553 réponses à ce sujet

[llbountyhunter]

[quote]PreciousIsland wrote...


The indoctrination theory is nothing more than fanfiction.
I dunno about you, but I personally cant stand fanfic, I just dont like it. Now, some of you are probably asking "well, why do you support IT??"
well, thats because I dont view IT as fanfiction. Rather than vewing IT as a segment that arose from some very devoted fans- I view it a puzzle set forth by bioware in which, we (the average player) piece together, and complete the image.
Also IT was created with the use of the scientific method, which makes it a theory- not fanfic.

If IT is true then bioware sold me an incomplete game.
this one is true, however this shouldnt be regarded as a bad thing, nor should many people be particularly suprised by this. after all, when has ANY mass effect game been sold complete? without the need for any DLC?

dont forget bioware also asked EA for 3 extra months and EA said "no".... perhaps IT was used to buy more time?

and dont worry, I know that there is a difference between side story dlc, and dlc that is a critical part of the story (although.... from the ashes...), but these lines are being blurred more every day by gaming companies.

http://www.cinemable...6-99-40917.html 

http://www.gamespot....essions-6234008  

http://www.eurogamer...nding-explained 

as we can see, If IT is true, then bioware is far from bieng the first company to separate the ending of a game. at least they didnt charge us $6.99!!! 


IT boils down to a "It was all a dream".
close, but not quite. IT is more akin to "battle within the mind" in which the character (or in this case, the player as well) engage a enemy within the character mind, and your conclusion has real world results.

So what happens after IT? do you just get up and go to the citadel all over again, and finally beat the reapers for real this time?
possibly. however, we cant accuratly answer this question because we just dont know, IT only talks about what happens in me3, not whats going to happen next. 

however  it is possibe that IT can be a way to actually defeat the repears. (my personal speculation at this point)

in my eyes I view IT as a huge, epic mental boss battle with harbinger. perhaps, after choosing detroy, harbinger is destroyed in the real-world, or maybe even the reaper fleets shields are taken down. (similar to how killing saren disabled sovereign in me1), this then allows the alliance fleet to have fair odds in destroying the reapers and a chance for your war-assets and choices to shine.


EDIT #1
the prothean VI does not detect shepards indoctrination.
argument 1. shepards is not indoctrinated at this point. the reapers are chipping away at his resistence here. and remember, the whole point of IT is to try to get shepard indoctrinated in the first place.

argument 2. (works best with sarcasm...sorry) well, of course, its common knowladge that the protheans had perfect indoctrination scanners, right? I mean its not like they themselfs were undermined by sleeper agents right?......oh wait.


EDIT#2
Arrival is not cannon.
well, as it turns out, that the events of arrival do seem to be canonical. take a look at this mass effect comic introducing Vega.
 
Now we can fairly certain that whatever happened on that asteroid is in fact, cannon.


these arent all the arguments agaisnt IT, just the ones that are incorrect and I see most often.
there are also some legitamit counter arguments to IT- this theory, just like any other theory, is not without problems. 

also if you feel I made a flawed argument, need to add more arguments, or simply have a question about IT in general, feel free to point it out.

one more thing.... I also my own opinion on when the indoctrination starts, you can check that out on my sig.
[/quote]


1.  Fanfiction:  The scientific method does not work when applied to the subject matter of literary criticism.  It is a tool for the investigation of inquiries related to the natural sciences (chemistry, biology, physics, etc.).  Even a logical positivist, who would say that the only legitimate form of inquiry is the scientific method of the natural sciences, would find this absurd and impossible.

2.  Incomplete game:  You didn't really argue against the fact that Bioware would be selling the public an incomplete game even if they included some DLC ending expansion later.  The only pro-Bioware point you brought up was a vague allusion to the fact that other companies are guilty of similar crimes.

3.  It was all a dream:  It does sort of boil down to that.  Even if it was a battle all in the mind, Dead Space 2 did the same thing and it was still stupid.  The thing about it is, if IT is true, it was written so poorly, having seen what we have seen of the final game, that it couldn't possibly be a better ending than what already exists.  It would be equally dumb and confused (because what happens in the "dream" that we have seen so far could serve no dramatic purpose) as the existing ending but just longer.

4.  So what then?:  Either this question has to be answered, "Well, the actual ending," which leads to the question, "Than why this IT garbage at all?" or the answer is something like what you said in which case the game would have been shipped without an ending that had been secret all along which was released further down the road (since it had to be developed after the game's release?).  This secret ending would prove to be like the end of Dead Space 2 only dumber because it actually effects something in reality.  So Shepard would defeat the Reapers with conventional firearms in his own mind.  If such a possibility existed, why would the Reapers not simply shoot him with a laser in the real world instead of snuggling up to him to be killed telepathically?  Do you see how stupid that idea would be?

Edit #1:

Protehan VI:  I don't know about you, but this really, strongly suggests that the kid in his dreams is not Reaper indoctrination.  I mean, IT people are going to the ends of the earth to say that there are all these meticulously placed, obscure and seemingly insignificant clues to support what they are saying, that it is this well-crafted puzzle Bioware lays out for them, and then they have this VI that can detect Leng's (worst...  character... ever...) indoctrination just say, "This guy isn't indoctrinated," well into the game?  I mean why would it detect Leng but not Shepard's?

Even IT fanatics can't have it both ways.  This VI shoots to hell half of the "evidence" for IT.  You are left with a really crappy ending and no foreshadowing for indoctrination.  Come on.  Like wake up.  The story is just stupid.  IT being true would be even dumber.  It was never planned before and if they incorporate it into the EC (which I highly doubt, 99.5% sure they wouldn't, but anything is possible) it will be the worst sort of fan service apology.  

One way or another, I won't be pre-ordering another ME game, and I won't buy one period unless it receives a positive review from SA's Dennis Farrell, the only game reviewer whose opinion is worth a damn in my experience.

[/quote]

Thank you for your flawed opinion.

[dreman9999]

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

I cannot believe this thread devolved into arguing what constitutes a scientific theory. IT is a literary theory much closer to trying to discern the meaning of a Steinbeck novel than understanding quantum mechanics.

It's still is a theory. Theory is not exclucive to science nor is the used of the scientific method.

At the risk of continuing this asinine debate comparing IT to things like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, I'll bite.  After making a hypothesis, as part of the scientific method, one must make a prediction then test it.  What are the top...say...3 predictions IT makes that we can test?

Ironicly, the reason why theories are prolong as theoies is because the can nor havethe means to be tested.
 That'S why evolution and quantum theory are still theories.

Except both the theory of evolution and quantum mechanics have made dozens if not hundreds of predictions that have been experimentally verified.  To my knowledge, IT has made, zero.  Which means it's still in the hypothesis stage.

Yes, It does.
Theirs Shepard's eye change.
The fact Shepard lives in the destory ending when he is told he'll die.
TIM control Shepard with indoctriantion.
There's a whole documatry about this.

Those are not predictions.  Those are observations that led to the formation of the hypothesis that Shepard is indoctrinated.   

Perdiction are made bases on observation. It's much of the same concept. Add with a literary theory, observation is the only thing that can be used.

[zambot]

Dwailing wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

 I really want to add some of the great IT evidence out there, but I kinda want to only point out flawed IT counter arguments.... just to keep things simple.

It truly pains me to have to do this... hope you guys understand! 

Yeah, I understand.  Still, the argument against Arrival's canonicity seems pretty flawed compared to many of the others, don't you think?

true, true.... ill try and see if i can find a picture of the comic intoducing vega. 

There's actually a YouTube video of the comic (I know, a YouTube video of a comic.  What can I say, it's the best I've been able to find.), that I always use when this comes up.  I'll give you the link.   

there we go... just tell what you want to add, if you feel i need to add more....

Im not sure if its a argument im good at. 

That should work.  And the sad part is that there shouldn't have to BE an argument in the first place.  It should be clear that Arrival IS canon based on how it is the ONLY player choice to be mentioned in an external source that doesn't have some explanation in ME3.

No.  The comic states that Shepard did the events in Arrival.  The game (without DLC) states that commandos were responsible for the events in Arrival.  The two cannot co-exist, and in the ME universe, the game trumps other media when determining canon, because it is the primary medium.

[dreman9999]

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The fact Shepard lives in the destory ending when he is told he'll die.

Of all the bulls**t "evidence" for IT, this really tops it. The Catalyst never says he will die, you are just making an assumption on things that you can only speculate on.

Telling me I can kill all synthetics and then right after tell me I'm partaly synthetic, which is the only thing keeping me alive, does mean chosing destory kills me?
Why bring up the fact I'm partly synthetic after say i CAN KILL ALL SYNTHETICS?

[KingZayd]

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Look up the defenition of a theory.

I never said it wasn't a theory... I said it was fanfiction. They aren't exclusive.

How can it be a fanfic if the offical writers of the story made plans to use it? And even more so, foreshadowed it?

And yet, there is no evidence that BW had plans to see an indoctrinated Shepard

..Except for TIM controling Shepard with indoctriantion.

I'm talking about before the game was released, that was obvious

Before the game was released? Object Rho.

[Ageless Face]

dreman9999 wrote...

It's not a speculation if every sign of indoctrination pops up when a Man  who is implanted with reaper tech used to control indoctrianted beings.
Even Shepard note it's indoctriantion when he says to TIM,"You can control me but it doesn't mean you can control the reapers."

I find it really hard to explain what I mean here... 

TIM wants to control the reapers. That DOESN"T mean he will control the reapers through indoc. It was NEVER stated that TIM controled with indoc Shepard or Anderson, and it was never stated TIM wanted to control the reapers that way. Only that he wanted to control them. Shepard sayed "controling me is a lot different than controling a reaper". not "Indoctrinating me is a lot different than indoctrinating a reaper".

[zambot]

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

I cannot believe this thread devolved into arguing what constitutes a scientific theory. IT is a literary theory much closer to trying to discern the meaning of a Steinbeck novel than understanding quantum mechanics.

It's still is a theory. Theory is not exclucive to science nor is the used of the scientific method.

At the risk of continuing this asinine debate comparing IT to things like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, I'll bite.  After making a hypothesis, as part of the scientific method, one must make a prediction then test it.  What are the top...say...3 predictions IT makes that we can test?

Ironicly, the reason why theories are prolong as theoies is because the can nor havethe means to be tested.
 That'S why evolution and quantum theory are still theories.

Except both the theory of evolution and quantum mechanics have made dozens if not hundreds of predictions that have been experimentally verified.  To my knowledge, IT has made, zero.  Which means it's still in the hypothesis stage.

Yes, It does.
Theirs Shepard's eye change.
The fact Shepard lives in the destory ending when he is told he'll die.
TIM control Shepard with indoctriantion.
There's a whole documatry about this.

Those are not predictions.  Those are observations that led to the formation of the hypothesis that Shepard is indoctrinated.   

Perdiction are made bases on observation. It's much of the same concept. Add with a literary theory, observation is the only thing that can be used.

Yes predictions are bade on the basis of observations.  IT has not made any predictions yet based on the above obversvations.  Literary theory does not utilize the scientific method, especially with works of fiction.  It cannot, precisely because it cannot be tested.   It uses literary analysis, and can always, if the creator is so inclined be resolved with a simple statement.

[dreman9999]

zambot wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

 I really want to add some of the great IT evidence out there, but I kinda want to only point out flawed IT counter arguments.... just to keep things simple.

It truly pains me to have to do this... hope you guys understand! 

Yeah, I understand.  Still, the argument against Arrival's canonicity seems pretty flawed compared to many of the others, don't you think?

true, true.... ill try and see if i can find a picture of the comic intoducing vega. 

There's actually a YouTube video of the comic (I know, a YouTube video of a comic.  What can I say, it's the best I've been able to find.), that I always use when this comes up.  I'll give you the link.   

there we go... just tell what you want to add, if you feel i need to add more....

Im not sure if its a argument im good at. 

That should work.  And the sad part is that there shouldn't have to BE an argument in the first place.  It should be clear that Arrival IS canon based on how it is the ONLY player choice to be mentioned in an external source that doesn't have some explanation in ME3.

No.  The comic states that Shepard did the events in Arrival.  The game (without DLC) states that commandos were responsible for the events in Arrival.  The two cannot co-exist, and in the ME universe, the game trumps other media when determining canon, because it is the primary medium.

It's not like bw will write a completly diffent plot if Shepard doen;t do arrival. If BW intends Shepard to be indoctrianted, but he player didn't play arrival, they they will indcotriante him a different way. If the player did play arrival, everythign is going to plan.

[llbountyhunter]

I'm just going to leave this here...


masseffectindoctrination.blogspot.com/?m=0

[Ageless Face]

dreman9999 wrote...

Telling me I can kill all synthetics and then right after tell me I'm partaly synthetic, which is the only thing keeping me alive, does mean chosing destory kills me?
Why bring up the fact I'm partly synthetic after say i CAN KILL ALL SYNTHETICS?

PARTLY synthetic. It can mean that only pure synthetics will die if you built the crucible well enough. If not then it would explain why Shepard didn't live in ow EMS.

[jijeebo]

dreman9999 wrote...


Telling me I can kill all synthetics and then right after tell me I'm partaly synthetic, which is the only thing keeping me alive, does mean chosing destory kills me?
Why bring up the fact I'm partly synthetic after say i CAN KILL ALL SYNTHETICS?

Because most Shepards that choose Destroy do actually die.

That's why it is IMPLIED and not STATED.

[dreman9999]

HagarIshay wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

It's not a speculation if every sign of indoctrination pops up when a Man  who is implanted with reaper tech used to control indoctrianted beings.
Even Shepard note it's indoctriantion when he says to TIM,"You can control me but it doesn't mean you can control the reapers."

I find it really hard to explain what I mean here... 

TIM wants to control the reapers. That DOESN"T mean he will control the reapers through indoc. It was NEVER stated that TIM controled with indoc Shepard or Anderson, and it was never stated TIM wanted to control the reapers that way. Only that he wanted to control them. Shepard sayed "controling me is a lot different than controling a reaper". not "Indoctrinating me is a lot different than indoctrinating a reaper".

Yes, it was. It was stated in the cerberus base and santuray that he plan to do this and had the tech implated into him.
If you go on like this I will link the videos showing this.

[llbountyhunter]

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

I cannot believe this thread devolved into arguing what constitutes a scientific theory. IT is a literary theory much closer to trying to discern the meaning of a Steinbeck novel than understanding quantum mechanics.

It's still is a theory. Theory is not exclucive to science nor is the used of the scientific method.

At the risk of continuing this asinine debate comparing IT to things like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, I'll bite.  After making a hypothesis, as part of the scientific method, one must make a prediction then test it.  What are the top...say...3 predictions IT makes that we can test?

Ironicly, the reason why theories are prolong as theoies is because the can nor havethe means to be tested.
 That'S why evolution and quantum theory are still theories.

Except both the theory of evolution and quantum mechanics have made dozens if not hundreds of predictions that have been experimentally verified.  To my knowledge, IT has made, zero.  Which means it's still in the hypothesis stage.

Yes, It does.
Theirs Shepard's eye change.
The fact Shepard lives in the destory ending when he is told he'll die.
TIM control Shepard with indoctriantion.
There's a whole documatry about this.

Those are not predictions.  Those are observations that led to the formation of the hypothesis that Shepard is indoctrinated.   

Perdiction are made bases on observation. It's much of the same concept. Add with a literary theory, observation is the only thing that can be used.

Yes predictions are bade on the basis of observations.  IT has not made any predictions yet based on the above obversvations.  Literary theory does not utilize the scientific method, especially with works of fiction.  It cannot, precisely because it cannot be tested.   It uses literary analysis, and can always, if the creator is so inclined be resolved with a simple statement.

Shepard cannot survive harbingers beam.

You want to test this? Go to rannoch.


Its also impossible to avoid the scientific theory when making a analysis.

[zambot]

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...


No.  The comic states that Shepard did the events in Arrival.  The game (without DLC) states that commandos were responsible for the events in Arrival.  The two cannot co-exist, and in the ME universe, the game trumps other media when determining canon, because it is the primary medium.

It's not like bw will write a completly diffent plot if Shepard doen;t do arrival. If BW intends Shepard to be indoctrianted, but he player didn't play arrival, they they will indcotriante him a different way. If the player did play arrival, everythign is going to plan.

Perhaps that's a prediction.  The prediction is that future DLC will explain how Shepard came to be indoctrinated if he did not come into contact with Object Rho.

[llbountyhunter]

HagarIshay wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Telling me I can kill all synthetics and then right after tell me I'm partaly synthetic, which is the only thing keeping me alive, does mean chosing destory kills me?
Why bring up the fact I'm partly synthetic after say i CAN KILL ALL SYNTHETICS?

PARTLY synthetic. It can mean that only pure synthetics will die if you built the crucible well enough. If not then it would explain why Shepard didn't live in ow EMS.

He also said most of the technology you use. so no, notjust pure synthetics.

[dreman9999]

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

I cannot believe this thread devolved into arguing what constitutes a scientific theory. IT is a literary theory much closer to trying to discern the meaning of a Steinbeck novel than understanding quantum mechanics.

It's still is a theory. Theory is not exclucive to science nor is the used of the scientific method.

At the risk of continuing this asinine debate comparing IT to things like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, I'll bite.  After making a hypothesis, as part of the scientific method, one must make a prediction then test it.  What are the top...say...3 predictions IT makes that we can test?

Ironicly, the reason why theories are prolong as theoies is because the can nor havethe means to be tested.
 That'S why evolution and quantum theory are still theories.

Except both the theory of evolution and quantum mechanics have made dozens if not hundreds of predictions that have been experimentally verified.  To my knowledge, IT has made, zero.  Which means it's still in the hypothesis stage.

Yes, It does.
Theirs Shepard's eye change.
The fact Shepard lives in the destory ending when he is told he'll die.
TIM control Shepard with indoctriantion.
There's a whole documatry about this.

Those are not predictions.  Those are observations that led to the formation of the hypothesis that Shepard is indoctrinated.   

Perdiction are made bases on observation. It's much of the same concept. Add with a literary theory, observation is the only thing that can be used.

Yes predictions are bade on the basis of observations.  IT has not made any predictions yet based on the above obversvations.  Literary theory does not utilize the scientific method, especially with works of fiction.  It cannot, precisely because it cannot be tested.   It uses literary analysis, and can always, if the creator is so inclined be resolved with a simple statement.

It is. DO you know how many people though Shepard was goingto be indoctrinated in ME3 AFTER PLAYING me3? Also, it foreshadowed for ME1 and more so in ME2. Even people thought when the fall of earth level was first shown, that the child was a hallucination.

[SubAstris]

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The fact Shepard lives in the destory ending when he is told he'll die.

Of all the bulls**t "evidence" for IT, this really tops it. The Catalyst never says he will die, you are just making an assumption on things that you can only speculate on.

Telling me I can kill all synthetics and then right after tell me I'm partaly synthetic, which is the only thing keeping me alive, does mean chosing destory kills me?
Why bring up the fact I'm partly synthetic after say i CAN KILL ALL SYNTHETICS?

But it is not. Remember this, "can you imagine your life without them synthetics"- The Catalyst is not saying "you will die without them" but "you use them everyday, they are of great use to you". . But even if you are right, without synthetics Shepard's life will be threatened, we have no knowledge of Shepard's state at the end, it could be his last breath, we don't know.

[dreman9999]

HagarIshay wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Telling me I can kill all synthetics and then right after tell me I'm partaly synthetic, which is the only thing keeping me alive, does mean chosing destory kills me?
Why bring up the fact I'm partly synthetic after say i CAN KILL ALL SYNTHETICS?

PARTLY synthetic. It can mean that only pure synthetics will die if you built the crucible well enough. If not then it would explain why Shepard didn't live in ow EMS.

When did he say or even hint anything like that? He never hint the anyone partly synthetic would live. If your going to state baseless assumptions, use a reffernce to prove you point.

[Ageless Face]

dreman9999 wrote...

Yes, it was. It was stated in the cerberus base and santuray that he plan to do this and had the tech implated into him.
If you go on like this I will link the videos showing this.

It was also stated that controling the harvested is much more difficult than controling reapers. It might mean that the control is not quite the same. 

[KingZayd]

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...

I cannot believe this thread devolved into arguing what constitutes a scientific theory. IT is a literary theory much closer to trying to discern the meaning of a Steinbeck novel than understanding quantum mechanics.

It's still is a theory. Theory is not exclucive to science nor is the used of the scientific method.

At the risk of continuing this asinine debate comparing IT to things like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, I'll bite.  After making a hypothesis, as part of the scientific method, one must make a prediction then test it.  What are the top...say...3 predictions IT makes that we can test?

Ironicly, the reason why theories are prolong as theoies is because the can nor havethe means to be tested.
 That'S why evolution and quantum theory are still theories.

Except both the theory of evolution and quantum mechanics have made dozens if not hundreds of predictions that have been experimentally verified.  To my knowledge, IT has made, zero.  Which means it's still in the hypothesis stage.

Yes, It does.
Theirs Shepard's eye change.
The fact Shepard lives in the destory ending when he is told he'll die.
TIM control Shepard with indoctriantion.
There's a whole documatry about this.

Those are not predictions.  Those are observations that led to the formation of the hypothesis that Shepard is indoctrinated.   

Perdiction are made bases on observation. It's much of the same concept. Add with a literary theory, observation is the only thing that can be used.

Yes predictions are bade on the basis of observations.  IT has not made any predictions yet based on the above obversvations.  Literary theory does not utilize the scientific method, especially with works of fiction.  It cannot, precisely because it cannot be tested.   It uses literary analysis, and can always, if the creator is so inclined be resolved with a simple statement.

This is the thing I find stupid about both sides of the whole"Indoctrination theory is not a theory" argument. It is literary analysis, not science. The scientific definitions don't necessarily apply. Look up theory in a dictionary, and you'll see that Indoctrination theory fits at least one of the possible meanings.

[zambot]

llbountyhunter wrote...


Shepard cannot survive harbingers beam.

You want to test this? Go to rannoch.


Its also impossible to avoid the scientific theory when making a analysis.

Surviving the beam is not a prediction.  It is an observation used to formulate the hypothesis.  The scientific method does not make predictions about things that already happened.  It is used to predict events after the hypothesis has been formulated to test its validity.

And yes, people make analysis all the time without using the scienfic method, partiularly in literary analysis.

[dreman9999]

zambot wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

zambot wrote...


No.  The comic states that Shepard did the events in Arrival.  The game (without DLC) states that commandos were responsible for the events in Arrival.  The two cannot co-exist, and in the ME universe, the game trumps other media when determining canon, because it is the primary medium.

It's not like bw will write a completly diffent plot if Shepard doen;t do arrival. If BW intends Shepard to be indoctrianted, but he player didn't play arrival, they they will indcotriante him a different way. If the player did play arrival, everythign is going to plan.

Perhaps that's a prediction.  The prediction is that future DLC will explain how Shepard came to be indoctrinated if he did not come into contact with Object Rho.

We had 3 years of on and off contact with reaper tech since Eden prime. There planty of chances for Shepard indoctriantion to start.
Also, base on how people in the topic is going on about arrival being a dlc you don't have to play. I would think by there logic that the"
future DLC will explain how Shepard came to be indoctrinated if he did not come into contact with Object Rho" would be non-canon.

Modifié par dreman9999, 15 juin 2012 - 06:25 .

[SubAstris]

KingZayd wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Look up the defenition of a theory.

I never said it wasn't a theory... I said it was fanfiction. They aren't exclusive.

How can it be a fanfic if the offical writers of the story made plans to use it? And even more so, foreshadowed it?

And yet, there is no evidence that BW had plans to see an indoctrinated Shepard

..Except for TIM controling Shepard with indoctriantion.

I'm talking about before the game was released, that was obvious

Before the game was released? Object Rho.

That is ME2. Evidence for plans for an indoctrinated Shepard at the end of ME3 is what I am talking about. You can make the argument that they wouldn't do that, because it would spoil the twist. I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing against the assertion that they did, for which there is no evidence

[llbountyhunter]

zambot wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...


Shepard cannot survive harbingers beam.

You want to test this? Go to rannoch.


Its also impossible to avoid the scientific theory when making a analysis.

Surviving the beam is not a prediction.  It is an observation used to formulate the hypothesis.  The scientific method does not make predictions about things that already happened.  It is used to predict events after the hypothesis has been formulated to test its validity.

And yes, people make analysis all the time without using the scienfic method, partiularly in literary analysis.

? I never said it was a prediction...


Do you know what the method is? You cant make a analysis without using at least parts of it.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 15 juin 2012 - 06:25 .

[Ageless Face]

dreman9999 wrote...

]When did he say or even hint anything like that? He never hint the anyone partly synthetic would live. If your going to state baseless assumptions, use a reffernce to prove you point.

He said only partly, no? and we see that Shepard lives in high EMS, no?

And really, you can't use the "prove it" line. You believe a theory which is not even an actual theory.