332 réponses à ce sujet

[Agugaboo]

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

The biggest problem with the IT, is that control is a renegade option. That means that being a renegade is not a viable way to fight the reapers. If the IT is true is another unfair treatment of renegade players. Just like the rachni and everything else!
   [/quote]


Destroy was considered the Renegade option.

[/quote]
In the IT is is flipped to confuse Shep. This means the IT supports that aragon Shep wins and renegade Shep loses.
[/quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.

[/quote]
Nope. The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best, and that is why the destroy ending is red to confuse Shep. It's not about what you think. It is about what the IT theory says. And it says the renegade Sheps can't win.

[/quote]

I would need a link to this official IT theory and where you got this quote from

[quote]The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best[/quote]


Can't say I care  either way, but I will have an argument with whoever made it.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.c...FFhBn2U#t=3684s
Here is a link, it is only  talked about for a few moments

[/quote]

That is merely a documentary.
Ignoring the colors as they don't matter.
What matters is what you do.

[quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.
[/quote][/quote]
Then why did bioware color code the options? 

[/quote]

Probably to weed out weak shepards.
A strong shepard will know what to do and will not be tricked by lies.

[/quote]
So you're saying that Bioware lied to the players? Just to weed out weak Sheps? 

[/quote]

I would not say lied.
Weak shepards chose their own faith, their knowledge was lacking because they did not understand the Indoctrination examples presented to them throughout their journey.


[/quote]
But you did say lies!!!!

[/quote]

That was referring to what the Catalyst said.

[/quote]
Bioware wrote what the Catalyst said thought 

[/quote]

Doesn't mean Bioware was lying.

[/quote]
They were lying via proxy!

[/quote]

Probably, though I can't say I care as my shepards are all strong.

[/quote]
Or you mean that they all took the red option, or the paragon optition under the IT labels 

[/quote]

Some indoctrinated shepard may consider it Renegade, some strong shepard's may consider it Paragon.
It is what it is. a way to say no.
Doesn't matter what color is coming out of it a strong shepard will know what to do after listening to the Catalyst.

[/quote]
I think the red option is a paragon option. They show you Anderson in the destroy option, and he is a paragon. Why reject the reengade/paragon system in the last minute of the game? If it wasn't renegade/paragon they could have used different colors.

[/quote]

I don't usually base my decisions on wherever it is red or blue.
I look at facts and make a judgement.

But sure maybe it was a way to trick people who only choose Paragon into thinking they're doing the right thing despite what the catalyst said.
Another example of this would be a pure paragon shepard who was made in ME2 without doing anything in ME1.
Pure Paragon is punished on the Rachni choice for not making a good judgement.


[/quote]
Renegades and new players get screwed over with the rachni choice, because the Rachni shouldn't have been in ME3 if the they queen was killed. The pure me1 paragon gets extra war assests! 

I have pure paragon sheps, pure renegade sheps, and play throughs with mixed choices. I like having slightly different endings, cut scenes and stories due to my sheps alignment and that was missing. And under the IT only one options matters 

[/quote]

I'm sure after Shepard wakes up you will get more choices.
Kinda like how you could of killed Wrex as renegade in ME1 or could of waited to really renegade him in Mass effect 3.

[/quote]
I thought you can only wake up in the destroy ending, not the control ending?

[/quote]

This pyramid is rediculous, Yes only destroy works. It's not critical to IT wether there is a Par/Ren attribute to the choices.

[KingZayd]

7he Island Head wrote...

I thought you can only wake up in the destroy ending, not the control ending?

No. You wake up from all 3. It's what happens next that is different.

[jijeebo]

ohupthis wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

The biggest problem with those who hate IT; They don't understand IT.

Or want too.

I'm gonna bet, it has more to do with lacking the ability to see beyond the confines, of the itsy-bitsy world they live in.

Ah, the ol' if-they-don't-agree-with-me-it's-because-they-just-don't-understand-like-i-do fallacy.  Tends to go hand-in-hand with religious arguments like these.

Strange how ITers are using the same argument to defend their theory as Bioware is using in defense of their ending.

It's all a giant conspiracy so Bioware can maintain their artistic integrity.

ITers are indoctrinated Bioware agents who are trying to convince us that Bioware is brilliant', rather than the biggest threat to the known galaxy.

While the same could be said for the PRO-enders.

Oh God I know, thankfully i'm neither.

I'm a "Unless EC proves otherwise, I firmly believe that the endings are the result of bad writing." kinda guy.

[7he Island Head]

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

The biggest problem with the IT, is that control is a renegade option. That means that being a renegade is not a viable way to fight the reapers. If the IT is true is another unfair treatment of renegade players. Just like the rachni and everything else!
   [/quote]


Destroy was considered the Renegade option.

[/quote]
In the IT is is flipped to confuse Shep. This means the IT supports that aragon Shep wins and renegade Shep loses.
[/quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.

[/quote]
Nope. The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best, and that is why the destroy ending is red to confuse Shep. It's not about what you think. It is about what the IT theory says. And it says the renegade Sheps can't win.

[/quote]

I would need a link to this official IT theory and where you got this quote from

[quote]The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best[/quote]


Can't say I care  either way, but I will have an argument with whoever made it.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.c...FFhBn2U#t=3684s
Here is a link, it is only  talked about for a few moments

[/quote]

That is merely a documentary.
Ignoring the colors as they don't matter.
What matters is what you do.

[quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.
[/quote][/quote]
Then why did bioware color code the options? 

[/quote]

Probably to weed out weak shepards.
A strong shepard will know what to do and will not be tricked by lies.

[/quote]
So you're saying that Bioware lied to the players? Just to weed out weak Sheps? 

[/quote]

I would not say lied.
Weak shepards chose their own faith, their knowledge was lacking because they did not understand the Indoctrination examples presented to them throughout their journey.


[/quote]
But you did say lies!!!!

[/quote]

That was referring to what the Catalyst said.

[/quote]
Bioware wrote what the Catalyst said thought 

[/quote]

Doesn't mean Bioware was lying.

[/quote]
They were lying via proxy!

[/quote]

Probably, though I can't say I care as my shepards are all strong.

[/quote]
Or you mean that they all took the red option, or the paragon optition under the IT labels 

[/quote]

Some indoctrinated shepard may consider it Renegade, some strong shepard's may consider it Paragon.
It is what it is. a way to say no.
Doesn't matter what color is coming out of it a strong shepard will know what to do after listening to the Catalyst.

[/quote]
I think the red option is a paragon option. They show you Anderson in the destroy option, and he is a paragon. Why reject the reengade/paragon system in the last minute of the game? If it wasn't renegade/paragon they could have used different colors.

[/quote]

I don't usually base my decisions on wherever it is red or blue.
I look at facts and make a judgement.

But sure maybe it was a way to trick people who only choose Paragon into thinking they're doing the right thing despite what the catalyst said.
Another example of this would be a pure paragon shepard who was made in ME2 without doing anything in ME1.
Pure Paragon is punished on the Rachni choice for not making a good judgement.


[/quote]
Renegades and new players get screwed over with the rachni choice, because the Rachni shouldn't have been in ME3 if the they queen was killed. The pure me1 paragon gets extra war assests! 

I have pure paragon sheps, pure renegade sheps, and play throughs with mixed choices. I like having slightly different endings, cut scenes and stories due to my sheps alignment and that was missing. And under the IT only one options matters 

[/quote]

I'm sure after Shepard wakes up you will get more choices.
Kinda like how you could of killed Wrex as renegade in ME1 or could of waited to really renegade him in Mass effect 3.

[/quote]
I thought you can only wake up in the destroy ending, not the control ending?

[/quote]

I was referring to the Destroy ending but I do have some other ideas of shepard waking in the other endings but in different position and possibly a different path, maybe.

[/quote]
As of now he only wakes up in the destroy endings, this makes all the other endings bad, even without the IT

[balance5050]

EDIT THE PYRAMIDS

[Darth_Trethon]

Lizardviking wrote...

Yes. Lets give the players a climactic showdown with TIM and a heartfelt goodbye with Anderson. Only to tell them it was all a dream and give them a climatic showdown with TIM and a heartfelt goodbye with Anderson.

They DID intend to have a final battle with TIM Saren-style after he turned into this really crazy-looking reaper thing so I'm all for that. As for Anderson....why say goodbie if he didn't really die? A handshake and a drink at the bar would do just fine once it's all done.

[elecmanexe001]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

@Iwillbeback and @alecmanexe You need to STOP with the pyramid posts. Learn to cut them down or simply make a no-quote post with the @ remark like I just did.

What? I'm not making a pyramid at all I have one coversation with a few quotes that will be cut before it goes overboard, I know what I am doing, thank you.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Valentia X wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

The biggest problem with those who hate IT; They don't understand IT.

Or want too.

I'm gonna bet, it has more to do with lacking the ability to see beyond the confines, of the itsy-bitsy world they live in.

I should rephrase though, some who hate it. There are others who can disagree without telling someone they are wrong to actually admit, as well I know I do, that it is only a possibility among many and may or may not happen and we are discussing rather how likely it is to happen instead of why it can or can not happen.

I was only referring to those who would eventually take offence to my statement.

I take offence to your statement. Not because you're Pro-IT, but because you seem to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a small-minded idiot. You know nothing of any one person's reasoning to not believe in IT, and your statement is condenscending and as close-minded as the people it purports to illustrate.

Then by all means DEFEND yourself, instead of just blatantly denying IT, could be POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't have to agree with us, just accept the fact this is a possibility, plain AND simple.

Modifié par ohupthis, 12 mai 2012 - 10:48 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Nauks wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

If it were as simple as "it was all a dream" sure, however what happens in the end sequence serves a very deliberate purpose, we're supposed to feel emotional and/or triumphant w/e, it's the whole point.

Execpt by saying that it never happend and was stuff inside his head. All the power of those scenes are gone since what was important in them is nullified. TIM commiting suicide after being shown the errors of his ways and gaining redemption is turned meaningless because it never happend. Anderson's last words about how proud he is of Shepard is in the end completing meaningless because it never happended.

[Nauks]

Kaelef wrote...

It's a religious argument not because it has anything to do with deities or religions, but because it forms around a body of "knowledge" which is neither provable nor disprovable.  Calling something a "religious argument" when it takes on this characteristic is a fairly common thing to do.

And the more you use the term "idiot", the more you start sounding like one.

You mean the anti-IT people are acting like Creationists, while the pro-IT people are pesky Evolution supporters with their silly "proof"? did I get the analogy right?

[Gorkan86]

The worst thing in IT, for me, is the fact that your friends are indoctrinated. At least those of them who had, along with Shepard the most time near the reaper tech.
When you understand this, it is not so much sorry for Shepard, compared with them. They did everything for Shepard. Now Shepard (if he survive) will have to repeat the action of Javik and his indoctrinated friends.

[balance5050]

Nauks wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

It's a religious argument not because it has anything to do with deities or religions, but because it forms around a body of "knowledge" which is neither provable nor disprovable.  Calling something a "religious argument" when it takes on this characteristic is a fairly common thing to do.

And the more you use the term "idiot", the more you start sounding like one.

You mean the anti-IT people are acting like Creationists, while the pro-IT people are pesky Evolution supporters with their silly "proof"? did I get the analogy right?

The E.C. will be the "missing link" in the fossil record 

[7he Island Head]

[quote]Agugaboo wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

The biggest problem with the IT, is that control is a renegade option. That means that being a renegade is not a viable way to fight the reapers. If the IT is true is another unfair treatment of renegade players. Just like the rachni and everything else!
   [/quote]


Destroy was considered the Renegade option.

[/quote]
In the IT is is flipped to confuse Shep. This means the IT supports that aragon Shep wins and renegade Shep loses.
[/quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.

[/quote]
Nope. The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best, and that is why the destroy ending is red to confuse Shep. It's not about what you think. It is about what the IT theory says. And it says the renegade Sheps can't win.

[/quote]

I would need a link to this official IT theory and where you got this quote from

[quote]The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best[/quote]


Can't say I care  either way, but I will have an argument with whoever made it.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.c...FFhBn2U#t=3684s
Here is a link, it is only  talked about for a few moments

[/quote]

That is merely a documentary.
Ignoring the colors as they don't matter.
What matters is what you do.

[quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.
[/quote][/quote]
Then why did bioware color code the options? 

[/quote]

Probably to weed out weak shepards.
A strong shepard will know what to do and will not be tricked by lies.

[/quote]
So you're saying that Bioware lied to the players? Just to weed out weak Sheps? 

[/quote]

I would not say lied.
Weak shepards chose their own faith, their knowledge was lacking because they did not understand the Indoctrination examples presented to them throughout their journey.


[/quote]
But you did say lies!!!!

[/quote]

That was referring to what the Catalyst said.

[/quote]
Bioware wrote what the Catalyst said thought 

[/quote]

Doesn't mean Bioware was lying.

[/quote]
They were lying via proxy!

[/quote]

Probably, though I can't say I care as my shepards are all strong.

[/quote]
Or you mean that they all took the red option, or the paragon optition under the IT labels 

[/quote]

Some indoctrinated shepard may consider it Renegade, some strong shepard's may consider it Paragon.
It is what it is. a way to say no.
Doesn't matter what color is coming out of it a strong shepard will know what to do after listening to the Catalyst.

[/quote]
I think the red option is a paragon option. They show you Anderson in the destroy option, and he is a paragon. Why reject the reengade/paragon system in the last minute of the game? If it wasn't renegade/paragon they could have used different colors.

[/quote]

I don't usually base my decisions on wherever it is red or blue.
I look at facts and make a judgement.

But sure maybe it was a way to trick people who only choose Paragon into thinking they're doing the right thing despite what the catalyst said.
Another example of this would be a pure paragon shepard who was made in ME2 without doing anything in ME1.
Pure Paragon is punished on the Rachni choice for not making a good judgement.


[/quote]
Renegades and new players get screwed over with the rachni choice, because the Rachni shouldn't have been in ME3 if the they queen was killed. The pure me1 paragon gets extra war assests! 

I have pure paragon sheps, pure renegade sheps, and play throughs with mixed choices. I like having slightly different endings, cut scenes and stories due to my sheps alignment and that was missing. And under the IT only one options matters 

[/quote]

I'm sure after Shepard wakes up you will get more choices.
Kinda like how you could of killed Wrex as renegade in ME1 or could of waited to really renegade him in Mass effect 3.

[/quote]
I thought you can only wake up in the destroy ending, not the control ending?

[/quote]

This pyramid is rediculous, Yes only destroy works. It's not critical to IT wether there is a Par/Ren attribute to the choices.

[/quote]
Thanks for clarifying, all that I have read seems to indicate that in the IT the color swaps is reaper trick. This implies that paragon shep is the correct shep. Something that Bioware would never say.

[elecmanexe001]

Gorkan86 wrote...

The worst thing in IT, for me, is the fact that your friends are indoctrinated. At least those of them who had, along with Shepard the most time near the reaper tech.
When you understand this, it is not so much sorry for Shepard, compared with them. They did everything for Shepard. Now Shepard (if he survive) will have to repeat the action of Javik and his indoctrinated friends.

No where in IT does it suggest friends are indoctrinated.... and they spent far less time near Reapers then you did.

[vurtual3]

elecmanexe001 wrote...

vurtual3 wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

vurtual3 wrote...

The biggest problem with IT is that it isn't in ME3. I guess that's a problem to people who really want it to be because they don't like synthesis (which was explained ,for want of a better word ,really poorly imo but also imo was clearly meant to be a good ending). But mostly it's a problem because Shep is not indoctrinated!

Really? Indoctrination has existed in ever game and is most prevalent in ME3. Udina, TIm, Kai Leng, every Cerberus agent, let alone those from previous games. Indoctrination has always been a huge part of ME why would it not be possible for Shepard to have been recieving an attempt to be indoctrinated by the reapers at the end? No matter what you say it is possible and that means IT is plausable.

Reapers think they are **** out of luck.
Reapers have been slowly trying to get to Shepard.
Reapers decide at the end when Shepard is getting close to maybe winning to go all out with indoctrination, the 'fast version'.
You are now resisting this at the end as your whole world is uncertain.

Read up on indoctrination, it is totally plausable to happen this way.

Sorry,didn't mean that there's no indoctrination in ME3,or that it's not important. IT is just about Shep being indoctrinated though,and while I don't think it's impossible at all ,or that IT is dumb or anything like that I just think that the whole game is geared towards synthesis if you play as a Shepard that resolves the geth wars and likes edi . I think whether people like it or not the catalyst /citadel/I don't really know what is representing a higher intelligence that is't understandable by organics and sythnesis is the start of the process of achieving this understanding,not by peace immediately following the choice but much much further down the line.

But synthesis is effectively what Reapers are, if you want to be the Reapers have you really won?

If the only way to end the cycle is to cooperate with the citadel starchild thingy and I presume that nothing in the diversity of the mass effect universe is changed by the dna thingy in synthesis (which I don't remotely understand but hey I'm an organic!) then yeah I can kind of think I've won. Not saying it really felt like it though. And now I think about it the catalyst appearing as the kid from earth doesn't make loads of sense without IT. I really hope ec makes this all clearer.....

[elecmanexe001]

ohupthis wrote...


Then by all means DEFEND yourself, instead of just blatantly denying IT, could be POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't have to agree with us, just accept the fact this is a possibility, plain AND simple.

You are making your self look really bad... just stop.

[Kaelef]

elecmanexe001 wrote...
If IT is correct it is more then "lol that was just a dream" yea, its much more important, and again it seems like not all of IT is understood here.

Saying "it was only a dream" is an exaggeration meant to simplify a point, but I haven't seen or read anything that makes IT fundamentally anything more than that.  The "it was only a dream" trope is exactly the way a lot of people will interpret an IT ending if it does end up being what BW delivers in the EC.  Maybe I'm an "idiot" and "just don't get it" (are you guys intentionally trying to sound like reapers when you say that?) - but I'd love it if you pointed me at something that shows how IT ends up being anything more creative than that.

[EsterCloat]

Nauks wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

It's a religious argument not because it has anything to do with deities or religions, but because it forms around a body of "knowledge" which is neither provable nor disprovable.  Calling something a "religious argument" when it takes on this characteristic is a fairly common thing to do.

And the more you use the term "idiot", the more you start sounding like one.

You mean the anti-IT people are acting like Creationists, while the pro-IT people are pesky Evolution supporters with their silly "proof"? did I get the analogy right?

If evolution had the same quality "proof" as IT we'd all think the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

[Nauks]

Lizardviking wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

If it were as simple as "it was all a dream" sure, however what happens in the end sequence serves a very deliberate purpose, we're supposed to feel emotional and/or triumphant w/e, it's the whole point.

Execpt by saying that it never happend and was stuff inside his head. All the power of those scenes are gone since what was important in them is nullified. TIM commiting suicide after being shown the errors of his ways and gaining redemption is turned meaningless because it never happend. Anderson's last words about how proud he is of Shepard is in the end completing meaningless because it never happended.

So what? it felt real enough to Shepard (and us) when it happened.
I'd rather learn that I hallucinated that, than learn that I actually experienced Space magic.

[Darth_Trethon]

Gorkan86 wrote...

The worst thing in IT, for me, is the fact that your friends are indoctrinated. At least those of them who had, along with Shepard the most time near the reaper tech.
When you understand this, it is not so much sorry for Shepard, compared with them. They did everything for Shepard. Now Shepard (if he survive) will have to repeat the action of Javik and his indoctrinated friends.

While there's plenty to suggest Shepard is being affected by indoctrination attempts there is nothing to suggest the the squad would be undergoing indoctrination....except may for Vega who hears strange hums on the Normandy but nobody likes him anyway so whatever. The others should be clean.

[7he Island Head]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Gorkan86 wrote...

The worst thing in IT, for me, is the fact that your friends are indoctrinated. At least those of them who had, along with Shepard the most time near the reaper tech.
When you understand this, it is not so much sorry for Shepard, compared with them. They did everything for Shepard. Now Shepard (if he survive) will have to repeat the action of Javik and his indoctrinated friends.

While there's plenty to suggest Shepard is being affected by indoctrination attempts there is nothing to suggest the the squad would be undergoing indoctrination....except may for Vega who hears strange hums on the Normandy but nobody likes him anyway so whatever. The others should be clean.

maybe Javik, he was in a coma for like 50,000 years. Maybe the reapers messed with his brain...

[Raiil]

ohupthis wrote...


Then by all means DEFEND yourself, instead of just blatantly denying IT, could be POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/facepalm


I have said numerous times, in numerous threads, in conversations with you and other ITers, that while I find IT to be an interesting theory, it hasn't been able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any of it tenants, aside from the fact that Indoctrination exists in game. The proof of burden lies on those who propose the hypothesis, not those who have to be convinced.

And my main issue isn't that you believe in IT, but that you consistently, throughout several threads and many posts, call anyone who doesn't believe in IT derogatory names and are constantly using snide, rude, and borderline abusive language towards them. I don't care whether you believe in IT or not, that's not something that bothers me. Your attitude towards anyone who doesn't- which includes me- does.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Nauks wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

If it were as simple as "it was all a dream" sure, however what happens in the end sequence serves a very deliberate purpose, we're supposed to feel emotional and/or triumphant w/e, it's the whole point.

Execpt by saying that it never happend and was stuff inside his head. All the power of those scenes are gone since what was important in them is nullified. TIM commiting suicide after being shown the errors of his ways and gaining redemption is turned meaningless because it never happend. Anderson's last words about how proud he is of Shepard is in the end completing meaningless because it never happended.

So what? it felt real enough to Shepard (and us) when it happened.
I'd rather learn that I hallucinated that, than learn that I actually experienced Space magic.

But then we will find out it was just a dream, making us go "Well that was pretty pointless".

[Nauks]

balance5050 wrote...

Nauks wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

It's a religious argument not because it has anything to do with deities or religions, but because it forms around a body of "knowledge" which is neither provable nor disprovable.  Calling something a "religious argument" when it takes on this characteristic is a fairly common thing to do.

And the more you use the term "idiot", the more you start sounding like one.

You mean the anti-IT people are acting like Creationists, while the pro-IT people are pesky Evolution supporters with their silly "proof"? did I get the analogy right?

The E.C. will be the "missing link" in the fossil record 

*hands Balance a cookie*

[elecmanexe001]

vurtual3 wrote...

If the only way to end the cycle is to cooperate with the citadel starchild thingy and I presume that nothing in the diversity of the mass effect universe is changed by the dna thingy in synthesis (which I don't remotely understand but hey I'm an organic!) then yeah I can kind of think I've won. Not saying it really felt like it though. And now I think about it the catalyst appearing as the kid from earth doesn't make loads of sense without IT. I really hope ec makes this all clearer.....

Problems with Synthesis though is that throughout the game there have been mentions that diversity makes our cycle unique and stronger, synthesis takes that away. We have also prooven that the Geth can  be allies not enemies, why do we need to change our and their DNA to the same thing to make us allies when we already are?

With the destroy option, Shepard should die because of implants right? The Geth and tons of other people. Yet Shepard lives giving us hope that others have as well, that perhaps the catalyst was wrong about that choice and it goes a good ways to helping the idea of IT.