238 réponses à ce sujet

[WestLakeDragon]

I see the problem with people who call ITers delusional,stupid, etc. and vice-versa is because those staunch in the defense of IT or otherwise aren't necessarily those with good arguments. Therefore, the degradation of a discussion is quick to dissolve into flaming and the like.

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

[Darth Death]

Indoctrination Theory was made up by fans who couldn't cope with the current endings. They believe there's more to it, in which there isn't.

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

[WestLakeDragon]

Darth Death wrote...

Indoctrination Theory was made up by fans who couldn't cope with the current endings. They believe there's more to it, in which there isn't.

But, the point of the thread isn't whether IT holds merit, it's asking why threads on such topics degrade into flaming. I'd rather hold my thoughts on IT for a thread on that topic.

That being said, I'm not going to say for or against what you've said, as that would be hypocritical of me.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

And I can make the exact comment about you. If I have "no idea what I'm talking about", explain, don't just say. You might disagree with what I say, but at least tell someone why

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

And I can make the exact comment about you. If I have "no idea what I'm talking about", explain, don't just say. You might disagree with what I say, but at least tell someone why

Like I said, I don't want to waste my time. We've danced this dance before, SubAstris. We know all the steps and we know where it goes. Better just to let it alone already.

[SubAstris]

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

And I can make the exact comment about you. If I have "no idea what I'm talking about", explain, don't just say. You might disagree with what I say, but at least tell someone why

Like I said, I don't want to waste my time. We've danced this dance before, SubAstris. We know all the steps and we know where it goes. Better just to let it alone already.

I will accept as a concession of your point, thank you

[BatmanTurian]

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay.

Is that the same "Shep is on the Citadel" Merizan?

Merizan saw some of the EC footage. someone said they were diappointed there would be no gameplay. She said she didn't know where he'd heard that from.

Also, LOTSB was produced in 2-1/2 months and it's been much longer than that. At this point, you have to be in denial to believe it is only going to be cinematics.

Ok, so you take her word on the EC relating to gameplay on which she didn't even give a proper answer, but when a definite response is given about whether Shepard was on the Citadel, that cannot be taken as evidence for or against IT. Hypocrisy?

Your view that you would have to be denial to believe it is only cinematics is just speculation, however much you might believe it. LOTSB, I would have supposed, was a DLC planned from a long time back and placed firmly in BW's schedule; however, with the EC appearing to be impromptu, reacting to the need for clarity as requested by their fans, that would mean they would have to not only write a new whole script, somehow think about how it would fit with the existing ending, receive feedback from players about what they wanted and reschedule months of their schedule to accomodate this; with all these things, they would greatly extend the time needed for it. They are frankly in no rush either to complete it

Yeah, I don't know why I ever have any conversations with you. It's like talking to a wall.

If you want to concede a point and admit that your point doesn't hold water/stand up to scrutiny, you can just say.

No it's just that you have no idea what you're talking about and if I wasted my time explaining why, you would just refute me again. Anti-IT / IT has turned into something almost political. Why would I waste my time trying to convince someone who is so entrenched that they wouldn't concede themselves?

And I can make the exact comment about you. If I have "no idea what I'm talking about", explain, don't just say. You might disagree with what I say, but at least tell someone why

Like I said, I don't want to waste my time. We've danced this dance before, SubAstris. We know all the steps and we know where it goes. Better just to let it alone already.

I will accept as a concession of your point, thank you

It's not a concession. Conceding would be me admitting you are right, which you aren't. I'm removing myself from this debate with you because it will lead nowhere. You are not intending on changing your mind even if I told the truth.

[FAButzke]

BatmanTurian wrote...

EC IS NOT going to have 'gameplay

The bolded has already been proven false. Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay. They have not outright stated there is no gameplay. It is misinformation to state this as fact.

Keyword: alluded.

Let's say the IT is true and we didn't have an ending and all the cinemactics and conversations after Shepard got knocked out is all in Shepard head.

Ok, explain this:

What's the last thing you see at the end of the game? No. Not the credits. No. Not the stargazer scene.
You see something like this (someone could please post the exact words. I'm posting this from memory alone):

"Shepard became a legend for stopping the Reapers. You can continue to build upon that legend through further DLC and Gameplay."

Focus on the first part of the sentence. Now focus on the last 3 words: "Stopped the Reapers."

How would he be able to stop the Reapers if he was unconcious on Earth having dreams? The text box is a lie? He didn't stop the reapers then?

[BatmanTurian]

FAButzke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

EC IS NOT going to have 'gameplay

The bolded has already been proven false. Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay. They have not outright stated there is no gameplay. It is misinformation to state this as fact.

Keyword: alluded.

Let's say the IT is true and we didn't have an ending and all the cinemactics and conversations after Shepard got knocked out is all in Shepard head.

Ok, explain this:

What's the last thing you see at the end of the game? No. Not the credits. No. Not the stargazer scene.
You see something like this (someone could please post the exact words. I'm posting this from memory alone):

"Shepard became a legend for stopping the Reapers. You can continue to build upon that legend through further DLC and Gameplay."

Focus on the first part of the sentence. Now focus on the last 3 words: "Stopped the Reapers."

How would he be able to stop the Reapers if he was unconcious on Earth having dreams? The text box is a lie? He didn't stop the reapers then?

Did it tell you when and how you stopped the Reapers? It didn't. Obviously there will be more DC efter the EC so this will still come up. It will come up in every game.

[Sabre120]

I am personally a believer in the Indoctrination Theory, but I will not judge others on their personal belief.

[KingZayd]

FAButzke wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

EC IS NOT going to have 'gameplay

The bolded has already been proven false. Gamble and Merizan have alluded that there is gameplay. In addition, the wording used to describe the EC says additional scenes, which could mean gameplay. They have not outright stated there is no gameplay. It is misinformation to state this as fact.

Keyword: alluded.

Let's say the IT is true and we didn't have an ending and all the cinemactics and conversations after Shepard got knocked out is all in Shepard head.

Ok, explain this:

What's the last thing you see at the end of the game? No. Not the credits. No. Not the stargazer scene.
You see something like this (someone could please post the exact words. I'm posting this from memory alone):

"Shepard became a legend for stopping the Reapers. You can continue to build upon that legend through further DLC and Gameplay."

Focus on the first part of the sentence. Now focus on the last 3 words: "Stopped the Reapers."

How would he be able to stop the Reapers if he was unconcious on Earth having dreams? The text box is a lie? He didn't stop the reapers then?

There was a huge timeskip before that message. Obviously Shepard woke up and stopped the Reapers sometime in between

Modifié par KingZayd, 18 juin 2012 - 08:17 .

[Barsomo92]

This tread is not about debating the indoctrination theory. It is about people should stop calling us stupid or delusional. Because if someone that works for Bioware want us to continue to theorize then you shouldn't say we are stupid. Because they like it.

[TiminatorT2000]

 The first stage of grief is denial.

Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of possessions and individuals that will be left behind after death. Denial can be conscious or unconscious refusal to accept facts, information, or the reality of the situation. Denial is a defense mechanism and some people can become locked in this stage. 


The problem with IT is that it has been directly contradicted multiple times by people working on EC/Biowares EC statements.While I don't think this is grounds for calling ITers delusional I can definitly see why the term is applied to them.

Modifié par TiminatorT2000, 18 juin 2012 - 08:37 .

[PlumPaul93]

LucasShark wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

The only time IT'ers call anti-IT'ers stupid is when they make glaringly obvious mistakes when representing the IT in their rebuttals.

I can't count how many times an anti-IT'er has something like, "Hurf durf, the you can't break out of indoctrination."

So... you just claimed to never insult anti IT-ers unless they make mistakes... followed by misrepresenting them with your own strawman...

You certainly told him, especially since he hasn't posted on here since this. Well done.

[Jadebaby]

Master Che wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

Master Che wrote...

garrusfan1 wrote...

ENOUGH no one should insult anyone for having different ideas alright whether it's an IT discussion or anything else can we all just have a civilized discussion

...too soon?

What

You're either not from the U.S. or you're too young to remember.

He was so crooked, not saying he deserved what happened, but damn he didn't learn from it.
Still, much too soon.

[BatmanTurian]

TiminatorT2000 wrote...

 The first stage of grief is denial.

Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of possessions and individuals that will be left behind after death. Denial can be conscious or unconscious refusal to accept facts, information, or the reality of the situation. Denial is a defense mechanism and some people can become locked in this stage. 


The problem with IT is that it has been directly contradicted multiple times by people working on EC/Biowares EC statements.While I don't think this is grounds for calling ITers delusional I can definitly see why the term is applied to them.

Show me where it has been contradicted.

Also, denial is a two way street.

[jijeebo]

Barsomo92 wrote...

This tread is not about debating the indoctrination theory. It is about people should stop calling us stupid or delusional. Because if someone that works for Bioware want us to continue to theorize then you shouldn't say we are stupid. Because they like it.

Someone that works for Bioware also said that Synthesis was their favourite ending... So good luck telling people to stop ragging on the people who chose it because Bioware obviously like it.

[Barsomo92]

Please is it so hard to not talk about the indoctrination theory. This is not a debate about the indoctrination theory.

[Barsomo92]

jijeebo wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

This tread is not about debating the indoctrination theory. It is about people should stop calling us stupid or delusional. Because if someone that works for Bioware want us to continue to theorize then you shouldn't say we are stupid. Because they like it.

Someone that works for Bioware also said that Synthesis was their favourite ending... So good luck telling people to stop ragging on the people who chose it because Bioware obviously like it.

When did they say that?

[BatmanTurian]

jijeebo wrote...

Barsomo92 wrote...

This tread is not about debating the indoctrination theory. It is about people should stop calling us stupid or delusional. Because if someone that works for Bioware want us to continue to theorize then you shouldn't say we are stupid. Because they like it.

Someone that works for Bioware also said that Synthesis was their favourite ending... So good luck telling people to stop ragging on the people who chose it because Bioware obviously like it.

That was his personal opinon. It doesn't mean that it's Bioware's official view of the endings.

[Soultaker08]

Hmm i think the anti IT movement is much more calm than the pro IT

Anti-ITs dont even come up with Thessai VI/ Bioware Statements/ production time since Me3 went gold
to disprove IT anymore

Why? because it starts EEEENDLESS discussions, which only end in wild speculations

On the other side pro-it rage over any thread that is pro control/synthesis/taking end at face value.

If Anti-IT can stop making points where the other side wont listen , why cant they do the same and wait? simple as that

Modifié par Soultaker08, 18 juin 2012 - 08:52 .

[BatmanTurian]

Soultaker08 wrote...

Hmm i think the anti IT movement is much more calm than the pro IT

Anti-ITs dont even come up with Thessai VI/ Bioware Statements/ production time since Me3 went gold
to disprove IT anymore

Why? because it starts EEEENDLESS discussions, which only end in wild speculations

On the other side pro-it rage over any thread that is pro control/synthesis/taking end at face value.

If Anti-IT can stop making points where the other side wont listen , why cant they do the same and wait? simple as that

I understood every sentence until the last one. Could you explain what you meant? Perhaps that we should all just shut up and wait? I can endorse that if that's what you meant.