1357 réponses à ce sujet

[Leafs43]

CavScout wrote...

You don't understand Occam's Razor.

Nor do you understand what evidence is.

Actually I don't think you understand occam's razor.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

You don't understand Occam's Razor.

Nor do you understand what evidence is.

What does Occam's Razor state again? Really please tell me what it's conclusion is.

FYI, it's ineffective to say something's wrong without backing up the statement.

Modifié par balance5050, 06 mai 2012 - 11:43 .

[jijeebo]

balance5050 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

It's not like every cycle has an indoctrinated splinter group that thinks they can "control the reapers". OH yeah, every cycle does.

When was it established that people from every cycle tried to control the reapers and became indoctrinated as a result?

The VI on Thessia, this is common knowledge.

Hah oh yeah, just checked the wiki. xP 

...And no need to be sarky... I had genuinely forgotten. >.>

[Leafs43]

Senario wrote...

Oh look this thread again, Indoctrination is nothing more than a fan made idea that has several problems including being a total cop out with "evidence" that they claim to be true yet are nothing more than instances where they stretch the truth.

Fine if you want to believe it, but don't try and force it onto everybody. The ending is likely a result of bad writing PERIOD

Bad writing might be the cause, but that is only one explanation.


Just because you don't like evidence, you can't ignore it.

[balance5050]

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

It's not like every cycle has an indoctrinated splinter group that thinks they can "control the reapers". OH yeah, every cycle does.

When was it established that people from every cycle tried to control the reapers and became indoctrinated as a result?

The VI on Thessia, this is common knowledge.

Hah oh yeah, just checked the wiki. xP 

...And no need to be sarky... I had genuinely forgotten. >.>

Sorry sorry, It's been hostile in here. I apologize.

[hammerfan]

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

You don't understand Occam's Razor.

Nor do you understand what evidence is.

Thank you.

[balance5050]

I'm getting my fair share of LOL's today I'll tell you what!

[hammerfan]

Leafs43 wrote...

Senario wrote...

Oh look this thread again, Indoctrination is nothing more than a fan made idea that has several problems including being a total cop out with "evidence" that they claim to be true yet are nothing more than instances where they stretch the truth.

Fine if you want to believe it, but don't try and force it onto everybody. The ending is likely a result of bad writing PERIOD

Bad writing might be the cause, but that is only one explanation.


Just because you don't like evidence, you can't ignore it.

I don't have to ignore anything, it's all evidence of crappy writing and rushed development.

Modifié par hammerfan, 06 mai 2012 - 11:46 .

[balance5050]

hammerfan wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

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.

You don't understand Occam's Razor.

Nor do you understand what evidence is.

Thank you.

What does Occam's Razor state?

[CavScout]

savionen wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...
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.

First off, something unexplained is not evidence of Indocrination.

A) You can't prove no one saw the kid. Anderson doesn't, but that doesn't prove indoctrination. It proves he didn't see the kid.
The shuttle doors aren't closed until the kid is aboard, this shows they waited until he was aboard. That he wasn't physically helped is not evidence he wasn't seen or noticed.
C) The door was unlocked before he entered and locked behind him or damaged by the blast. Or he has the pass code/key. It does not provide evidence of indoctrination.
D) Kid survives in the vent. Shep and company survive worse close enounters than that. Not proof of indocrination.
E) Awkward dialog? How does this prove indoctrination and not just awkward dialog?
F) There is a Reaper attack going on with a Reaper just outside. The entire chapter of the game feature Reaper growls.... and the Reaper growl scaring the kid away would be proof of indocrination how?

[balance5050]

Who here actually likes the ending's at face value?

[jijeebo]

balance5050 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

It's not like every cycle has an indoctrinated splinter group that thinks they can "control the reapers". OH yeah, every cycle does.

When was it established that people from every cycle tried to control the reapers and became indoctrinated as a result?

The VI on Thessia, this is common knowledge.

Hah oh yeah, just checked the wiki. xP 

...And no need to be sarky... I had genuinely forgotten. >.>

Sorry sorry, It's been hostile in here. I apologize.

Lol no probs... I have a habit of forgetting key plot developments.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

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.

I am guessing you don't actually read his posts. Rocks, glass houses and all that.

[savionen]

You can't really use Occam's Razor on a story. Occam's Razor might tell you what SHOULD happen, but not what is actually going to happen in the story. Occam's Razor would fail to point you in the proper direction of just about every movie or game ever made unless you're going with something incredibly vague.

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

And this only makes sense if TIM has been able to improve reaper tech, which is very impressive indeed. There is another answer: That scene isn't real. Shepard's still unconscious in London, where we see him/her after the high EMS destruction ending.

I'm wondering why TIM wants to control organics in the first place. I thought he wanted to control the reapers and their forces.

It's a good thing we never see TIM's forces made up of human forces.... oh wait.. what?

I wouldn't have used sarcasm but I agree. TIM having those powers eliminates the need to jam their faces with implants that only simulate reaper control.

Right, because an army of organics is how we control the reapers... DERP

That was the plan wasn't it? Why give his soldiers implants? It was a plan doomed to failure, just like it was in the previous cycle. The difference is that this cycle has Shepard.

[CavScout]

DTKT wrote...

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

Nice going.

It works for Birthers and Truthers.

[jijeebo]

balance5050 wrote...

Who here actually likes the ending's at face value?

I don't like them at all, but I accept them... Hopefully after EC I might like them a little.

[balance5050]

CavScout wrote...

savionen wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...
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.

First off, something unexplained is not evidence of Indocrination.

A) You can't prove no one saw the kid. Anderson doesn't, but that doesn't prove indoctrination. It proves he didn't see the kid.
The shuttle doors aren't closed until the kid is aboard, this shows they waited until he was aboard. That he wasn't physically helped is not evidence he wasn't seen or noticed.
C) The door was unlocked before he entered and locked behind him or damaged by the blast. Or he has the pass code/key. It does not provide evidence of indoctrination.
D) Kid survives in the vent. Shep and company survive worse close enounters than that. Not proof of indocrination.
E) Awkward dialog? How does this prove indoctrination and not just awkward dialog?
F) There is a Reaper attack going on with a Reaper just outside. The entire chapter of the game feature Reaper growls.... and the Reaper growl scaring the kid away would be proof of indocrination how?

Congratulations, you've proved that the kid at the beginning could be a real child.

Why does the catalyst look like the kid though?

Modifié par balance5050, 06 mai 2012 - 11:50 .

[CavScout]

savionen wrote...

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.

You're assuming it isn't true.

[savionen]

CavScout wrote...

savionen wrote...

LaZy i IS wrote...
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.

First off, something unexplained is not evidence of Indocrination.

A) You can't prove no one saw the kid. Anderson doesn't, but that doesn't prove indoctrination. It proves he didn't see the kid.
The shuttle doors aren't closed until the kid is aboard, this shows they waited until he was aboard. That he wasn't physically helped is not evidence he wasn't seen or noticed.
C) The door was unlocked before he entered and locked behind him or damaged by the blast. Or he has the pass code/key. It does not provide evidence of indoctrination.
D) Kid survives in the vent. Shep and company survive worse close enounters than that. Not proof of indocrination.
E) Awkward dialog? How does this prove indoctrination and not just awkward dialog?
F) There is a Reaper attack going on with a Reaper just outside. The entire chapter of the game feature Reaper growls.... and the Reaper growl scaring the kid away would be proof of indocrination how?

It's not a Reaper horn. It sounds more like an animal.

It points to the IDEA that the kid doesn't actually exist. If the kid doesn't actually exist, then he's in Shepard's head. So either Shepard is insane, or is indoctrinated. Considering that the God-Kid Catalyst is also the kid at the beginning of the game, it's at least an interesting theory.

Anderson should have been able to see the kid. The people at the shuttle should have assisted the child. It's pretty basic logic, they helped up 2 people, but don't help the kid? There's either something to notice there, or it's bad storytelling.

[CavScout]

LaZy i IS wrote...

savionen wrote...

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.

I thought/think indoctrination is possible, but the only decent evidence I've seen appears to be the pics that balance5050 just posted. I'll have to see them for myself in game to be sure, but I've seen no other good evidence.

You have to be caustious since IT folks haven't been above altering videos/pics to show the "evidence". One of the more popular ones has had colors changed, brightness/saturation changed and mixed in sound effects (like whispers) that aren't there in the actual game.

[balance5050]

jijeebo wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Who here actually likes the ending's at face value?

I don't like them at all, but I accept them... Hopefully after EC I might like them a little.

At least you seem to allow for speculation. My point is that you can't like the endings and not like speculation. Speculation was the ultimate goal of the endings.... if you aren't speculating then you are doing it wrong.

[CavScout]

balance5050 wrote...

DTKT wrote...

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

Nice going.

I love how you never actually talk about the game at all....

Let's start at the beginning, why is Shepard alive when the kid implies that he will die, AND how did he live through an explosion several km wide?

 

False dilemma.

You're implying unless something is explained then it is proof of indocrination.

Unexplained simply means unexplained.

[savionen]

CavScout wrote...

savionen wrote...

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.

You're assuming it isn't true.

Why should I assume it is true? What evidence is there to support it? We're talking about basic debate here. The Catalyst should be giving you information on why he is telling the truth, but he gives none. He is also effectively the main antagonist, or represents the main antagonist, so shouldn't Shepard have a bit of doubt considering all the mindgames played by the Reapers on TIM and Saren?

[balance5050]

How does Shepard live through the destroy ending... anyone?