1357 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

jpraelster93 wrote...

I bet they planned the it but they got rushed

BAM! That's what I'd bet too.

[jpraelster93]

balance5050 wrote...

jpraelster93 wrote...

I bet they planned the it but they got rushed

BAM! That's what I'd bet too.

I mean there are too many things like that kid running into the building and then THE BUILDING BLOWS UP how the hell did he survive

[LaZy i IS]

liggy002 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

Agugaboo wrote...
I see what you're saying, but for me it's not so clear cut;
1) Then why add them? Why would they go back and add them after the fact? Why use the same foliage from the dream sequence.
2) Yet clearly they did. And what's more we were supposed to "speculate" about the whole ending.
Because as of yet all anyone has is evidence without any clear cut proof and only indirect hints at motive.

1) It's the same trees/etc. you can see in the background, even before the beam.

I understand the doubts here, but, this being weak evidence, I'm really starting to doubt Pro-IT arguments.
Heard of an argument technique called fast-talking? You show piece after piece of weak evidence so that it eventually overshadows the stronger evidence against and seems like more. Most Pro-IT'ers employ this technique, weakening their own argument imo. Show me strong, non-cirumstantial evidence please.

P.S- I'd like to note that I'm not particularly against IT, just that it's far less probable than the idea that it's just down to bad writing.

Before:



After:



So you're saying that trees move? Or was it invisible before the beam? Point is this specific tree isn't in this spot until after you are hit with Harbinger's Beam. Can you accept that?

lol. I never stated that the trees move or w/e. Go back and read what I said.

My point was, they aren't the same trees from Sheperd's dreams, they are the same as the ones in the background, even before the beam hits you. They were likely added as details after the beam hits. Not much need for random trees in the way while sprinting towards the citadel beam, being fired at by a reaper.
Again, I'm not totally refuting IT, just saying that the evidence is weak.

Why add trees behind you where few people actually look?  the trees are hardly important to the tone, particularly since if you don't turn round you don't see them. If they weren't there noone would miss them. No, someone put these in deliberately and deliberately triggered them to appear after Harbinger blasts you. 

There is nothing to imply that they are there deliberately, unless you assume IT true first. (circular reasoning)

Just looking at the pics and the gameplay in each situation, it is probably just that during the fast-paced part, you are less likely to notice small details like a few trees, etc., whilst when the gameplay has slowed down you're gonna notice the lack of detail.
By the way; the trees are the same as the background ones... not the ones in the dreams, so this goes further against you statement.

LOL.  The tree was added intentionally!  It' hard to get any more obvious than that.  Adding that tree in a spot where few people look would cost more time and money.  Why would they even do that?  They wouldn't.

And what about that shadow too?  That wasn't there before either.  Looks like a building shadow or something.

I meant that the tree doesn't imply IT. It wouldn't take more that a few seconds to copy/paste the trees from the others already there.
The shadow just appears to be sheperd.

[DTKT]

It's also very possible that there is a tree there. A normal tree. Nothing fantastic about that.

[jpraelster93]

DTKT wrote...

It's also very possible that there is a tree there. A normal tree. Nothing fantastic about that.

then where was the tree before the beam hit

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

I meant that the tree doesn't imply IT. It wouldn't take more that a few seconds to copy/paste the trees from the others already there.
The shadow just appears to be sheperd.

LOL at "copy/paste". I also see atleast 7 bushes that weren't there before.

[LaZy i IS]

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

I meant that the tree doesn't imply IT. It wouldn't take more that a few seconds to copy/paste the trees from the others already there.
The shadow just appears to be sheperd.

LOL at "copy/paste". I also see atleast 7 bushes that weren't there before.

A few tiny bushes? Can't you find more convincing evidence for IT, or is that all?

[LaZy i IS]

DTKT wrote...

It's also very possible that there is a tree there. A normal tree. Nothing fantastic about that.

Basically what I've been saying.

[hammerfan]

KingZayd wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

hammerfan wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

DarthSliver wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

@OP
The IT is derived using circular logic and evidence that is at best, circumstantial.

IT at this point like said in my last post a theory created by the fans to help them deal with the ending and keep them able to play ME3 or the ME series over. If IT was true it wouldve been made plainly obivious or hinted at bigger than it was. 

Yeah. Well put.
Also, most of the "evidence" for IT has a much simpler non-IT explanation.

Yay, Occam!

Exactly.

hammerfan wrote...

Which is why I consider it IH, I can't see elevating it to a T. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Yeah, by definition, it is not a "Theory".

Theory: 
An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action 

Indoctrination theory fits that definition.

As for Occam's razor, clearly we get different results from using it. 

Occam's razor says to go with the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions, therefore offering the simplest explanation. The "Bad Writing" hypothesis makes only one assumption - the ending was badly written. That's as simple an explanation as you can get.

[balance5050]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

I meant that the tree doesn't imply IT. It wouldn't take more that a few seconds to copy/paste the trees from the others already there.
The shadow just appears to be sheperd.

LOL at "copy/paste". I also see atleast 7 bushes that weren't there before.

A few tiny bushes? Can't you find more convincing evidence for IT, or is that all?

You asked for it, take your pick.



The evidence is that he wakes up amongst concrete rubble after just being in the middle of this:

  

 
 

Also, the white light "dream transition effect is very telling that the ending could be a combination of a dream and being somehow mentally linked to some reaper somehow.


Dreams
http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing

  
Shepard in Geth consensus



The ending

  

Tree reflections in the Catalyst Chamber:


http://i.imgur.com/RIIzj.jpg 



http://img72.imagesh...5148/treees.png   

Also, look at Shepards eyes when he chooses either control or synthesize

 

[balance5050]

hammerfan wrote...

Occam's razor says to go with the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions, therefore offering the simplest explanation. The "Bad Writing" hypothesis makes only one assumption - the ending was badly written. That's as simple an explanation as you can get.

The problem with Occam's razor is that it doesn't account for evidence and pattern. It is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "Bioware is lazy!" 

The bushes and trees being added into a spot that not many see is contrary to this.

Modifié par balance5050, 06 mai 2012 - 11:02 .

[savionen]

LaZy i IS wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...

I meant that the tree doesn't imply IT. It wouldn't take more that a few seconds to copy/paste the trees from the others already there.
The shadow just appears to be sheperd.

LOL at "copy/paste". I also see atleast 7 bushes that weren't there before.

A few tiny bushes? Can't you find more convincing evidence for IT, or is that all?

Are you kidding? There's like... hour long videos on the subject.

A few quick examples from the first 30 minutes of the game:
Nobody see the kid but Shepard. When he gets on the shuttle nobody acknolwedges him or helps him. Anderson doesn't see him either. The kid goes through a locked door, he's also seen on a rooftop staring at Shepard. He goes into a building that explodes a few seconds later, but survives somehow. The kid also has very awkward dialogue a 6 or 8 year old would never say, and there's a growl from the vent as the kid disappears. The SFX for the growl is not used anywhere else in the game.

Doesn't really matter though. Anything anyone lists you can write off as either bad writing, or a design error. So the argument is pretty pointless unless Bioware actually states something or has more proof in EC. If they don't do anything big in the EC I'd imagine it's all just a lot of random errors. The most likely scenario IMO though is that they planned on having indoctrination be a bigger element in the story, and the changed it back in November, and forgot or didn't have time to change a lot of these little things.

There are some things people read way too much into, like someone was trying to use numerology on textures to try and prove IT, but, when I first played the game I felt indoctrination was a possibility in the story.

[CavScout]

ev76 wrote...

Cavscouts Nobody needs to show anything, it's a discussion not a debate, if it was a debate you would of lost or have been disqualified based on your witty one liners.

Is this how you admit defeat? It's a weird way of doing it. Now run along.

[balance5050]

 One more reflection for good measure:

http://i.imgur.com/bK9Vv.jpg 

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Says the one who doesn't understand the ending and so invented one to cling to instead.

Says the one either doesn't understand the ending (if it's indoctrination), or doesn't understand why it's ridiculous (if we're meant to take it at face value)

You're the one who has invented an ending and is hoping against all hope that BioWare makes it true. The ending, as it is, good or bad doesn't necessitate or indicate Indoctrination Theory.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

ev76 wrote...

Cavscouts Nobody needs to show anything, it's a discussion not a debate, if it was a debate you would of lost or have been disqualified based on your witty one liners.

Is this how you admit defeat? It's a weird way of doing it. Now run along.

Good job proving his point:whistle:

What he's saying is that you can't convince anyone of anything when you act like a rude 12 YO.

[CavScout]

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Considering TIM dies, how much better was it?

Considering that the Reapers die too (according to the face value interpretation) and TIM gets closer to stopping Shepard? it's certainly better.

The Reapers never controled Shep like TIM.

Exactly. So clearly TIM's tech works better? Unless you're saying they didn't try? in which case, how stupid are they?

It's not indoctrination....

[CavScout]

savionen wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Yep, horribly flawed logic. Heck, using the same "evidence" as IT folks I could say:

FACT 1: People drown when in water.
FACT 2: People are wet when drowning.
FACT 3: Surfers are near a lot of water.

Conclusion: Surfers must have/be drowning.

That's what IT logic looks like.

That's what the Catalyst's logic looks like.

Synthetics are created by imperfect beings, therefore they always rebel against their creators.
Therefore all synthetics will want to kill every single organic in the galaxy from krogan to bacteria.

That's like saying all children will kill their parents.

Kill all parents because their children might rebel and kill all parents.

Seems legit.

Except that isn't the Catalyst's "logic". It's important to not change it's logic just so you can attack it....

[balance5050]

Eww....

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

This actually helps my case. What the codex describes is reaper indoctrination. It controls both the mind and body. The key is that the mind is also under control. TIM doesn't have control of Anderson or Shepard's mind, just they're bodies.

Therefore, TIM is not indoctrinating them, but using the only physical control implementation of reaper indoctrination.

There is not physical control without mental control when it comes to indotctination, purely physical control is huskification, Shepard isn't a husk. 

You're making things up again.

[balance5050]

I like how you don't actually address the evidence.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

This actually helps my case. What the codex describes is reaper indoctrination. It controls both the mind and body. The key is that the mind is also under control. TIM doesn't have control of Anderson or Shepard's mind, just they're bodies.

Therefore, TIM is not indoctrinating them, but using the only physical control implementation of reaper indoctrination.

There is not physical control without mental control when it comes to indotctination, purely physical control is huskification, Shepard isn't a husk. 

You're making things up again.

What part daddio!!!???

[DTKT]

I love how you call an assortment of pictures that show really nothing conclusive "evidence".

Nice going.

[savionen]

CavScout wrote...

savionen wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Yep, horribly flawed logic. Heck, using the same "evidence" as IT folks I could say:

FACT 1: People drown when in water.
FACT 2: People are wet when drowning.
FACT 3: Surfers are near a lot of water.

Conclusion: Surfers must have/be drowning.

That's what IT logic looks like.

That's what the Catalyst's logic looks like.

Synthetics are created by imperfect beings, therefore they always rebel against their creators.
Therefore all synthetics will want to kill every single organic in the galaxy from krogan to bacteria.

That's like saying all children will kill their parents.

Kill all parents because their children might rebel and kill all parents.

Seems legit.

Except that isn't the Catalyst's "logic". It's important to not change it's logic just so you can attack it....

Destroy organics once they become capable of creating advanced synthetic life, because organics will eventually create synthetics that will kill all organic life.

Going from being able to create synthetics, to synthetics wanting to destroy all life in the galaxy is a rather large jump in logic.

[CavScout]

Agugaboo wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...
There were trees in the background before the beam hit. Those ones after the beam are not there for the reason I stated.
These pics only imply indoctrination if you assume indoctrination "theory" in the first place...
Circular reasoning?

When you are running forward there are no trees in the valley you are running down. after you get hit they're right behind you where they weren't before. I can see how it's evidence encouraging IT. How is it circular?

Why would the trees be evidence of indoctrination? The only reason to assume it is proof of indoctrination is if you assume indoctrination to be the case.