550 réponses à ce sujet

[shepskisaac]

Zuka999 wrote...

If only.. I'd seriously take back everything I ever said about BioWare, Casey Hudson, Mac Walters, EA, and the lot of them if they decided to go with the Indoctrination Theory. What a revolution for gaming that would be.

ya know, " it was just a dream" isn't exactly a new concept.

[Geneaux486]

IsaacShep wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

If only.. I'd seriously take back everything I ever said about BioWare, Casey Hudson, Mac Walters, EA, and the lot of them if they decided to go with the Indoctrination Theory. What a revolution for gaming that would be.

ya know, " it was just a dream" isn't exactly a new concept.

It's not a dream...


IT'S AN ILLUSION!

[dreamgazer]

IsaacShep wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

If only.. I'd seriously take back everything I ever said about BioWare, Casey Hudson, Mac Walters, EA, and the lot of them if they decided to go with the Indoctrination Theory. What a revolution for gaming that would be.

ya know, " it was just a dream" isn't exactly a new concept.

Good thing that manipulation via indoctrination isn't the same as "it was just a dream". 

[KnifeForkAndSpoon]

He means bowing to fan pressure

[shepskisaac]

dreamgazer wrote...

Good thing that manipulation via indoctrination isn't the same as "it was just a dream".

It's not. But manipulation via indoctrination doesn't need "it was just a dream" trope to exist. So in the end, yeah, it does kinda biol down to "didn't really happen and we shipped the game without the events that REALLY happened right atfer"

[Geneaux486]

IsaacShep wrote...
It's not. But manipulation via indoctrination doesn't need "it was just a dream" trope to exist. So in the end, yeah, it does kinda biol down to "didn't really happen and we shipped the game without the events that REALLY happened right atfer"

And some people are trying to say that's the way to save this game. 

'Cause there's no better way to soothe an angry fanbase than by saying you sold them an incomplete product, lied about it, then made them wait for the rest, while lying about it some more.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 25 mai 2012 - 01:20 .

[Zuka999]

Its better than what they gave us, so I honestly don't care. Tropes are tropes are tropes.

[Geneaux486]

Zuka999 wrote...

Its better than what they gave us, so I honestly don't care.

It would be considerably worse than what they gave us.

[TSA_383]

Geneaux486 wrote...

You're not going to get through to him...

Yeah, sorry, I'm not really one for rejecting in-game evidence based solely on the fact that it hurts your argument.

So these assumptions:
-Shepard can survive being at the epicentre of a multi-megaton explosion.
-Just because the leader of the reapers is taking the form of a child shepard's been dreaming about doesn't mean they're inside your head at all.
-Anderson can teleport.
-Shepard can survive being at the epicentre of a multi-megaton explosion. Without a helmet.
-The dreams full of reaper noises are a normal PTSD symptom.
-The leader of the reapers is totally telling the truth and is someone we can trust.
-The reaper idea of "synthesis" isn't the exact idea that's caused them to create all the synthetic-organic hybrids we've been fighting since the start of ME1.
-Shepard can survive being at the epicentre of a multi-megaton explosion. Without a helmet. In space.
-Bioware wrote an ending to encourage speculation that should be taken at face value.


Make more sense than these ones:
-Reapers are doing exactly what they've done in every ME game so far; indoctrinating people.

[Zuka999]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Its better than what they gave us, so I honestly don't care.

It would be considerably worse than what they gave us.

Cool story, bro.

[Geneaux486]

TSA_383 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

You're not going to get through to him...

Yeah, sorry, I'm not really one for rejecting in-game evidence based solely on the fact that it hurts your argument.

So these assumptions:
-Shepard can survive being at the epicentre of a multi-megaton explosion.
-Just because the leader of the reapers is taking the form of a child shepard's been dreaming about doesn't mean they're inside your head at all.
-Anderson can teleport.
-Shepard can survive being at the epicentre of a multi-megaton explosion. Without a helmet.
-The dreams full of reaper noises are a normal PTSD symptom.
-The leader of the reapers is totally telling the truth and is someone we can trust.
-The reaper idea of "synthesis" isn't the exact idea that's caused them to create all the synthetic-organic hybrids we've been fighting since the start of ME1.
-Shepard can survive being at the epicentre of a multi-megaton explosion. Without a helmet. In space.
-Bioware wrote an ending to encourage speculation that should be taken at face value.


Make more sense than these ones:
-Reapers are doing exactly what they've done in every ME game so far; indoctrinating people.

You know when you bull**** it that way IT sounds a lot less outlandish.  But yes, the assumption that the ending is real, which isn't an assumption because the game tells us that it's real, makes more sense than the assumption  that the parts you happened to dislike coincidentally are a dream, and any evidence that refutes your theory is the game deliberately lying to us.

Cool story, bro.

You didn't even use that in the right context.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 25 mai 2012 - 01:33 .

[hoodaticus]

Geneaux486 wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

You're not going to get through to him...

Yeah, sorry, I'm not really one for rejecting in-game evidence based solely on the fact that it hurts your argument.

So these assumptions:
-Shepard can survive being at the epicentre of a multi-megaton explosion.
-Just because the leader of the reapers is taking the form of a child shepard's been dreaming about doesn't mean they're inside your head at all.
-Anderson can teleport.
-Shepard can survive being at the epicentre of a multi-megaton explosion. Without a helmet.
-The dreams full of reaper noises are a normal PTSD symptom.
-The leader of the reapers is totally telling the truth and is someone we can trust.
-The reaper idea of "synthesis" isn't the exact idea that's caused them to create all the synthetic-organic hybrids we've been fighting since the start of ME1.
-Shepard can survive being at the epicentre of a multi-megaton explosion. Without a helmet. In space.
-Bioware wrote an ending to encourage speculation that should be taken at face value.


Make more sense than these ones:
-Reapers are doing exactly what they've done in every ME game so far; indoctrinating people.

You know when you bull**** it that way IT sounds a lot less outlandish.  But yes, the assumption that the ending is real, which isn't an assumption because the game tells us that it's real, makes more sense than the assumption  that the parts you happened to dislike coincidentally are a dream, and any evidence that refutes your theory is the game deliberately lying to us.

Cool story, bro.

You didn't even use that in the right context.

I thought it was as apt as apt gets.

[Taboo]

The ending is real.

It's just ****!

Surprise!

[jla0644]

BatmanTurian wrote...

For the record, I never doubt many of the Theory's detractors' intelligences. I believe it's simply a matter of a difference in viewpoint and interpretation of the events of the story or doubt in Bioware's production values.

I don't believe that my believing that my interpretation might be true is more arrogant than you believing my interpretation is false and that yours is more true. They are both simply opinions, both of which can be supported with some evidence. Debating it was what they wanted us to do. But the truth is that we won't know until the EC whether either side is right or wrong. My suggestion is that unless someone specifically calls you an idiot or something similar, you should assume they are simply expressing their views without mallicious intent I.E. give them the benefit of the doubt.

I feel what you feel when confronted by those who disagree and call me a conspiracy theorist (never believed a conspiracy in my life) or a religious nut ( I'm a Deist, and believe God is the sum parts of the universe metaphorically expressed through the interplay of physics, matter, and energy as well as quantum mechanics and not a guy in the sky), which to me seem like very condescending remarks. Those who are Anti-I.T. are not innocent of being arrogant themselves. We're all humans and it's human nature.

I don't think you do feel what I feel, because I feel nothing. For the third time, I wa simply making an observation, at no point have I been personally offended. Taking information, analyzing it, and attacking/defending it is kind of what I do for a living, so I enjoy it. When I see flaws in an argument someone else is completely convinced is right, I usually point them out.

And you're likely not one of the people I'm talking about. But even those who are seemingly reasonable about it, and realize that it's all just their opinion, can't help but conclude their stated opinion by claiming that the evidence is so strong and so clear that they can't believe there are people who can't see it.

For example, the person to whom I originally responded. He/She can't believe that there are people who see things differently. It's not just his/her opinion, he/she is utterly and completely convinced, and doesn't seem to think there is any possibility that the IT is wrong. I can admit that you can build a case for the IT that on the surface makes sense, and I can understand why people would want to believe it. But this person can't admit that might be another way to see the game? Please.

I've never tried to tell you guys you're wrong. It's your interpretation. The only thing I know for sure is that everything you think supports your theory does not convince me. This can mean one of two things: either I'm too stupid to see what is right in front of me even when someone else points it out, or your evidence isn't really as strong as you think it is.

So you tell me, are these interpretations really that impossible to believe?

The very linchpin of the IT, Shepard breathing, does not mean anything to me. I don't think Bioware intended to do anything with it.

The dreams are nothing more than Shepard's anxiety and guilt, imo. The "oily shadows" look more like smoky figures to me, and the phrase from the rachni queen was never meant to be taken literally anyway. They communicate differently than we do.

And as for all dream foliiage and tree reflections, I don't consider it at all. Evidence that can only be seen by PC players who choose to dig through the game files is not evidence. Evidence that is seen only AFTER the decision is made, i.e. Shep's eyes, is not evidence.

Yes, it's weird that Anderson arrived on the Citadel after Shepard but is somehow ahead of him, but it the IT the only way to explain it?  No, we are told that Anderson entered somewhere else, and we are told that the walls are shifting and realigning.

Yes it's weird that TIM is able to control Anderson and Shepard, but is the IT the only way to explain it? No, we see video of him getting implanted with Reaper tech, and we hear audio from Sanctuary about how they have studied Reaper control signals.

Yes, the entire scene with the Catalyst is weird. Why does it appear at the child from earth? Not sure, I have assumed since ME2 that the Reapers can read Shepard's mind. Other than that, I think whoever wrote it thought it was clever.

And I think Bioware was purposely vague about what it all meant. The speculation they wanted, imo, was speculation about what comes after you choose. I think they went for something deep and profound and ambiguous, and it backfired on them. And that's what the EC is for, to clear things up and give us some resolution.

[soulprovider]

 pr stunt, don't even need to read it to see that, there trying to ensure that everything remains quiet, so everyonce in a while instead of actually facing the music he throws the one thing most fans are willing to beleive out there, its like being martha stewart during her trial, her financial advisors were the ones guilty of the insider trading crime but to appease the the authorities that were out ot get her they told them what they wanted to hear so they would get a lesser penalty, basically a plea deal.

Basically IT theory is a plea bargain for the developers, anytime the heat goes right back to them, they offer information or deals to keep the heat off, like asking fans if they like the idea because they know it will pass throughout the community.

IT is a plea deal

Modifié par soulprovider, 25 mai 2012 - 03:15 .

[liggy002]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Its better than what they gave us, so I honestly don't care.

It would be considerably worse than what they gave us.

I'm going to agree to disagree here but to each their own I guess.

[Asharad Hett]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Its better than what they gave us, so I honestly don't care.

It would be considerably worse than what they gave us.

Assuming you are correct (which you aren't), at least the ending would MAKE SENSE.

[Geneaux486]

Asharad Hett wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Its better than what they gave us, so I honestly don't care.

It would be considerably worse than what they gave us.

Assuming you are correct (which you aren't), at least the ending would MAKE SENSE.

Shepard's mission from the start of ME3 is to use the Crucible to stop the Reapers.  The game ends with him using the Crucible to stop the Reapers.  Not sure what part of that is supposed to not make sense, but whatever.  What wouldn't make sense to me would be for Shepard's mission from the start of ME3 being to use the Crucible to stop the Reapers, then having Shepard use the Crucible to stop the Reapers, then having the entire thing be an illusion which is followed by Shepard either actually using the Crucible to stop the Reapers or the plot pulling some kind of deus ex machina out of its *** to stop the Reapers in some other way.  The former would be superfluous, the latter would be stupid.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 25 mai 2012 - 03:59 .

[hanshotfirs]

Hmm... ponderous. Doubt they're doing anything with it, probably just some ideas so that the IT believers can still have it after the EC DLC.

[noobcannon]

Humakt83 wrote...

Opsrbest wrote...

What is the point of asking people if they believe in IDT? Really ......... 

To see how many people have figured IT out? To see whether people believe Bioware can do something like IT?

but indoc theory isnt real. bioware already confirmed it.

/trollface

[noobcannon]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Asharad Hett wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Zuka999 wrote...

Its better than what they gave us, so I honestly don't care.

It would be considerably worse than what they gave us.

Assuming you are correct (which you aren't), at least the ending would MAKE SENSE.

Shepard's mission from the start of ME3 is to use the Crucible to stop the Reapers.  The game ends with him using the Crucible to stop the Reapers.  Not sure what part of that is supposed to not make sense, but whatever.  What wouldn't make sense to me would be for Shepard's mission from the start of ME3 being to use the Crucible to stop the Reapers, then having Shepard use the Crucible to stop the Reapers, then having the entire thing be an illusion which is followed by Shepard either actually using the Crucible to stop the Reapers or the plot pulling some kind of deus ex machina out of its *** to stop the Reapers in some other way.  The former would be superfluous, the latter would be stupid.

i didnt feel like shepard used the crucible to stop the reapers. if anything i feel like the reapers won. which is why i like IT.

[RADIUMEYEZ]

Wow I just checked the poll again those results so far are crazy.

[Zuka999]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Cool story, bro.

You didn't even use that in the right context.

I sure did. I don't care to argue with you, I'm too zen for that ****.

[ZackG312]

IT WINS