446 réponses à ce sujet

[Gormane01]

IsaacShep wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

LOL, does it matter?  Your statement above was that an indoctrinated person would be incapable of opposing the Reapers.  I disqualified the statement - we have four prime examples of indoctrinated characters who manage to (in some fashion, even if not permanent) consciously oppose the Reapers.

We know for a fact that Shepard has bested all of these people (do Shiala clones count?).  The game makes it a point of telling us, over and over, that Shepard has extrodinary will power.

So even if Shepard managed to become indoctrinated, do you think it would be impossible for him to make the right decision exactly when it mattered in order to defeat the Reapers?

If you don't believe that statement, then it would be possible for the game to continue despite Shepard being indoctrinated, and the Reaper threat could still be ended.

The only decision Saren and TIM managed to do was shooting themselves. Not much

But in both cases were HEAVILY laden with Implants. Whilst Shep does have implants there is no clear indication that they were Reaper based or could be used by them to dominate Shep (to my knowledge anyway) indeed Miranda seemed to actively discredit such an idea.

[ploppy54]

but the IT theory makes the most sense.... you don't know what the catalyst is or what it does... cerberus deleted it on mars.... so the catalyst is anything you want it to be.... your building this thing to save the galaxy but you don't know how to use it...... your choice at the end of the game is the catalyst so indoc theory make the most sense.... the crucible docks with the citadel and activates and DESTORYS the reapers!

[grey_wind]

Pro-enders are really hoping that Shepard completely and utterly destroyed the entire galaxy at large, aren't they?

[jules_vern18]

Gormane01 wrote...

IT theory is a perfectly valid hypothesis. It may or may not be true but it has not been disproven up to this point.

Lastly the final note doesn't really show much, it really just says 'the game is over now buy our DLC' Personally I wouldn't read into it too much, particularly when compared with the 'Ok one more story' bit immediately before it.

In order for a hypothesis to be valid, it has to be falsifiable.  IT theorists haven't yet accepted/put forth any conditions under which their theory could be definitively disproved.

[Raiil]

ploppy54 wrote...

but the IT theory makes the most sense.... you don't know what the catalyst is or what it does... cerberus deleted it on mars.... so the catalyst is anything you want it to be.... your building this thing to save the galaxy but you don't know how to use it...... your choice at the end of the game is the catalyst so indoc theory make the most sense.... the crucible docks with the citadel and activates and DESTORYS the reapers!

IT has plenty of holes. It's not a theory so much as a series of hypotheses that no one can prove. 

[UrgentArchengel]

You could just as easily stick that thing afterwards too. It's going to always appear at the end. This just is not viable evidence to "kill" IT. Seriously, IT happens, then the game ends and The Reapers die. After that this pops up.

[Gen Petitt]

Taboo-XX wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...

Oh Shepard became a legend? how nice.

You will suffer consumer, and be happy with the art Bioware has given you.

Yes Sir!

Damn right.

Hell no!

[Taboo]

Gen Petitt wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...

Oh Shepard became a legend? how nice.

You will suffer consumer, and be happy with the art Bioware has given you.

Yes Sir!

Damn right.

Hell no!

Get back in line Petitt.

[Gormane01]

Valentia X wrote...

ploppy54 wrote...

but the IT theory makes the most sense.... you don't know what the catalyst is or what it does... cerberus deleted it on mars.... so the catalyst is anything you want it to be.... your building this thing to save the galaxy but you don't know how to use it...... your choice at the end of the game is the catalyst so indoc theory make the most sense.... the crucible docks with the citadel and activates and DESTORYS the reapers!

IT has plenty of holes. It's not a theory so much as a series of hypotheses that no one can prove. 

It doesn't have all that many holes really, and basically it comes down to either the game having lots of stange occurances in it which were oversights by Bioware (eg. The sign used once in the whole game next to the creepy kid that doesn't make any sense) or the Theory has a few holes which people haven't plugged/looked into correctly.

Personally I find it hard to believe BW could screw it up this bad, only reason I lean towards IT as I do think they could screw up their PR easier then screwing up their game.

[Gen Petitt]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Gen Petitt wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

KingKhan03 wrote...
Oh Shepard became a legend? how nice.

You will suffer consumer, and be happy with the art Bioware has given you.

Yes Sir!

Damn right.

Hell no!

Get back in line Petitt.

Right after you kill all the human Squadmates except Zaeed and Kasumi then kill Liara!

[Gen Petitt]

Double post

Modifié par Gen Petitt, 18 mai 2012 - 01:03 .

[Sodapop VII]

I fail to see how any of this disproves the IT theory though... they aren't going to spell it out for you... nor will they leave the ending completely empty with no ending message... even if it was insulting having DLC be the final words of Mass Effect.

[The Invisible Commando]

Mass Effect 3 motto:

"If you don't like the ending make up your own!"

[shepskisaac]

grey_wind wrote...

Pro-enders are really hoping that Shepard completely and utterly destroyed the entire galaxy at large, aren't they?

Pro-ender is someone who loves the ending. I don't, but I'm not an ITer, I'm a realist. The ending is real, Bioware says so but they simply didn't deliver. Hopefully EC will fix that. No big philosophy.

[Sisterofshane]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Gormane01 wrote...

IT theory is a perfectly valid hypothesis. It may or may not be true but it has not been disproven up to this point.

Lastly the final note doesn't really show much, it really just says 'the game is over now buy our DLC' Personally I wouldn't read into it too much, particularly when compared with the 'Ok one more story' bit immediately before it.

In order for a hypothesis to be valid, it has to be falsifiable.  IT theorists haven't yet accepted/put forth any conditions under which their theory could be definitively disproved.

I've said it before and I will say it again - it will become "falsified" if and when the devs publish the EC, and it does not continue the endings, but rather expands upon the endings we already have.  At this point, it would just become a really neat allegory for "fighting indoctrination".

It is, therefore, as falsifiable as theories such as evolution and the like.

[McBeath]

@IsaacShep

I usually lurk around here but felt compelled to say something. The last few days I've noticed you seem to spend your time trying to convince people that something they believe in is wrong because you dont' agree with it. Often in a less than civil manner to boot.

I find it hypocritical in a way. Over the previous year and then some you've advocated for certain additions to ME3 that didn't make the cut the first time around because you believed it should be included. I actually respected you for it to be honest, and that's why I'm disappointed in your recent bahaviour.

You always seemed to adovate that people should have certain options available to them if they wanted... that the freedom to choose for oneself was something that needed to exist. Perhaps give the IT'rs the same courtesy.

Let people believe it if they want to. Bioware will release content eventually that with either validate thier beliefs or destroy them. Stop highjacking threads or creating just to bait them into an arguement or push your own version of "right" on them. It's hypocritical, rude and more than a little immature.

EDIT: To be clear I am neither a fan of the endings or an IT believer.  I think we got the real endings.  But if people perfer to believe in something that neither they nor I can prove I say let them.  Who are we do say any different?

Modifié par McBeath, 18 mai 2012 - 01:18 .

[Mcfly616]

It doesn't prove anything.....there's nothing to prove.....stop feeding the troll

[Hadeedak]

IsaacShep wrote...

Zoedoll wrote...

Nimpe wrote...

Oh my god the last words of the game really are Downloadable Content. I thought that was a joke.

It is possibly the saddest thing in this whole saga of fail

Not at all. At least here it appears at the end of the game when you finish everything. Other games have locked doors that will tell you mid-way through the game to buy DLC to unlock them

Wait... Really? Hahah, oh WOW.

[Sisterofshane]

IsaacShep wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

LOL, does it matter?  Your statement above was that an indoctrinated person would be incapable of opposing the Reapers.  I disqualified the statement - we have four prime examples of indoctrinated characters who manage to (in some fashion, even if not permanent) consciously oppose the Reapers.

We know for a fact that Shepard has bested all of these people (do Shiala clones count?).  The game makes it a point of telling us, over and over, that Shepard has extrodinary will power.

So even if Shepard managed to become indoctrinated, do you think it would be impossible for him to make the right decision exactly when it mattered in order to defeat the Reapers?

If you don't believe that statement, then it would be possible for the game to continue despite Shepard being indoctrinated, and the Reaper threat could still be ended.

The only decision Saren and TIM managed to do was shooting themselves. Not much

Like I said, the ability to do one thing in a moment in which it was most important - a final defying act against the Reapers, could spell the difference between victory against the Reapers and defeat.

Maybe Shepard defeats the Reapers by stopping them from controlling him, it could be possible.  The point is that just because they said "Shepard defeated the Reapers" doesn't mean that "Shepard defeated the Reapers in the exact manner that was just shown to you".

[shepskisaac]

McBeath wrote...

@IsaacShep

Lol this discussion is nothing like a discussion about optional romances. Seriously. ITers make 302847534 threads a day yet no one can make a thread that argues with it? Ok

[Sisterofshane]

IsaacShep wrote...

McBeath wrote...

@IsaacShep

Lol this discussion is nothing like a discussion about optional romances. Seriously. ITers make 302847534 threads a day yet no one can make a thread that argues with it? Ok

You know the problem is?  People keep applying literal arguments against a theory in which it's main basis is in the fact that it is all a dream.

We keep going around in these stupid circles - but the one thing that NEITHER side wants to concede is that it is possible to have interpreted the endings in a seperate fashion.

Which is why when someone makes a statement that IT is wrong, they will always be dismissed.  Same thing when someone says that Face-Value is wrong.  The only thing that is going to stop THIS type of arguing is when the writing team at Bioware releases an official statement endorsing one interpretation, and dismissing the other - and I don't believe that will ever happen.

[McBeath]

IsaacShep wrote...

McBeath wrote...

@IsaacShep

Lol this discussion is nothing like a discussion about optional romances. Seriously. ITers make 302847534 threads a day yet no one can make a thread that argues with it? Ok

It's not that at all.  It's the fact that you actively go around trying to prove them wrong.  If they want to discuss it let them.  Even this thread's title is just baiting them into an arguement.  Just let it go. 

Failing that discuss it in one of the numerious pro-ending, endings are real, we hate the endings, IT threads that exist. 

[Makrys]

IsaacShep wrote...

McBeath wrote...

@IsaacShep

Lol this discussion is nothing like a discussion about optional romances. Seriously. ITers make 302847534 threads a day yet no one can make a thread that argues with it? Ok

The difference is ITers don't usually go out of their way to bash anti-ITers. They just discuss the theory in their own little private groups (evident by the many IT devoted threads). The thing that bugs me, and many other people about anti-ITers is that they seem to just LOVE spoiling someone's party or stomping on their beliefs just because they don't line up with their own.

You have every right to believe what you do. But the moment you criticize people for believing something different, you lose your credibility. McBeath has a point. Respect people's views. If they annoy you, get over it. Anti-IT people annoy me but I don't go into or create threads to try to convince them why they're stupid. IT people annoy me as well, b/c they can exhibit similar behaviour, or 'know it all' behaviour. So both sides are guilty of this, but the Anti-IT crowd I have noticed a particular venom from. The ITers usually just try to defend their arguments with what they think is evidence, while I mostly just see the Anti-ITers bashing them or calling them stupid, desperate, in denial, etc. Which by the way, is not an effective way to argue your case.

In the end, NO ONE KNOWS anything. So to claim so, is just foolish. We won't know anything until Bioware chooses for us to. Wait until the EC to find out the truth. Everything up until then is just pure speculation. No one can prove anything at this point, so I wish people would stop slamming their flags into the ground and constantly screaming, "I'm right! Everyone else is dumb butts! lolz!". That goes for both sides.

Be respectful is all I'm really saying. 

Modifié par Makrys, 18 mai 2012 - 01:37 .

[balance5050]

Makrys wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

McBeath wrote...

@IsaacShep

Lol this discussion is nothing like a discussion about optional romances. Seriously. ITers make 302847534 threads a day yet no one can make a thread that argues with it? Ok

The difference is ITers don't usually go out of their way to bash anti-ITers. They just discuss the theory. The thing that bugs me, and many other people about anti-ITers is that they seem to just LOVE spoiling someone's party or stomping on their beliefs just because they don't line up with their own.

You have every right to believe what you do. But the moment you criticize people for believing something different, you lose your credibility. McBeath has a point. Respect people's views. If they annoy you, get over it. Anti-IT people annoy me but I don't go into or create threads to try to convince them why they're stupid. IT people annoy me as well, b/c they can exhibit similar behaviour, or 'know it all' behaviour.

In the end, NO ONE KNOWS anything. So to claim so, is just foolish. We won't know anything until Bioware chooses for us to. Wait until the EC to find out the truth. Everything up until then is just pure speculation. No one can prove anything at this point, so I wish people would stop slamming their flags into the ground and constantly screaming, "I'm right! Everyone else is dumb butts! lolz!".

Be respectful is all I'm really saying. 

Well said...

[BatmanTurian]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Gormane01 wrote...

IT theory is a perfectly valid hypothesis. It may or may not be true but it has not been disproven up to this point.

Lastly the final note doesn't really show much, it really just says 'the game is over now buy our DLC' Personally I wouldn't read into it too much, particularly when compared with the 'Ok one more story' bit immediately before it.

In order for a hypothesis to be valid, it has to be falsifiable.  IT theorists haven't yet accepted/put forth any conditions under which their theory could be definitively disproved.

Most of us are of the opinion that if the EC disproves it, then it's falsified. Happy? Geez.