55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Priss Blackburne]

Well in the comic anyone killed by them or even just badly injured by them is transformed into one of them. They seem to be able to infect other things.

[BatmanTurian]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Well in the comic anyone killed by them or even just badly injured by them is transformed into one of them. They seem to be able to infect other things.

Soooooo.... they're walking Dragon's Teeth.


Greeeeeeat.....

[Legion of 1337]

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

[HellishFiend]

byne wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

*snip conversation irrelevant to my question*

So, Hellish, I saw this channel on youtube.

Did you make that or does someone else like synthesis husk as much as you do?

Nah, wish I could take credit for it, but that's not me. 

[Dendio1]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Well in the comic anyone killed by them or even just badly injured by them is transformed into one of them. They seem to be able to infect other things.

Soooooo.... they're walking Dragon's Teeth.


Greeeeeeat.....

Organics...so malleable...so delicious

[byne]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

I forgive your rushed assumptions, since you're actually willing to admit they were indeed rushed assumptions, which is a rare and admirable trait in literalists.

[Simon_Says]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Well in the comic anyone killed by them or even just badly injured by them is transformed into one of them. They seem to be able to infect other things.

Sometimes I wish an actual zombie outbreak would happen so that the zombie trope in fiction would become tasteless and die out instantly. I have enough of zombies. I'm at maximum zombie capacity.

[HellishFiend]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

By your logic, the hallucinations that schizophrenics see are real too, then. 

Even when the developer says that it's up for interpretation, people still think that everything they see in the game has to be taken at face value. Personally I feel that the fact that they say it's up for interpretation at all should be a massive clue to people, but that's just me. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:01 .

[byne]

Simon_Says wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Well in the comic anyone killed by them or even just badly injured by them is transformed into one of them. They seem to be able to infect other things.

Sometimes I wish an actual zombie outbreak would happen so that the zombie trope in fiction would become tasteless and die out instantly. I have enough of zombies. I'm at maximum zombie capacity.

I love zombies though. It will be a sad day when people stop making zombie related stuff.

I think I've read World War Z like 5 times now.

[BatmanTurian]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

I'm going to try and assume you are trying to be constructive. I'll say this: to understand the IT interpretation, you have to keep an open mind and assume not everything is, at face value, what it seems. This is a common thing done in movies, like Vanilla Sky and The Matrix. Mass Effect is a cinematic game inspired by science fiction shows and movies. Indoctrination itself is one of the key pillars of the series, the most insidious and indefensible weapon in the Reaper arsenal. It goes against the ME universe's own internal logic that the Reapers would not try to use this weapon on their greatest organic threat ever born.

After all, Harbinger makes it perfectly clear in ME2 that he wants Shepard's mind.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:08 .

[Priss Blackburne]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

I appreciate you coming back and posting this. I respect your interpretation of the ending I even shared it before. I personaly believe in the IT ending. I have no delusions that it is fact or anything. I'm fully prepared to accept this. But until it is specificly ruled out by Bioware I'm going to continue having fun discussing the possibilities, as you no doubt will have fun with the current endings. As long as we both respect and aknowledge each others views it's all good to me

[Auralius Carolus]

byne wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Well in the comic anyone killed by them or even just badly injured by them is transformed into one of them. They seem to be able to infect other things.

Sometimes I wish an actual zombie outbreak would happen so that the zombie trope in fiction would become tasteless and die out instantly. I have enough of zombies. I'm at maximum zombie capacity.

I love zombies though. It will be a sad day when people stop making zombie related stuff.

I think I've read World War Z like 5 times now.

Yeah, I don't care for most of it. Right now Zombies are taking the shooting industry by storm... targets, ammo, guns... even green colored tubs from first aid!

But in ME1, for some reason, Husks never really struck me as Space Zombies. ME2 was when that kicked in.

But as far as I'm concerned, 95% of all things touched by comics turns to pewp!

[niravital]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

apology accepted.

I think that there are some pretty good evidence - but it depends on your personal interpretaion of some things.
Take the child in the opening sequence, I believe that he isn't real, for several reasons. If this is true then it is a major evidence that IT is correct. But again, I can't say that it is evidence because I can't be sure in 100% percent that I'm right.

The other major evidence imo is the dream sequences - the description of oily shadows and whispers, the Reaper sounds when you stand near the child, the amount of shadows as you progress in the game.

There is the oily shadows in the final TIM and Anderson sequence as well, which has many other clues.

But part of the beauty of it is that we have to pay attention to details, there isn't one thing that screams "a-ha! indoctrination!"
It makes the whole process of looking into stuff far more interesting to see if it fits or not.

[Legion of 1337]

HellishFiend wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

By your logic, the hallucinations that schizophrenics see are real too, then. 

Even when the developer says that it's up for interpretation, people still think that everything they see in the game has to be taken at face value. Personally I feel that the fact that they say it's up for interpretation at all should be a massive clue to people, but that's just me. 

I'm just thinking about it like a judge in a court. Everyone's sitting around arguing that their particular version of events is right because Bioware, for whatever reason, has left a bazillion plot holes unexplained.

So, I look at the alternate theories, of which IT is the largest, and go "OK, there's evidence here, but it's not hard evidence. The game does not explicitly prove it. And it doesn't explicitly prove any other theory either. The only ending analysis with hard evidence (that evidece being the ending itself) behind it is the one that requires the least thought: what we see is what happened." When challenging what we assume to be fact (the ending being literal, in this case), the burden of proof is on those presenting the alternative. Unless Bioware explains things further, everythign else relies too much on speculation. 

Thus, I choose take the ending literally because otherwise I must make assumptions that may or may not be true.

You are free to interperet the evidence as you want. This is mine.

Modifié par Legion of 1337, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:11 .

[ThisOneIsPunny]

Well, now I feel like the only batarian.

[byne]

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

Well, now I feel like the only batarian.

Holy crap, for some reason I've only now noticed your picture has two batarians in it.

[BatmanTurian]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Legion of 1337 wrote...

You know what I'm going to apologize. I read up everything I could about this; took quite a few hours actually, lot of info.

IT is not completely baseless as I dismissed it - I should have read up everything on it first. It's a clever theory, thought up by some clever people. You are certainly all entitled to your opinion.

Unfortunately for me, and many others as well, the fact is that while the "literalist" theory, as you call it (the commonly-held idea that the endings show what actually happened), has actual hard evidence to support it (like, you know, the entire ending and everything shown in it), most of Indoctrination Theory is derived from circumstantial evidence. As clever as it is, there isn't, from my point of view, any hard evidence to make IT more believable than accepting that what we are shown literally happened.

Fascinating idea though. Hope you can forgive my rushed assumptions. Though I looked through the comments and I don't know if this will change your minds about me being a flame-baiter as some have expressed.

By your logic, the hallucinations that schizophrenics see are real too, then. 

Even when the developer says that it's up for interpretation, people still think that everything they see in the game has to be taken at face value. Personally I feel that the fact that they say it's up for interpretation at all should be a massive clue to people, but that's just me. 

I'm just thinking about it like a judge in a court. Everyone's sitting around arguing that their particular version of events is right because Bioware, for whatever reason, has left a bazillion plot holes unexplained.

So, I look at the alternate theories, of which IT is the largest, and go "OK, there's evidence here, but it's not hard evidence. The game does not explicitly prove it. And it doesn't explicitly prove any other theory either. The only ending analysis with hard evidence (that evidece being the ending itself) behind it is the one that requires the least thought: what we see is what happened." When challenging what we assume to be fact (the ending being literal, in this case), the burden of proof is on those presenting the alternative. Unless Bioware explains things further, everythign else relies too much on speculation. 

Thus, I choose take the ending literally because otherwise I must make assumptions that may or may not be true.

You are free to interperet the evidence as you want. This is mine.

In court, circumstantial evidence is enough to convict if there is enough of it.
EDIT: Also, choosing the analysis that requires the least amount of thought is illogical and lazy.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:14 .

[Priss Blackburne]

You know. this is a first for video games is it not? For this type of an ending that sparked this much debate over the choices and implications?

[ThisOneIsPunny]

byne wrote...

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

Well, now I feel like the only batarian.

Holy crap, for some reason I've only now noticed your picture has two batarians in it.

...

Well now I feel like the only batarians?

[byne]

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

byne wrote...

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

Well, now I feel like the only batarian.

Holy crap, for some reason I've only now noticed your picture has two batarians in it.

...

Well now I feel like the only batarians?

So you'll never be alone!

[Auralius Carolus]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

You know. this is a first for video games is it not? For this type of an ending that sparked this much debate over the choices and implications?

Hmm, some others have had it but I don't think to this degree. Most other debate has been political bullcrap: video games causing violence and that sort of trash.

Then again, there's no real way for us to figure our numbers.

[niravital]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

You know. this is a first for video games is it not? For this type of an ending that sparked this much debate over the choices and implications?

This is because Mass Effect ruulllzzzzzz!!!!!

[HellishFiend]

Legion of 1337 wrote...

I'm just thinking about it like a judge in a court. Everyone's sitting around arguing that their particular version of events is right because Bioware, for whatever reason, has left a bazillion plot holes unexplained.

So, I look at the alternate theories, of which IT is the largest, and go "OK, there's evidence here, but it's not hard evidence. The game does not explicitly prove it. And it doesn't explicitly prove any other theory either. The only ending analysis with hard evidence (that evidece being the ending itself) behind it is the one that requires the least thought: what we see is what happened." When challenging what we assume to be fact (the ending being literal, in this case), the burden of proof is on those presenting the alternative. Unless Bioware explains things further, everythign else relies too much on speculation. 

Thus, I choose take the ending literally because otherwise I must make assumptions that may or may not be true.

You are free to interperet the evidence as you want. This is mine.

I'm fine with you having your own interpretation, even if it's literal. But you have to remember that BW specifically stated that the ending is up for interpretation, and even said there are some elements of the ending that are intended to have non-literal interpretations. So you cant say that the events as we see them are "hard evidence", because they arent. That doesnt mean you cant go with a literal interpretation, just that you cant cite "what you see" as hard evidence that your interpretation is correct. 

And I personally feel that the thematic elements presented across the trilogy would qualify as hard evidence long before anything we actually "see" in the ending sequence. Given what we know about indoctrination, and that BW said "we are going to make the players feel what Shepard feels", we have every reason to be questioning and analyzing everything. 

[niravital]

byne wrote...

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

byne wrote...

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

Well, now I feel like the only batarian.

Holy crap, for some reason I've only now noticed your picture has two batarians in it.

...

Well now I feel like the only batarians?

So you'll never be alone!

lol

[HellishFiend]

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

byne wrote...

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

Well, now I feel like the only batarian.

Holy crap, for some reason I've only now noticed your picture has two batarians in it.

...

Well now I feel like the only batarians?

lol, sorry. I've wanted to set a custom portrait for awhile, just never got around to it until today. If it helps, you can still consider me a brotarian, because theyre still some of my favorite classes to play in MP.