319 réponses à ce sujet

[jules_vern18]

BatmanTurian wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sorry man, the Cult of Indoctrination Theory believes that the entire world is separated into two groups:  those who accept the divine truth of IT and those who love the current endings. 

Those of us who think both the endings and IT are garbage do not factor into their thinking.

They don't, but not for any malicious reason: people who don't like either one are "lost', for lack of a better word, and really don't need to be integrated into a conversation about the positive qualities of the conclusion. They only interject their way into the conversation when they start associating a valid and founded interpretation of a piece of fiction with cultism, terrorist-attack theories, and claiming that the President is the antichrist.  And when the argument is consistently just "bad writing", "bad writers", "hate the fanbase" about folks who built the intricate and appreciated world that the game takes place in, then yeah, it's kinda easy to dismiss the hyperbole. 

And this is exactly the kind of arrogant garbage I've been talking about. 

How does believing that the most logical solution is that the endings were bad writing make me "lost," exactly?

There's sincerely no arrogance there.

Because you no longer care about the narrative.  You've dismissed it as "bad writing".  Every single point that you'll offer into the argument will hinge on the fact that you simply see it as a poor piece of writing, not an intentional device.  There's no actual dialogue there.  Your point and opinion is valid, but it's no longer pertinent to that particular conversation.

The entire argument about IT boils down to whether or not it was an intentional device.

It depends on how you approach IT:  If it's just headcannon that you use to replace the current endings, then the whole thing makes perfect sense.

If you believe that Bioware had this planned all along and sold us an incomplete game, and that all discussions taking the ending at face-value are therefore irrelevant, then that's where I find disagreement.

Such is your right, but not all of us believe the second issue and I think it's a mistake for you to generalize. For example, I'm open to I.T. as an interpretation. I'm not ready to accept it as fact until the EC comes out and proves it. I think that's a sane, moderate position to take

And I think that you are probably a person that I would have enjoyed debating IT with civilly and logically before I became soured on the whole issue.

But yes, I see your point.  Responding to the overwhelming condescension that I see from *most* ITers with more condescension on my part is counterproductive.

[sorentoft]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...
It is false by the fact it has no been proven. Something is either true or false.

Google "trinary logic".

Utterly irrelevant.

No, not at all.

Unproven things are not false.  They are unknown.

Which would be not true, or false.

he does have a point, unknown does factor into the equation when there's an unknown factor in a true or false statement.

case in point, the unknown factor in this case being the "extended ending" adding an unknown variable to the equation.

with this in mind, by definition the IT can't be proven as true or false until all variables are accounted for.

We could draw quantum physics into it as well. Now it can be both true and false, and neither. At the same time.

easy:

some points made by the IT are true, some are false, some are unknown due to too many  variables.
therefore the IT can indeed be all 3 things. 

Not that easy. These values are absolutes. It is completely true, it is also completely false and neither of that. At the same time.

[BatmanTurian]

dreamgazer wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Such is your right, but not all of us believe the second issue and I think it's a mistake for you to generalize. For example, I'm open to I.T. as an interpretation. I'm not ready to accept it as fact until the EC comes out and proves it. I think that's a sane, moderate position to take

I'm in the exact same boat, with the correct word bolded as to why.

I really, really wish there were more of us on this board who could accept it as an interpretation rather than descending into polarizing viewpoints. Sometimes it feels as if we are arguing left versus right on this board, except the political is exchanged for the interpretive. Then again, political views are interpretations of reality but that's a whole separate discussion...

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Sorry man, the Cult of Indoctrination Theory believes that the entire world is separated into two groups:  those who accept the divine truth of IT and those who love the current endings. 

Those of us who think both the endings and IT are garbage do not factor into their thinking.

They don't, but not for any malicious reason: people who don't like either one are "lost', for lack of a better word, and really don't need to be integrated into a conversation about the positive qualities of the conclusion. They only interject their way into the conversation when they start associating a valid and founded interpretation of a piece of fiction with cultism, terrorist-attack theories, and claiming that the President is the antichrist.  And when the argument is consistently just "bad writing", "bad writers", "hate the fanbase" about folks who built the intricate and appreciated world that the game takes place in, then yeah, it's kinda easy to dismiss the hyperbole. 

And this is exactly the kind of arrogant garbage I've been talking about. 

How does believing that the most logical solution is that the endings were bad writing make me "lost," exactly?

There's sincerely no arrogance there.

Because you no longer care about the narrative.  You've dismissed it as "bad writing".  Every single point that you'll offer into the argument will hinge on the fact that you simply see it as a poor piece of writing, not an intentional device.  There's no actual dialogue there.  Your point and opinion is valid, but it's no longer pertinent to that particular conversation.

The entire argument about IT boils down to whether or not it was an intentional device.

It depends on how you approach IT:  If it's just headcannon that you use to replace the current endings, then the whole thing makes perfect sense.

If you believe that Bioware had this planned all along and sold us an incomplete game, and that all discussions taking the ending at face-value are therefore irrelevant, then that's where I find disagreement.

Such is your right, but not all of us believe the second issue and I think it's a mistake for you to generalize. For example, I'm open to I.T. as an interpretation. I'm not ready to accept it as fact until the EC comes out and proves it. I think that's a sane, moderate position to take

And I think that you are probably a person that I would have enjoyed debating IT with civilly and logically before I became soured on the whole issue.

But yes, I see your point.  Responding to the overwhelming condescension that I see from *most* ITers with more condescension on my part is counterproductive.

I'm glad you feel that way. I'm not going to try to convince you one way or the other, myself. If we disagree, we disagree. The whole point we're all missing is that we will argue in circles until the EC so technically any debate is kind of pointless. We can discuss it, but it's all still up in the air. It's unfortunate that it's come to this.

[nightcobra]

sorentoft wrote...

Not that easy. These values are absolutes. It is completely true, it is also completely false and neither of that. At the same time.

also easy if you take into account the many-worlds interpretation by Hugh Everett where the IT can be true in one world, false in another, and unknown in another world yet all existing at the same time.  

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 13 mai 2012 - 08:31 .

[hoodaticus]

sorentoft wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

sorentoft wrote...
It is false by the fact it has no been proven. Something is either true or false.

Google "trinary logic".

Utterly irrelevant.

No, not at all.

Unproven things are not false.  They are unknown.

Which would be not true, or false.

he does have a point, unknown does factor into the equation when there's an unknown factor in a true or false statement.

case in point, the unknown factor in this case being the "extended ending" adding an unknown variable to the equation.

with this in mind, by definition the IT can't be proven as true or false until all variables are accounted for.

We could draw quantum physics into it as well. Now it can be both true and false, and neither. At the same time.

easy:

some points made by the IT are true, some are false, some are unknown due to too many  variables.
therefore the IT can indeed be all 3 things. 

Not that easy. These values are absolutes. It is completely true, it is also completely false and neither of that. At the same time.

It's Schrodinger's Ending.  Quick - someone go to tvtropes.com.

[dreamgazer]

dreamgazer wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Such is your right, but not all of us believe the second issue and I think it's a mistake for you to generalize. For example, I'm open to I.T. as an interpretation. I'm not ready to accept it as fact until the EC comes out and proves it. I think that's a sane, moderate position to take 

I'm in the exact same boat, with the correct word bolded as to why.

An elaboration:

I''ve approached it the way I do a lot of interpretive cinema and other artforms: looking at it through different lenses and angles, and actively engaging what I'm seeing.  And I really like, and appreciate, the angle I've seen the game at with indoctrination in mind, because it ties HEAVILY to the themes spread across the entire trilogy and because there are more than a handful of easy-to-digest clues that suggest it as a possibility they intended with a bigger audience in mind.  No, I didn't pick up on full-blown indoctrination at first, but I did pick up on the fact that there's something else to interpret among what we're seeing. 

Upon my first play-through, starting with the vanishing boy in the vent at the beginning, my "intentionally surreal" radar was going off---while my "this is bad" radar remained relatively quiet (until the very final images). The dreams added onto that, married with their symbolism, and they followed into a conclusion that's a melting pot of science-fiction elements that further suggest that what we're seeing is not to be taken at face-value. 

All I needed to read was the word "indoctrination" and a few shoulder-nudges in the original IT thread to lend some credence behind why I felt that way.  Top that off with how frequently indoctrination is mentioned in the narrative (which is REALLY noticeable upon repeat play-throughs), and you've got where I'm at now: seeing it as a very mysterious and gripping answer, wrapped in an interpretation, to what set me off from the beginning.  Given BioWare's track record with surreal components in their stories, on top of the way that elements in the game can easily connect with symptoms of indoctrination, it's not an unfounded or off-base movement in logic, either.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 13 mai 2012 - 08:38 .

[BatmanTurian]

dreamgazer wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Such is your right, but not all of us believe the second issue and I think it's a mistake for you to generalize. For example, I'm open to I.T. as an interpretation. I'm not ready to accept it as fact until the EC comes out and proves it. I think that's a sane, moderate position to take 

I'm in the exact same boat, with the correct word bolded as to why.

An elaboration:

I''ve approached it the way I do a lot of interpretive cinema and other artforms: looking at it through different lenses and angles, and actively engaging what I'm seeing.  And I really like, and appreciate, the angle I've seen the game at with indoctrination in mind, because it ties HEAVILY to the themes spread across the entire trilogy and because there are more than a handful of easy-to-digest clues that suggest it as a possibility they intended with a bigger audience in mind.  No, I didn't pick up on full-blown indoctrination at first, but I did pick up on the fact that there's something else to interpret among what we're seeing. 

Upon my first play-through, starting with the vanishing boy in the vent at the beginning, my "intentionally surreal" radar was going off---while my "this is bad" radar remained relatively quiet (until the very final images). The dreams added onto that, married with their symbolism, and they followed into a conclusion that's a melting pot of science-fiction elements that further suggest that what we're seeing is not to be taken at face-value. 

All I needed to read was the word "indoctrination" and a few shoulder-nudges in the original IT thread to lend some credence behind why I felt that way.  Top that off with how frequently indoctrination is mentioned in the narrative (which is REALLY noticeable upon repeat play-throughs), and you've got where I'm at now: seeing it as a very mysterious and gripping answer, wrapped in an interpretation, to what set me off from the beginning.  Given BioWare's track record with surreal components in their stories, on top of the way that elements in the game can easily connect with symptoms of indoctrination, it's not an unfounded or off-base movement in logic, either.

I concur with your every word. This was my thought process as well.

[NUM13ER]

Whilst I don't believe the IT was the intent all along, it did provide a means of BioWare fixing the ending. Not only that they could have even pretended it was the intention all along and just rolled with it. If they have a better solution, then by all means use it for the EC. Though given that BioWare's reaction to criticism over the ending seems to have devolved into a defensive "we didn't botch the ending, you just didn't get it" stance...I doubtful. I mean was the Ctrl Alt Del ending really worth becoming the hill they die on?

Modifié par NUM13ER, 13 mai 2012 - 08:49 .

[Aethgeir]

I couldn't agree more. I think it offers BioWare a pretty decent out and I'm okay with the idea it would be an interesting twist ending but I'm just getting so f***ing tired of hearing people go on about it.
Indoctrinationists are like obnoxious religious fanatics, there is no discussion with them, no rational exchange of ideas, just 'our way or the highway'. They’re going to be pretty disappointed if BioWare doesn't confirm it and they’re going to be even more insufferable if they do.

[Aethgeir]

Also, if people can't tell the difference between a key element of the plot and 'bad writing'... IT'S BAD WRITING!

[Ketten]

I don't particularly have a problem with IT. But I'd rather believe that the ending was just a fustercluck of written goop than believe that BioWare purposefully gave us a game without an ending.

[hoodaticus]

jules_vern18 wrote...
But yes, I see your point.  Responding to the overwhelming condescension that I see from *most* ITers with more condescension on my part is counterproductive.

Because we're so much better at it than you.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 13 mai 2012 - 09:14 .

[hoodaticus]

dreamgazer wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Such is your right, but not all of us believe the second issue and I think it's a mistake for you to generalize. For example, I'm open to I.T. as an interpretation. I'm not ready to accept it as fact until the EC comes out and proves it. I think that's a sane, moderate position to take 

I'm in the exact same boat, with the correct word bolded as to why.

An elaboration:

I''ve approached it the way I do a lot of interpretive cinema and other artforms: looking at it through different lenses and angles, and actively engaging what I'm seeing.  And I really like, and appreciate, the angle I've seen the game at with indoctrination in mind, because it ties HEAVILY to the themes spread across the entire trilogy and because there are more than a handful of easy-to-digest clues that suggest it as a possibility they intended with a bigger audience in mind.  No, I didn't pick up on full-blown indoctrination at first, but I did pick up on the fact that there's something else to interpret among what we're seeing. 

Upon my first play-through, starting with the vanishing boy in the vent at the beginning, my "intentionally surreal" radar was going off---while my "this is bad" radar remained relatively quiet (until the very final images). The dreams added onto that, married with their symbolism, and they followed into a conclusion that's a melting pot of science-fiction elements that further suggest that what we're seeing is not to be taken at face-value. 

All I needed to read was the word "indoctrination" and a few shoulder-nudges in the original IT thread to lend some credence behind why I felt that way.  Top that off with how frequently indoctrination is mentioned in the narrative (which is REALLY noticeable upon repeat play-throughs), and you've got where I'm at now: seeing it as a very mysterious and gripping answer, wrapped in an interpretation, to what set me off from the beginning.  Given BioWare's track record with surreal components in their stories, on top of the way that elements in the game can easily connect with symptoms of indoctrination, it's not an unfounded or off-base movement in logic, either.

Very well said; this is exactly true of me as well.

Quite frankly, IT is worthy of Bioware; the per se interpretation of the ending is not.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 13 mai 2012 - 09:15 .

[BatmanTurian]

Aethgeir wrote...

I couldn't agree more. I think it offers BioWare a pretty decent out and I'm okay with the idea it would be an interesting twist ending but I'm just getting so f***ing tired of hearing people go on about it.
Indoctrinationists are like obnoxious religious fanatics, there is no discussion with them, no rational exchange of ideas, just 'our way or the highway'. They’re going to be pretty disappointed if BioWare doesn't confirm it and they’re going to be even more insufferable if they do.

First of all, you can't compare a literary interpretation to religion. We are not studying ME like the Bible and modeling our life after Shepard Christ, or asking St. Garrus and Tali Magdalene to intercede for us with God on our behalf, nor do we use ME to apply to our daily life the values therein. I've already stated this before in this thread, even though maybe you haven't read it by now. The point is that it is a fallacy and Ad Hominem.

Secondly, not all of us are " fanatics " and painting a brush over those who find it an interesting interpretation is wrong. Thirdly, there is no reason to be condescending or belligerent. Perhaps you have had bad experiences with some, but a lot of us try to be as civil as we can. All I ask is the same civility I am displaying here.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 13 mai 2012 - 09:19 .

[Gammazero79]

Anyone else sick of IT?

Nope

[Xavendithas]

Ketten wrote...

I don't particularly have a problem with IT. But I'd rather believe that the ending was just a fustercluck of written goop than believe that BioWare purposefully gave us a game without an ending.

My initial feelings were somewhere along this line. The more I have thought about it in the last month or so, the more I have started to suspect that BioWare just misjudged the fanbases reaction to the ending. I think we were supposed to walk away from it satisfied but curious about some of the details of the endings, hoping we would discuss it amongst our friends. The ending of Inception comes to mind.

My opinion is that they didn't intend the ending's to come across as incomplete. I think they always had a 4th game in mind(including bunches of DLC leading up to an announcement for a 4th installment) but didn't properly guage the fans reaction to the endings if taken at face value.

If that makes any sense.

Modifié par Xavendithas, 13 mai 2012 - 09:30 .

[BatmanTurian]

Xavendithas wrote...

Ketten wrote...

I don't particularly have a problem with IT. But I'd rather believe that the ending was just a fustercluck of written goop than believe that BioWare purposefully gave us a game without an ending.

My initial feelings were somewhere along this line. The more I have thought about it in the last month or so, the more I have started to suspect that BioWare just misjudged the fanbases reaction to the ending. I think we were supposed to walk away from it satisfied but curious about some of the details of the endings, hoping we would discuss it amongst our friends. The ending of Inception comes to mind.

My opinion is that they didn't intend the ending's to come across as incomplete. I think they always had a 4th game in mind(including bunches of DLC leading up to an announcement for a 4th installment) but didn't properly guage the fans reaction to the endings if taken at face value.

If that makes any sense.

It makes sense and I can see it as being plausible. I can respect that opinion.

[XxDarkTimexX]

sorentoft wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

Both of those theories has substantial material to support them. Scientific material. Gravity can - by the way - be directly proven by letting an apple slip from your hand. That is a direct proof of gravity. You have no such things with IT. It is make-believe.

that reminds me of an old book i once read where the opponent in a discussion on whether the theory of evolution was true by using the same arguement you did.

"Gravity can be directly proven by letting an apple slip from your hand. That is a direct proof of gravity. You have no such things with evolution. It is make-believe."

Well it is. Does not change that evolution has substantial scientific material that makes it a viable theory. I like the idea of evolution but that's all it is - but at least it takes basis in science compared to a lot of other nonsense.

like u

[warrior256]

I've never had a problem with the IT or most of the people who believe in it. My problem is the people who treat the IT as if it is their religion. There are some people who insult those who refuse to embrace the Indoctrination Theory. I'm not an idiot because i'm a skeptic. All that means is that I have a different way of thinking. I'm sorry, but acting like a religious fanatic isn't going to win me over to your theory.

Modifié par warrior256, 13 mai 2012 - 09:51 .

[BatmanTurian]

warrior256 wrote...

I've never had a problem with the IT or most of the people who believe in it. My problem is the people who treat the IT as if it is their religion. There are some people who insult those who refuse to embrace the Indoctrination Theory. I'm not an idiot because i'm a skeptic. All that means is that I have a different way of thinking. I'm sorry, but acting like a religious fanatic isn't going to win me over to your theory.

Fair enough, but not all of us are like that. I think you have a right to your opinion. You've seen the circumstantial evidence and are not convinced. Why force my opinion down your throat? It's rude.

BUT, sometimes the other side seems to do this. Not all, just some.

[warrior256]

BatmanTurian wrote...

warrior256 wrote...

I've never had a problem with the IT or most of the people who believe in it. My problem is the people who treat the IT as if it is their religion. There are some people who insult those who refuse to embrace the Indoctrination Theory. I'm not an idiot because i'm a skeptic. All that means is that I have a different way of thinking. I'm sorry, but acting like a religious fanatic isn't going to win me over to your theory.

Fair enough, but not all of us are like that. I think you have a right to your opinion. You've seen the circumstantial evidence and are not convinced. Why force my opinion down your throat? It's rude.

BUT, sometimes the other side seems to do this. Not all, just some.

I agree. I'm not going to pretend that the skeptic's are perfect either. I'm well aware that some of us have been just as insulting towards your side as some of your side have been towards us. I realize that most of you guys are normal people who just happen to look at things in a different way. But like all groups, the small minority that takes things too far taints the image of your entire group.  For the record, I actually think the theory is an excellent way to interpret the endings. I just don't happen to buy into it.

[BatmanTurian]

warrior256 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

warrior256 wrote...

I've never had a problem with the IT or most of the people who believe in it. My problem is the people who treat the IT as if it is their religion. There are some people who insult those who refuse to embrace the Indoctrination Theory. I'm not an idiot because i'm a skeptic. All that means is that I have a different way of thinking. I'm sorry, but acting like a religious fanatic isn't going to win me over to your theory.

Fair enough, but not all of us are like that. I think you have a right to your opinion. You've seen the circumstantial evidence and are not convinced. Why force my opinion down your throat? It's rude.

BUT, sometimes the other side seems to do this. Not all, just some.

I agree. I'm not going to pretend that the skeptic's are perfect either. I'm well aware that some of us have been just as insulting towards your side as some of your side have been towards us. I realize that most of you guys are normal people who just happen to look at things in a different way. But like all groups, the small minority that takes things too far taints the image of your entire group.  For the record, I actually think the theory is an excellent way to interpret the endings. I just don't happen to buy into it.

Again, fair enough. I respect your point of view. Part of me doesn't completely buy into it either. I think it is an interesting interpretation though and plausible.

As for the small minority, I can't control them. Personally, I try to talk and deal with people on a case-by-case basis.

[sorentoft]

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

Both of those theories has substantial material to support them. Scientific material. Gravity can - by the way - be directly proven by letting an apple slip from your hand. That is a direct proof of gravity. You have no such things with IT. It is make-believe.

that reminds me of an old book i once read where the opponent in a discussion on whether the theory of evolution was true by using the same arguement you did.

"Gravity can be directly proven by letting an apple slip from your hand. That is a direct proof of gravity. You have no such things with evolution. It is make-believe."

Well it is. Does not change that evolution has substantial scientific material that makes it a viable theory. I like the idea of evolution but that's all it is - but at least it takes basis in science compared to a lot of other nonsense.

like u

Glad you like me.

[PlumPaul93]

Sure, it's particularly annoying considering it has it's own giant thread and is still brought into discussion everywhere here.