80611 réponses à ce sujet

[estebanus]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

estebanus wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

No, it was valid for me before I even discovered IT. It's what Shepard is meant to do, it's what all of his allies want him to do, it's what trillions of lives murdered and harvested demand as justice and karma for taking their lives. The other two choices are the goals of madmen who were clearly pawns of the enemy and therefore goals of the enemy.

Exactly. Meaning that it supports the choice in itself, not a theory revolving about the choice.

What? It can do 2 things at once! What the hell Estebanus?  Drink some coffee, or go to bed. You seem tired or something.

Hahaha, real f*cking funny.

If there has to be something that supports the IT, then it has to be something that makes it more clear that it was an hallucination, not that one choice is preferred over another one. Shepard telling Harbinger that they'll fight the reapers to the end does NOT in any way, shape or form make it more clear that the ending scene was an hallucination.

Modifié par estebanus, 03 novembre 2012 - 12:53 .

[Rifneno]

<sigh> I should really know better than to get involved, but... if the game's full of hints that support destroy and discourage control & synthesis, then the writers are likely hinting that you should pick destroy. If they're subtly nudging you toward one ending, that indicates that there's a right and a wrong choice. If there's a right and wrong choice, then the ending can't be taken literally because if it was a real ending then it would be like 90% of the choices in Mass Effect: no "right" or "wrong" choice. So supporting destroy indirectly supports IT. Could it support the variants on IT like deception? Of course, but so can a lot of our evidence.

[spotlessvoid]

Indoctrination Theory has two parts

1. Indoctrination/Hallucination occurs

2. Control and synthesis aren't legit


Two equally important aspects. Just because 2 applies to all interpretations besides pure literal doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in IT quote collection page. They can go in their proper subsection when we're done collecting them.


Edit: In fact, it's necessary to understand 2 to understand 1.

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 03 novembre 2012 - 12:55 .

[401 Kill]

The breath scene is Shepard waking up from the hallucination. It only occurs after high EMS destroy...

The choice that Shepards friends support.

Modifié par 401 Kill, 03 novembre 2012 - 12:58 .

[estebanus]

Rifneno wrote...

<sigh> I should really know better than to get involved, but... if the game's full of hints that support destroy and discourage control & synthesis, then the writers are likely hinting that you should pick destroy. If they're subtly nudging you toward one ending, that indicates that there's a right and a wrong choice. If there's a right and wrong choice, then the ending can't be taken literally because if it was a real ending then it would be like 90% of the choices in Mass Effect: no "right" or "wrong" choice. So supporting destroy indirectly supports IT. Could it support the variants on IT like deception? Of course, but so can a lot of our evidence.

Indirectly is fine, it nudges you towars one decision, but that could also just mean it's the preferred ending. It may lead you into rethinking the ending but it doesn't mean that the ending must somehow be an indoctrination attempt.

[BansheeOwnage]

estebanus wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

estebanus wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

No, it was valid for me before I even discovered IT. It's what Shepard is meant to do, it's what all of his allies want him to do, it's what trillions of lives murdered and harvested demand as justice and karma for taking their lives. The other two choices are the goals of madmen who were clearly pawns of the enemy and therefore goals of the enemy.

Exactly. Meaning that it supports the choice in itself, not a theory revolving about the choice.

What? It can do 2 things at once! What the hell Estebanus?  Drink some coffee, or go to bed. You seem tired or something.

Hahaha, real f*cking funny.

If there has to be something that supports the IT, then it has to be something that makes it more clear that it was an hallucination, not that one choice is preferred over another one. Shepard telling Harbinger that they'll fight the reapers to the end does NOT in any way, shape or form make it more clear that the ending scene was an hallucination.

For the last time (hopefully) this isn't about the hallucination aspect of IT. That's just one part of it!

The hallucination means NOTHING without a context! We are discussing and establishing that context.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:02 .

[BatmanTurian]

Rifneno wrote...

<sigh> I should really know better than to get involved, but... if the game's full of hints that support destroy and discourage control & synthesis, then the writers are likely hinting that you should pick destroy. If they're subtly nudging you toward one ending, that indicates that there's a right and a wrong choice. If there's a right and wrong choice, then the ending can't be taken literally because if it was a real ending then it would be like 90% of the choices in Mass Effect: no "right" or "wrong" choice. So supporting destroy indirectly supports IT. Could it support the variants on IT like deception? Of course, but so can a lot of our evidence.

Precisely.

[CmdrShep80]

 How you know BioWare creates an epic game?  When results of polls like this are still hovering nearly 50-50

Created on 2012-10-28 82 votes, 42 comments, 474 viewsWas curious where people stood on the Indoctrination Theory after nearly 6000 pages of postingsYes! OMG IT needs to stop! Why do you keep believing this?44%(36 votes)
[/b]No, IT is fact that is valid and can be found everywhere in the ME Universe56%(46 votes)Edit-hey my phone copied the bar cool!  Lets see if it posts 

Modifié par CmdrShep80, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[CmdrShep80]

Edit 2. Looks like it didn't and converted it all to a paragraph lol

[Dmasterman]

No it's not a hallucination. The Extended cut practically destroys any indoctrination theory since a lot of the questions that built the indoc theory, were answered in the EC

[estebanus]

Dmasterman wrote...

No it's not a hallucination. The Extended cut practically destroys any indoctrination theory since a lot of the questions that built the indoc theory, were answered in the EC

Which is completely false. It didn't. AT ALL.

[CmdrShep80]

 Why is it when people play games they assume their characters are invincible to harm?  Maybe it's cause of the Konami code?
Early edit- I know it's going to mess up when I post it but 33% of the people who voted said Shepard can't be indoctrinated
Thought I do another poll based on this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck
Was Shepard really indoctrinated to some degree or not?
Feel free to comment down below afterNo! Shepard would never be Indoctrinated not by the Reapers, not by TIM33%(13 votes)
[/b]Maybe indoctrinated after Shepard reached the Catalyst5%(2 votes)
[/b]Definitely indoctrinated during Priority: Earth3%(1 votes)
[/b]Definitely indoctrinated since the beam struck Shepard by Harbinger15%(6 votes)
[/b]While I admit indoctrination is possible for someone, I think all of Priority Earth happened in reality including the ending15%(6 votes)
[/b]Shepard slowly becoming Indoctrinated during ME 3 but not before10%(4 votes)
[/b]Shepard indoctrinated to some degree since ME 215%(6 votes)
[/b]Shepard definitely indoctrinated since ME 13%(1 votes)
[/b]Other - if it just doesn't fit the obove 8 options comment down below3%(1 votes)

Modifié par CmdrShep80, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:03 .

[BansheeOwnage]

estebanus wrote...

Dmasterman wrote...

No it's not a hallucination. The Extended cut practically destroys any indoctrination theory since a lot of the questions that built the indoc theory, were answered in the EC

Which is completely false. It didn't. AT ALL.

Exactly. Thank you Estebanus.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:03 .

[401 Kill]

Dmasterman wrote...

No it's not a hallucination. The Extended cut practically destroys any indoctrination theory since a lot of the questions that built the indoc theory, were answered in the EC

Really? Care to give us these "answers" that were supposedly given?

[BleedingUranium]

Dmasterman wrote...

No it's not a hallucination. The Extended cut practically destroys any indoctrination theory since a lot of the questions that built the indoc theory, were answered in the EC

*sigh* Someone want to take this?

[BatmanTurian]

Dmasterman wrote...

No it's not a hallucination. The Extended cut practically destroys any indoctrination theory since a lot of the questions that built the indoc theory, were answered in the EC

Elaborate or admit that you don't actually understand IT.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 03 novembre 2012 - 01:04 .

[BansheeOwnage]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Dmasterman wrote...

No it's not a hallucination. The Extended cut practically destroys any indoctrination theory since a lot of the questions that built the indoc theory, were answered in the EC

*sigh* Someone want to take this?

Garrus: I'm on it!

[CmdrShep80]

Oh weird. I guess all I had to do was hit edit and resubmit and the forum fixed the paragraph issues hehe cool

[demersel]

What really surprises me - we don't get here as much trolls as we used to.... Maybe it does really start to sink in?

[CmdrShep80]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Dmasterman wrote...

No it's not a hallucination. The Extended cut practically destroys any indoctrination theory since a lot of the questions that built the indoc theory, were answered in the EC

*sigh* Someone want to take this?

Garrus: I'm on it!

simple. See mark 1 page 1 until this page.  What questions do you believe we're answered by the EC?  For me it actually raised more questions because I had a different idea under the original ending of what happened

[estebanus]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Dmasterman wrote...

No it's not a hallucination. The Extended cut practically destroys any indoctrination theory since a lot of the questions that built the indoc theory, were answered in the EC

*sigh* Someone want to take this?

Just ignore it.

[BansheeOwnage]

Baihu1983 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...




except there's no opposite to Mordin.

They would have got it wrong.

LOL Epic!

[Davik Kang]

demersel wrote...
What really surprises me - we don't get here as much trolls as we used to.... Maybe it does really start to sink in?

Level of support is too strong... this thread is more like a chat room for a group of friends... most threads have more trolls than honest participants...

[estebanus]

demersel wrote...

What really surprises me - we don't get here as much trolls as we used to.... Maybe it does really start to sink in?

More like people don't see the need to do so anymore, or just don't care enough for the effort. The absence of people going against the theory (not trolls, because most of them aren't) probably just means that the IT is becoming less and less known.

[BatmanTurian]

demersel wrote...

What really surprises me - we don't get here as much trolls as we used to.... Maybe it does really start to sink in?

I think Chris, Ninja Stan, and RaenImrahl basically told them hands off and stick to their own threads. BSN became a huge festering pot of negativity over the summer until the Mods finally just had enough of it.