Leafs43 wrote...
Indoctrination explains the endings in very simple terms.
The endings at face value require all sorts of crazy explanations.
Like how does Sheperd survive a huge explosion? Indoctrination explains that very easily while at face value you have to use mental gymnastics.
LaZy i IS wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Indoctrination explains the endings in very simple terms.
The endings at face value require all sorts of crazy explanations.
Like how does Sheperd survive a huge explosion? Indoctrination explains that very easily while at face value you have to use mental gymnastics.
You have to explain each anomaly separately, with different evidence, mostly circumstantial, most requiring circular reasoning.
Bad writing implies that they just didn't explain things properly.
Modifié par Leafs43, 07 mai 2012 - 12:13 .
balance5050 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
Who here actually likes the ending's at face value?
Accepting and liking are not both required.
If you accept the end you must accept "LOT'S OF SPECULATIONS FROM EVERYONE!!"
balance5050 wrote...
How does Shepard live through the destroy ending... anyone?
savionen wrote...
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.
Modifié par hammerfan, 07 mai 2012 - 12:13 .
balance5050 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
False dilemma.
You're implying unless something is explained then it is proof of indocrination.
Unexplained simply means unexplained.
Pffffft! You mean you can't explain it with the knowledge you currently possess.... THANK YOU!
CavScout wrote...
It's the same noise we hear in the entire chapter. It's doesn't point to indoctrination at all. It points the sound startled the kid into leaving. That's all.
You have to presume indoctrination from the start of the game to presume it is an indication of indoctrination. It is obvious circular logic.
Anderson would only see the kid if he looked into the vent with Shep. The people at the shuttle didn't have to help the kid, he did just fine on his own. It's almost like your ignore the running battle going on there.
jijeebo wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
How does Shepard live through the destroy ending... anyone?
Plot armor.
+900 Charisma
Save vs Death +infinity
Weight - 40
Not useable by:
Anyone who isn't Commander f***ing Shepard
Leafs43 wrote...
Occam's razor a simple theory is better than a complex one.
So we have
A) Sheperd is indoctrinated and it explains all the anomalies.
orThe endings were a result of bad writing and all the anomalies require various explanations to explain.
Occam's Razor says pick the simple theory. Which is simpler? Pick the theory that explains pretty much everything that happened or believe all evidence is one massive complex coincidence?
*hint* The answer is A.
savionen wrote...
CavScout wrote...
savionen wrote...
@CavScout
How does Shepard survive the Citadel explosion and land back on Earth?
How does his surviving prove indoctrination?
It doesn't, but it lends to the idea that Shepard never left London. Shepard is faceplanted, stands up, goes up to the Crucible, and is faceplanted back in London again?
What else would they be trying to say?
Leafs43 wrote...
LaZy i IS wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Indoctrination explains the endings in very simple terms.
The endings at face value require all sorts of crazy explanations.
Like how does Sheperd survive a huge explosion? Indoctrination explains that very easily while at face value you have to use mental gymnastics.
You have to explain each anomaly separately, with different evidence, mostly circumstantial, most requiring circular reasoning.
Bad writing implies that they just didn't explain things properly.
In IT, each anamoly is explained by the theory. In pretty concise terms as well. When people look at the IT theory and the evidence presented, the ending does in fact make sense and doesn't require huge mental hurdles to overcome.
Without IT, each anomoly is independent and requires independent explanation.
balance5050 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
CavScout wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
LaZy i IS wrote...
RIght... "There is nothing to imply that they are there deliberately to show indoctrination, unless you assume IT true first. "
Better?
And the kid at the railing... you find him in a vent a few metres away about a minute after that moment, why is that strange? If he was somewhere he really doesn't belong, then it might be more convinving.
The trees either imply nothing or indoctrination then.
No, this is a false choice. You are using an either-or fallacy.
What else would they imply? I'm just leaving the only logical possibilities here.
No you're not. You're presupposing indoctrination and then assuming it to be the only likely outcome. You are not employing logic at all.
What else would they imply? Simple question. You can't say something is wrong with out providing alternate explanations.
jijeebo wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
ALL of the anomolies apply to the ending only. Yes they can be explained as "bad writing" but thast doesn't explain why they are so heavily condensed in the ending alone.
Nope, but the part where Casey Hudson and Mac Walters locked themselves away from the rest of the writing team and wrote the ending by themselves certainly makes it a serious possibility.
Modifié par balance5050, 07 mai 2012 - 12:19 .
Valentia X wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
LaZy i IS wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Indoctrination explains the endings in very simple terms.
The endings at face value require all sorts of crazy explanations.
Like how does Sheperd survive a huge explosion? Indoctrination explains that very easily while at face value you have to use mental gymnastics.
You have to explain each anomaly separately, with different evidence, mostly circumstantial, most requiring circular reasoning.
Bad writing implies that they just didn't explain things properly.
In IT, each anamoly is explained by the theory. In pretty concise terms as well. When people look at the IT theory and the evidence presented, the ending does in fact make sense and doesn't require huge mental hurdles to overcome.
Without IT, each anomoly is independent and requires independent explanation.
The evidence has to fit each hypothsis independantly regardless in order to even be regarded as a theory. A theory is composed of multiple hypotheses that have emperical evidence to categorically state their truthfullness, and then when brought together, it can state a theory. Quite a bit of many individual hypotheses of IT is based on loose, circumstantial evidence that has other reasonable explanations, and/or requires you to believe in IT in the first place. The reason why it doesn't hold water for a lot of people isn't because every person who doesn't believe in IT is some sort of loon, pro-ender or just decided to troll ITers for the lulz.
Leafs43 wrote...
LaZy i IS wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Indoctrination explains the endings in very simple terms.
The endings at face value require all sorts of crazy explanations.
Like how does Sheperd survive a huge explosion? Indoctrination explains that very easily while at face value you have to use mental gymnastics.
You have to explain each anomaly separately, with different evidence, mostly circumstantial, most requiring circular reasoning.
Bad writing implies that they just didn't explain things properly.
In IT, each anamoly is explained by the theory. In pretty concise terms as well. When people look at the IT theory and the evidence presented, the ending does in fact make sense and doesn't require huge mental hurdles to overcome.
Without IT, each anomoly is independent and requires independent explanation.
Leafs43 wrote...
LaZy i IS wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Indoctrination explains the endings in very simple terms.
The endings at face value require all sorts of crazy explanations.
Like how does Sheperd survive a huge explosion? Indoctrination explains that very easily while at face value you have to use mental gymnastics.
You have to explain each anomaly separately, with different evidence, mostly circumstantial, most requiring circular reasoning.
Bad writing implies that they just didn't explain things properly.
In IT, each anamoly is explained by the theory. In pretty concise terms as well. When people look at the IT theory and the evidence presented, the ending does in fact make sense and doesn't require huge mental hurdles to overcome.
Without IT, each anomoly is independent and requires independent explanation.
savionen wrote...
CavScout wrote...
savionen wrote...
@CavScout
How does Shepard survive the Citadel explosion and land back on Earth?
How does his surviving prove indoctrination?
It doesn't, but it lends to the idea that Shepard never left London. Shepard is faceplanted, stands up, goes up to the Crucible, and is faceplanted back in London again?
What else would they be trying to say?
savionen wrote...
CavScout wrote...
It's the same noise we hear in the entire chapter. It's doesn't point to indoctrination at all. It points the sound startled the kid into leaving. That's all.
You have to presume indoctrination from the start of the game to presume it is an indication of indoctrination. It is obvious circular logic.
Anderson would only see the kid if he looked into the vent with Shep. The people at the shuttle didn't have to help the kid, he did just fine on his own. It's almost like your ignore the running battle going on there.
I don't remember hearing the sound anywhere else, it's a muffled growl.
I went through ME3 feeling that indoctrination was an open-ended possibility. Considering all through ME2 Harbinger wanted to either control or dissect Shepard.
There is a heated battle, but the kid crawled into the shuttle, he looked to me at least like he could use some assistance, especially since they helped two random adults up that didn't appear to be injured or wounded in any way.
Either way, I agree with the above post that it requires a lot of mental gymnastics to make sense of the end, the dreams, and the kid. That doesn't mean indoctrination is true, but lends to the idea that it is possible. Lots of speculation from everyone!
Leafs43 wrote...
The evidence supports IT, not the other way around.
Just like how fossils support evolution.
EpyonX3 wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
LaZy i IS wrote...
Leafs43 wrote...
Indoctrination explains the endings in very simple terms.
The endings at face value require all sorts of crazy explanations.
Like how does Sheperd survive a huge explosion? Indoctrination explains that very easily while at face value you have to use mental gymnastics.
You have to explain each anomaly separately, with different evidence, mostly circumstantial, most requiring circular reasoning.
Bad writing implies that they just didn't explain things properly.
In IT, each anamoly is explained by the theory. In pretty concise terms as well. When people look at the IT theory and the evidence presented, the ending does in fact make sense and doesn't require huge mental hurdles to overcome.
Without IT, each anomoly is independent and requires independent explanation.
Not all of it does. In fact they open more questions than they're meant to close.
But check this video out.
I tried making it with the least amount of speculation but I have to admit there is some. However, most of the points are provided by the game.
EpyonX3 wrote...
Who says Shepard is in London after picking Destroy?
Leafs43 wrote...
The evidence supports IT, not the other way around.
savionen wrote...
EpyonX3 wrote...
Who says Shepard is in London after picking Destroy?
Because thats very obviously where he is if you look at the background in the video. The only other option is the Citadel, however there's no concrete or rebar on the Citadel that we know of, and the color pallete is the same as London. The Citadel also... explodes.
Retour en haut
