of you who like to compare this to a case, I will only say this, an "evidence" that has not been acknowledged by the court is no evidence at all. Circumstantial, direct, or whatever. Just forget it. Until Bioware comes out and confirms your "Shepard's blue eyes leading to indoctrination", those are all just speculations.

2. As for the people who are still asking me to provide evidence. You need to know only two things: Russell's teapot and Occam's Razor

Hence why it's a theory, an interpretation, a hypothesis, and not currently hard-boiled factual intent. That's the nature of fiction, though. 

Facts exist in the codexes, dialogue, and general lore, which are logically applied to elements in the game itself; they're not just dreamed-up misinterpretations.  If the burden of proof lies with the "believer", then all that can be offered right now is motive from the authors and circumstancial evidence that heavily suggests the theory as a plausible view.  If you're asking for direct proof in the game proper as to whether it's the interpretation we're supposed to walk away with, then no, that concrete, end-all be-all evidence doesn't exist.

But neither does proof that Deckard was a replicant in Blade Runner, only confirmed by Ridley Scott roughly twenty years after the film's release.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 03 mai 2012 - 09:13 .

[AlanC9]

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...

I'll play. 

Getting higher EMS mean that Shepard has to do more missions, explore the galaxy, and so forth. This takes Shepard longer, and gives the Reapers more time to Indoctrinate Shepard.

[UnstableMongoose]

The Smoking Man wrote...

Actually, I would argue that the burden of proof lies on anyone pushing any explanation for the ending, and there is not enough evidence to confirm any one of them, nor could there be enough evidence to "confirm" at all by the same kind of reasoning behind that nothing is "proven" under the scientific method. This means we should conclude that, as of yet, the ending is meaningless.

Not really, here are the logical steps in showing that BioWare intended IT to be one of many possible interpretations of the ending:

• Possibility of multiple interpretations: BioWare claims that they want speculation regarding the ending, hinting that the ending will not have a "true" explanation and it will be left up to player interpretation
• Evidence: Now, to establish IT, it must be shown that the people working on the game intended it to be an interpretation of the ending. The dialogue and other story elements in the game are the first line of evidence, as they are, in this case, the outward broadcast of the design team's intentions
• Linking available evidence to IT: Many extremely bizarre story elements all of a sudden make a scary amount of sense when connected to other references made throughout the series about the process of indoctrination. These links are too numerous to be logically thrown out by assumption that they are all coincidence. I'm assuming that any legitimately logical person who disbelieves IT will have familiarized themselves with the opposing opinion's arguments, so I'm not going to waste time listing them here.
• Secondary evidence/confirmation: In many fictional pursuits, often a writer will weigh in on what they intended by a certain story element. If such interviews ever exist, then they will fairly directly confirm or deny IT as being intended by BioWare. However, if such secondary evidence never surfaces, than the highest level of evidence available in any argument regarding IT supports IT.
• Ambiguity: going back to #1 in the light of what we've learned in #2-4, it is extraordinarily difficult to argue effectively that IT was not in any way intended by BioWare, and very easy to argue that it is. However, it is simple to argue any number of interpretations of the ending that do not include IT as a process. This reinforces the concept that no particular interpretation of the ending, so long as it is founded on reasonable principles, can be thrown out at this juncture.

You claim that the ending is meaningless because of this ambiguity. This is equivalent to claiming that a particle has no quantuum state because it spends its time distributed between two.

[Icemix]

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...

Oh wait, I have more. The deadliest force in the known universe (the Reapers), is going to gamble its exsistencia on some mind games with one human! Yay for sense!

[UnstableMongoose]

VampireSoap wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Icemix wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Humans need to believe the future will always be better than the past or present. That's why they invent things like afterlife which will be a paradise awaiting them they just need to behave properly in order to reach it. This hope (you could call it false hope) prevents them from just givng up on life. I also believe humans have evolved to look for ways that give existence meaning.

Ah yes meaning, an old guy in the shy that wants your money. Religion is single handedly the biggest cause of death in human history.

That's not even remotely true. It's actually laughable.

I'm not sure if that's true, but sure there were A LOT of people died because of The Crusade. And judging from what's happening right now in the middle east. I mean, seriously? Religion is harmless?

He didn't say harmless. He said that calling the majority of deaths throughout history religiously-based is laughable. You need to learn to identify what the actual meaning of someone's statements are. He never said harmless. You put that word into his mouth while quoting his statement which clearly shows that he did not say what you're claiming he said. Seriously, what is wrong with you?

[VampireSoap]

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...

Yeah, it's as though Shepard is not even worth being tricked if he's got only 1000 EMS. At that point, the star child will just give Shepard a troll face and then tell him to go touch the column on the right.:happy::happy::happy:

Thanks for the amazing ending, IT theorists!!!