Prove i'm wrong and i'll change my mind... How Dominate was shown in ME2 ain't going to do this.
I'm proud of this little biotic theory i've got going here and I ain't letting anyone ruin it without indisputable evidence.
See my foot? I'm putting it down. xD
You have to prove it's biotic power first...Which power was used? Also, the example you got your theory on took days after to be powerful.
He's arguing like an IT disciple. You guys just don't see it.
I give him credit because it's creative and it is indeed possible.
Maybe you should try to be creative. no?
Don't even bother guys, he's trying to show that believing in IT makes you loony, because he can make up an interpretation to an ending of a story and choose to believe in it.
But in all seriousness, it's like in religion. Just because some people choose to shave their heads and drink poison spiked kool-aid, that doesn't mean that all religous people are psychotic whackos, and it doesn't prove that all religion is wrong.
Applied to IT, just because some people choose to "believe" in satirical endings, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are behaving like they are in any regard.
I think the Influence Theory is most likely. It explains some of the odder things, and why Shepard can be controlled by TIM, but the whole thing seems WAY too elaborate to be a simple trick of the Reapers. Plus all the other flaws with the other theories.
What's the influence theory? Do you mean the manipulation theory?
I think the Influence Theory is most likely. It explains some of the odder things, and why Shepard can be controlled by TIM, but the whole thing seems WAY too elaborate to be a simple trick of the Reapers. Plus all the other flaws with the other theories.
What's the influence theory? Do you mean the manipulation theory?
I think the Influence Theory is most likely. It explains some of the odder things, and why Shepard can be controlled by TIM, but the whole thing seems WAY too elaborate to be a simple trick of the Reapers. Plus all the other flaws with the other theories.
What's the influence theory? Do you mean the manipulation theory?
I'm going off the labels in the OP.
Ah, I just call that the "catlayst lied and he isn't who he says he is" theory. But I get it now. NM.
He's arguing like an IT disciple. You guys just don't see it.
I usually don't see eye to eye on your topics & posts, but concede here. Simple and to the point.
Indoctrination Theory only exists because of _________________? "Bad writing & plot holes", or am I missing the point of Mass Effect again ? Like the "us vs them" robots against meatbags theme the space brat proclaims.
KISS (Keep it Simple & Stupid). It's easy with a good narration.
Shepard is a Spectre because "he needs the rank to stop Saren" ME1
Shepard is working for Cerberus because "he needs the resources to stop the Collectors" ME2
Shepard is Indoctrinated because _______________ ? He was indoctrinated when _________________ ?
No developer at EA/Bioware has confirmed IT. No "professional" critic wrote "I get it" followed by an IT explanation. Or even implying it in a review (pre-debacle) . Show me the link were Bioware says Shepard is indoctrinated as explanation for ME3. Indoctrination Theory exist because Bioware didn't so something & still hasn't done. Explain what we saw. We all hope the ExCut does this, but it's not out yet. If it does, great ! But until then it's not real.
I'd like see the OP or this Balance guy show me the smoking gun evidence quote Casey or Mac made confirming indoctrination. What's so hard about that ? Show me the in-game footage of anyone pointing at Shepard and saying "Indoctrinated !!!" Otherwise it's all just "speculation", which was the sick point that Mac Walters implied on this paper.
Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods.
The limbic system is only use to break the will of the person and send them commands...
The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions. .....Take sometime to read and understand.
The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.
Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods.
The limbic system is only use to break the will of the person and send them commands...
The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions. .....Take sometime to read and understand.
The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.
Noticed this?
Right, the whole ending is a hallucination which is why TIM is using never before seen reaper powers.
Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods.
The limbic system is only use to break the will of the person and send them commands...
The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions. .....Take sometime to read and understand.
The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.
Noticed this?
Right, the whole ending is a hallucination which is why TIM is using never before seen reaper powers.
Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods.
The limbic system is only use to break the will of the person and send them commands...
The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions. .....Take sometime to read and understand.
The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.
Noticed this?
Right, the whole ending is a hallucination which is why TIM is using never before seen reaper powers.
It's funny how most people who are against the Indoctrination Theory, have either never seen the videos or evidence that point to IT, or refuse to see them. Or those that have seen them cannot come up with an effective rebut to the argument without their arguments devolving into this:
"It's mad fanboys grasping at straws!"
or
"It's entitled babies wanting a different ending!"
or (my personal "favorite")
"You are an idiot/retard/moron/dullard/etc. You just don't 'get' the ending."
I support the IT, but I also support people that have intelligent, coherent arguments that are for, or against the theory. But remember ladies and gentleman (of BOTH sides) it is still just a theory. Until our proven source comes out with canon or statements that make it true (i.e. the developers) it will remain that way.
It's funny how most people who are against the Indoctrination Theory, have either never seen the videos or evidence that point to IT, or refuse to see them. Or those that have seen them cannot come up with an effective rebut
I'm sure Anti-IT'ers would say that IT supporters can't make an effective rebuttal of the points going against IT.
the IT gets a bad rap because people don't understand it. maybe it's the name that confuses some people.
No, the IT is criticized for being a baseless sh!t theory rooted in deep, DEEP denial and an unwillingness to accept that BioWare f***ed up the endings.
It's funny how most people who are against the Indoctrination Theory, have either never seen the videos or evidence that point to IT, or refuse to see them. Or those that have seen them cannot come up with an effective rebut
I'm sure Anti-IT'ers would say that IT supporters can't make an effective rebuttal of the points going against IT.
Maybe I'm perfectly blind, but I have yet to see effective rebuts to arguments like this:
I can't give good credibility to this statement, but I ask for trust when I say I have NOT found anything comprehensive that counters these arguments accept maybe for this...
If IT will be disproved with EC, but supporters of the IT will still support it, can i call them mad fanboys then?
I don't encourage name-calling or sarcasm on any level. If Bioware does disprove IT (even though they said that Indoctrination was in the works but then was removed, which is why this theory even has any ground to stand on) then I would call it a theory that DID hold water, but, in the end, was ultimately disproven.
If IT will be disproved with EC, but supporters of the IT will still support it, can i call them mad fanboys then?
I don't encourage name-calling or sarcasm on any level. If Bioware does disprove IT (even though they said that Indoctrination was in the works, which is why this theory even has any ground to stand on) then I would call it a theory that DID hold water, but, in the end, was ultimately disproven.
It is a pity that we have a few people like you. I am opposed to IT. But if the EC can prove otherwise. I'll take it.
If IT will be disproved with EC, but supporters of the IT will still support it, can i call them mad fanboys then?
I don't encourage name-calling or sarcasm on any level. If Bioware does disprove IT (even though they said that Indoctrination was in the works, which is why this theory even has any ground to stand on) then I would call it a theory that DID hold water, but, in the end, was ultimately disproven.
It is a pity that we have a few people like you. I am opposed to IT. But if the EC can prove otherwise. I'll take it.
There are more people like me than you think. The common theme here is that we both found the ending to mass effect 3 highly unsatisfactory on one level or another correct?
That said, I think it's important to keep our eyes and mind open, and watch for what little evidence or content on the EC that Bioware releases and go over it with a proverbial fine-tooth comb. Until than, the only thing we have right now is speculation. It's not perfect, it's not great, hell, it even sucks. The sad truth is we will not know what Bioware had in store for us and the ME series as a whole until EC comes out or official sneak peeks, or statements are released.
PLEASE understand though: I use the word "unsatisfactory" with a supreme amount of displeasure and as a severe understatement.
I felt incredibly disappointed, betrayed, and confounded at the ending. In a description that I know others could put more eloquently and in more words then I could, the ending made no sense in a story and narrative sense. For me, it betrayed every ideal that I was fighting for throughout the Mass Effect series.
90% of those who didn't like the ending will say the same thing, but with a lot more rage, spittal, and cheetoh dust. But again, please understand: This dislike of the ending is not based out of fanboysim or blatant zealousy. There is a reason why the ending incites such passionate rage, sadness, disappointment, etc. and I understand why people lose their heads over it and look like idiots while they do.
People lose their heads over the ending because Mass Effect invoked an emotional attachment to the characters and the story as a whole. Moreso then any other game in the medium's history.
It's funny how most people who are against the Indoctrination Theory, have either never seen the videos or evidence that point to IT, or refuse to see them. Or those that have seen them cannot come up with an effective rebut
I'm sure Anti-IT'ers would say that IT supporters can't make an effective rebuttal of the points going against IT.
Maybe I'm perfectly blind, but I have yet to see effective rebuts to arguments like this:
I can't give good credibility to this statement, but I ask for trust when I say I have NOT found anything comprehensive that counters these arguments accept maybe for this...
There is always but though. I don't refute the mountain of evidence that's been dug up on Indoctrination. It's awesome. But, like MrBtongue points out , if it's true, then we got sold an incomplete game and went on a roller coaster ride of emotions at an expense most of us didn't want to endure, let alone want to pay for.
If "IT" is false, then what was all this pile of "indoctrinate" type stuff lying around ? Just part of that "sequence" that was cut ? Lazy editing ? Back to bad writing ?
Indoctrination Theory was a way out (whether is was true or not) before PAX East in April. The silence from Bioware on something so fundamentally simple (apparent by that mountain of IT evidence) is more mind boggling than taking the ending (starbrat) at face value.
As for "NOT found anything comprehensive that counters these arguments" ... it goes either way. There is nothing officially that counters, denies or confirms anything (other than whatever we think we saw). Nobody can produce an official blog post, a video in-game, an interview, even a tweet that says concretely "yes" or "no" to indoctrination.
I need a YES or a NO from Bioware only. Not an interpretive dance on the idea of it (from my head or the community). (ME1) Saren, bad guy , yes or no ? (ME2) Collectors stealing bodies for human reaper construction, yes or no ? (ME3) Is Shepard indoctrinated, yes or no ? If so why wasn't it cut & dry in the game ?
I hate saying this (MrBtongue point on this is so true, only Bioware can make the change), but I could have made it more clear in game implying Shepard was indoctrinated while remaining subtle & artsy.
If Shepard was indoctrinated (before the control & synthesis choices), I would have just given him/her TIM's eyes when it was intended to be taking effect. Boom, done! People been using Gibb's Editor to do it anyway since ME2. It'll be a 2Kb patch, tops !
It's funny how most people who are against the Indoctrination Theory, have either never seen the videos or evidence that point to IT, or refuse to see them. Or those that have seen them cannot come up with an effective rebut
I'm sure Anti-IT'ers would say that IT supporters can't make an effective rebuttal of the points going against IT.
Maybe I'm perfectly blind, but I have yet to see effective rebuts to arguments like this:
I can't give good credibility to this statement, but I ask for trust when I say I have NOT found anything comprehensive that counters these arguments accept maybe for this...
There is always but though. I don't refute the mountain of evidence that's been dug up on Indoctrination. It's awesome. But, like MrBtongue points out , if it's true, then we got sold an incomplete game and went on a roller coaster ride of emotions at an expense most of us didn't want to endure, let alone want to pay for.
If "IT" is false, then what was all this pile of "indoctrinate" type stuff lying around ? Just part of that "sequence" that was cut ? Lazy editing ? Back to bad writing ?
Indoctrination Theory was a way out (whether is was true or not) before PAX East in April. The silence from Bioware on something so fundamentally simple (apparent by that mountain of IT evidence) is more mind boggling than taking the ending (starbrat) at face value.
As for "NOT found anything comprehensive that counters these arguments" ... it goes either way. There is nothing officially that counters, denies or confirms anything (other than whatever we think we saw). Nobody can produce an official blog post, a video in-game, an interview, even a tweet that says concretely "yes" or "no" to indoctrination.
I need a YES or a NO from Bioware only. Not an interpretive dance on the idea of it (from my head or the community). (ME1) Saren, bad guy , yes or no ? (ME2) Collectors stealing bodies for human reaper construction, yes or no ? (ME3) Is Shepard indoctrinated, yes or no ? If so why wasn't it cut & dry in the game ?
I hate saying this (MrBtongue point on this is so true, only Bioware can make the change), but I could have made it more clear in game implying Shepard was indoctrinated while remaining subtle & artsy.
If Shepard was indoctrinated (before the control & synthesis choices), I would have just given him/her TIM's eyes when it was intended to be taking effect. Boom, done! People been using Gibb's Editor to do it anyway since ME2. It'll be a 2Kb patch, tops !
I wholeheartedly agree. And, as already implied in your post, we simply won't know until EC comes out. Instead we are being lead on an emotional, PR rollercoaster that has produced more rage and tears on a video games behalf then I have EVER seen! If there is one thing that people on all sides cannot deny, it is that anyone who has played Mass Effect from it's beginnings from ME1 (hell, I'm even willing to bet people who started the series on ME2 or ME3) have developed an emotional attachment to the characters and the story (myself included). With an ending like this, tears, rage, and disappointment were inevitable. It just baffles me how Bioware DID NOT see this coming.
It's funny how most people who are against the Indoctrination Theory, have either never seen the videos or evidence that point to IT, or refuse to see them. Or those that have seen them cannot come up with an effective rebut
I'm sure Anti-IT'ers would say that IT supporters can't make an effective rebuttal of the points going against IT.
Maybe I'm perfectly blind, but I have yet to see effective rebuts to arguments like this:
I can't give good credibility to this statement, but I ask for trust when I say I have NOT found anything comprehensive that counters these arguments accept maybe for this...
There is always but though. I don't refute the mountain of evidence that's been dug up on Indoctrination. It's awesome. But, like MrBtongue points out , if it's true, then we got sold an incomplete game and went on a roller coaster ride of emotions at an expense most of us didn't want to endure, let alone want to pay for.
If "IT" is false, then what was all this pile of "indoctrinate" type stuff lying around ? Just part of that "sequence" that was cut ? Lazy editing ? Back to bad writing ?
Indoctrination Theory was a way out (whether is was true or not) before PAX East in April. The silence from Bioware on something so fundamentally simple (apparent by that mountain of IT evidence) is more mind boggling than taking the ending (starbrat) at face value.
As for "NOT found anything comprehensive that counters these arguments" ... it goes either way. There is nothing officially that counters, denies or confirms anything (other than whatever we think we saw). Nobody can produce an official blog post, a video in-game, an interview, even a tweet that says concretely "yes" or "no" to indoctrination.
I need a YES or a NO from Bioware only. Not an interpretive dance on the idea of it (from my head or the community). (ME1) Saren, bad guy , yes or no ? (ME2) Collectors stealing bodies for human reaper construction, yes or no ? (ME3) Is Shepard indoctrinated, yes or no ? If so why wasn't it cut & dry in the game ?
I hate saying this (MrBtongue point on this is so true, only Bioware can make the change), but I could have made it more clear in game implying Shepard was indoctrinated while remaining subtle & artsy.
If Shepard was indoctrinated (before the control & synthesis choices), I would have just given him/her TIM's eyes when it was intended to be taking effect. Boom, done! People been using Gibb's Editor to do it anyway since ME2. It'll be a 2Kb patch, tops !
My take on this is that BW cannot confirm IT without clearly showing their next hand, their ongoing plan for ME franchise. The fact that IT might or might not happen is the only branching point that they hold secret so that they can keep us on edge on the continuation of ME canon. They don't want us to guess too easily what would unfold in ME 4 or the second trilogy whenever that comes.
Maybe I'm perfectly blind, but I have yet to see effective rebuts to arguments like this:
I actually posted why this video is completely full of bull**** a few pages back. You might notice it as the longest single post in this entire thread.
Seriously $#!@ this video. It is precisely 8 minutes of plausible evidence, and 74 minutes of completely flawed arguments. There are two points he directly contradicts himself regarding his own evidence, he never fact checks, and if you think it's support for IT then you obviously haven't watched it.
For instance, he spends several minutes debating the length of a common dissolve animation as 'plausible' support for IT.
Oh, he also says he seens no reason why there would be backup control panels on the Citadel to do stuff. Not only does he somehow miss the point of redundant systems, but he's proud of that stupidity.
I'm not joking here. It's one of the worst videos I've seen that attempts to use logical arguments. Mostly because he doesn't. Ever.
He successfully introduces two ideas: 1) Shepard's wound after TIM. 2) The switched Red/Blue choices presented.
That's all. In an hour and a half that %#!#er couldn't present more than two pieces of evidence, much less argue them. I needed to sit down and read some Derrida afterwards because I found the deeply perplexing world of Deconstructionism far more hospitable to logic and rational arguments than that 84 minute long turd.
Seriously, ^%#! that festering pit of illogical nonsense.
@2:30 - Nobody sees the child.
There isn't enough screentime with the child to determine one way or the other, and that's pretty much that. The soldiers would be focused on the Reaper that just appeared to end their lives, and we can't hear if the soldiers are saying anything to the boy.
The next bit Joe brings up about the boy running into a locked door and surviving the Reaper beam. Well, Shepard and Anderson both survived the Alliance conference tower being hit with a Reaper beam. I'm not saying it's probable, but I will say it's possible the boy survived. Also, the door opened for the boy - not something you'd expect to see if he's fake.
@4:00 - Oily Shadows in Dream Sequences
Still doesn't begin to address how the Reapers are Indoctrinating Shepard from so far away. Indoctrination has always been a proximity thing, and Shepard hasn't really been in contact with a Reaper device for more than a handful of days total throughout the three games.
If Shepard isn't in range to be Indoctrinated, then the dreams must be something else. Otherwise you're just taking very common motifs to dream sequences (even BioWare dream sequences from previous games) and applying unsupported meaning.
@5:00 - Slow Motion and Burning in Dreams
Why should Shepard be moving at normal speed? He's obviously bleeding out, might have a broken arm, and is probably burned or bruised over most of his body. If it's supposed to be an allusion to Shepard's dreams, why isn't Shepard's armor complete and custom - like it is in the dream sequences? Why isn't he running at the same speed or in the same way? Why doesn't he choose a different weapon besides a pistol? Why doesn't he see the oily black figures after being hit?
Why would BioWare drop all of the other motifs of the dreams except the slow motion? Does this mean everywhere else in the game where slow motion is used, it's a dream? Like when I was fighting the Reaper on Rannoch - did I just black out and imagine I used the targeting laser?
Something being evidence is predicate upon consistency. The less consistency between two supposedly analogous events, the less you can say they are related. So far, the only thing connecting the dream sequences to post-Harby is the slow motion - which, as already said, is a common effect.
Unless Adrenaline Rush and the Sniper Scope also make you pass out.
As for the kid and Shepard burning? Yeah, that's open to interpretation. I, personally, never saw it as Shepard's subconscious trying to warn him. I always saw it as Shepard's fear that they're all going to perish, and he can't save them. Much like the boy. After all, the kid dies as the shuttle bursts into flames from the Reaper beam.
@5:30 - Why do the options affect the Normandy, when 2/3 don't destroy the ships?
It's not the explosion/energy burst that's destroying the ship, it's Joker going too fast in FTL. Modern... well... anything that has an engine has the same problem. Push it too hard, and it will eventually break down, even if you're using it at the time.
Watch some Top Gear for evidence.
@6:15 - Crew members on the ship that were on the ground.
I was, initially, very angry about this as well. However, it doesn't bother me as much anymore. It's never shown how long Shepard was knocked out after Harbinger's beam, so it could be anywhere from a few seconds to a few hours. In that intervening period, Joker could have picked up your squadmates. There are still big questions with my version as well ("Why abandon Shepard?"), but given the ambiguity with the time frame, I'm finding it slightly less infuriating.
@7:30 - Harbinger leaves, entire team decimated, unlimited ammo, etc.
The radio chatter says Hammer is decimated because 95% of the team was destroyed. Decimation doesn't have to mean total 100% destruction. Why the radio chatter doesn't acknowledge Shepard's existence might be as simple as they're in full-retreat from the area and nobody noticed. This leads into why Harbinger might plausibly leave the battlefield - there's only Shepard and one other guy left moving, and Reaper ground troops are about to flood in. Why would Harbinger stay? If Marauder Shields actually kills Shepard, then Harbinger was perfectly fine in making the move to fly away.
As for unlimited ammo - it's just a game mechanic change. Not even a big one. Just takes the heatsink counter away so Shepard can shoot things. The magical pistol Shepard brings along with unlimited ammo is seen several times in cutscenes throughout all of the ME games. Now we're just controlling Shepard while it's there.
Like the 84 minute long documentary, a big issue with Joe's 'assessment' is it refuses to address counter arguments. It merely presents superficial evidence without backing it up.
@8:30 - How does Hackett contact Shepard?
Angry Joe asks how it happens when Shepard's armor is burnt and mostly gone.
OmniTool / Backup system / uses now-dead Anderson's radio. Katsumi's mission in ME2 does the same thing. No visible comm device, but you can still hear Katsumi's instructions throughout the mission.
@9:00 - How does Anderson beat Shepard when he went in after?
Nothing anywhere says the beam Shepard enters only has one exit. That's the end of that.
@12:30 - How does TIM control Anderson when there's no precedent for direct control of another with Reaper tech?
TIM got upgrades from Lawson, who was once again working with Cerberus as evident in Miranda's ME3 mission. Also possible that the Reapers themselves upgraded TIM, since he's Indoctrinated anyways and appears to have brand new tech installed all over his face.
@13:50 - Nothing the Starchild says makes sense.
Yeah, it doesn't follow logic at all. It's why IT was proposed in the first place.
I don't have a good way to explain this, because nobody does. It's universally crappy all around. There's no winning here folks, because even if IT was happening, that still means Shepard's mind came up with that idiotic explanation for the cycle and just had the Catalyst spout it at him.
@16:00 - Shepard's eyes / Husk looks.
No, Shepard's eyes don't do anything unexpected (reflections in the cornea are a photographic technique for crying out loud), and no - Shepard does not begin to take on a Husk's form if you choose Control/Synthesize. Shepard burns up and disintegrates. What else is Shepard supposed to do after jumping into a giant beam o' light? What was the expectation? What's the control test, or the null hypothesis for this bit?
@17:15 - Shepard only breathes if you choose Destroy.
Can someone explain to me why this disproves the ending-as-presented? You watch Shepard disintegrate in both Control and Synthesis. Shepard is going to come back from that, leaving only the Destroy option with the possibility of survival even if you don't believe in IT. That's a failure of the null hypothesis for this one!
Angry Joe misunderstands the physics of explosions in space? Yup. Angry Joe misunderstands the physics of terminal velocity? Yup. Angry Joe doesn't address the Stargazer or ending card, like every other IT video/argument I've seen? Yup.
Same arguments as above. Probably because it's the original argument. The same flaws above apply here. I'm not going to go through it point by point.
I can't give good credibility to this statement, but I ask for trust when I say I have NOT found anything comprehensive that counters these arguments accept maybe for this...
First, you presented the same arguments three times. The only one which introduced any new concepts not presented in the other two is the 84min long monstrosity that handily murders rational thought and then kicks the corpse into a river for the first hour.
This last video, I agree with most of it. The guy does a much better job of analyzing and critiquing the evidence - which is something the other videos don't really do. Yes, they offer findings as potential evidence, but then they completely miss the opportunity to validate the evidence - either because they can't, or simply don't. They don't debate or argue the merits of their evidence in a logically sound manner. It's the gaming equivalent of a political ad - immediately setup a biased preimse, show a bunch of things that could be used as support for the biased premise, refuse to acknowledge counter arguments or evidence to the contrary, and then by the end hope people believe you.
Retour en haut
