80611 réponses à ce sujet

[demersel]

Fixers0 wrote...

No, the Real reason i'm here is probably closest to what smudboy anwserd when squee asked him why  he bothers himself at all with the Mass effect games:  ''by laughing at them, and the fans, that's kind of entertaining, but thanks for asking''

Ok. GTFO.

[Fixers0]

demersel wrote...

Ok. GTFO.

I'm just exercising my right to free speech, no need to get all worked up about it.

[byne]

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Ok. GTFO.

I'm just exercising my right to free speech, no need to get all worked up about it.

And he's doing the same.

[Hrothdane]

The Twilight God wrote...

demersel wrote...

Why should i prove anything to you? Or to anyone? I can share my interpretetion events, that happened in ME3 and their presentation.

 
Alright. But it sounded to me like you were addressing my rebuttal to the viability of the Dream Theory. My objections still remain unchallenged then.

Your fabrication of lore does not constitute an interpretation. You can't interpret something from thin air. What you have done is fabricate a scenario without any supporting evidence, not interpreted what was presented.

demersel wrote...

While doing so, i can provide you with some key points, and explain why and how i came to the conclusions I did.

 
You did not explain how you came to the conclusions you made.

demersel wrote...

That's called discussing. This is the place for it. - Mass Effect 3 Story and Compaing Discussion (Spoilers Allowed) section. If you don't belive me - it's right there, on top of the page. We're not in court. This isn't some peer-review, or editorial. Nor isn't this an exam, or a thesis defence. You aren't any sort of authority, not an appointed representative of some community etc. I don't know you, and you don't know me. And most importantly - I don't care what you think, and don't need to make you think the way i do.

No need to get snippy. I thought we were having a discussion. Might I say, if you can't handle criticism of your beliefs then why discuss them? I'm in disagreement with you. That doesn't mean I'm picking on you.

demersel wrote...

All we can do - is share opinions in a polite and friendly manner. There cannot be any type of ironclad proof here. If that's what you're interested in - you sholud leave this forum, and wait for some kind of public announcment, or a press release regarding new content. If indoctrination theory is officially confirmed - i bet it's going to be huge news, and you'll hear about it, even if all you do is sit on your couch. 

"Ironclade proof" or not, there is no such thng as a discussion in which one person says something and the other simple listens, but doesn't involve themselves in discourse. I don't know what it is that I posted that offended you, but it was not my intent to offend.

However, if anyone puts forth any theory and I find there are irreconcilable holes, I'm going to point those holes out. If I were to argue against you by stating that a person cannot struggle against indoctrination in their sleep I would not be offended if someone pointed out that my assertion isn't based on in-game lore or data. That's how a theory progresses. The important matter is can a theory be adapted to fill the holes. If so, it evolves. If not, it dies. Not everything is valid simply because someone chooses to believe in it.   

Agreed. There is no point to discussing a theory if one or more parties just sticks their fingers in their ears and says "IT'S JUST MY INTERPRETATION. YOU CAN"T DISPROVE THAT." Ideas need to be questioned and argued to be strong.

Sorry about demersel. He's kinda stand-offish.

As for your original post, Twilight God, you mentioned that the evidence could go either way on whether the TIM and Anderson scene actually takes place or not. If you were to take the position that it was not real, when do you think the "unrealness" starts and ends and why?

[spotlessvoid]

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Well, yes in most political debates it's of course about not-telling the truth, but beceause i'm a good human i decided to tell the truth.

Yes, that was very nice and considerate of you. You restored my faith in human race and internet community.
GTFO. 

No, the Real reason i'm here is probably closest to what smudboy anwserd when squee asked him why  he bothers himself at all with the Mass effect games:  ''by laughing at them, and the fans, that's kind of entertaining, but thanks for asking''

So you readily admit to not being here for rational open minded discussion but instead to mock? Yeah, totally not trolling

[The Twilight God]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Besides, if the endings made any sense, none of you would ever have come up with the IT. It is because of the endings that you folks started searching for clues to make sense of the nonsensical endings. That's how eventually you guys came up with the IT. True or not?

I can speak for no one else, but in my case: No.

I never played ME3, nor even visited the forums, prior to the EC. So the EC Destroy ending was the first ending I saw start to finish. I choose destroy because I had just finished arguing with TIM to not do just that and nothing was presented in the 5 minutes up to the KId mentioning it to change my mind. Synthesis made me question if I would be making people into husks. Especially when it says it couldn't be forced and then tells me I can force it on everyone. I actually though there was more to it and picked Refuse (not knowing that was even possible).

At the end of the day I had no reason to trust the Reapers. Also, it's taking on the form of the Kid made me trust it even less. Afterwards, I went back and analyzed th situation and circumstance and it became obvious my suspicions were correct.

You assert that the endings make no sense and that is why IT exists. I assert the endings make perfect sense and IT simply states what occurs.

[Fixers0]

spotlessvoid wrote...

So you readily admit to not being here for rational open minded discussion but instead to mock? Yeah, totally not trolling

No, i'm here to voice my opinion and speak out the facts, if somebody asks me why i am here along with pointless insult, you don't expect me to give a serious anwser.

[spotlessvoid]

Fixers0 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

So you readily admit to not being here for rational open minded discussion but instead to mock? Yeah, totally not trolling

No, i'm here to voice my opinion and speak out the facts, if somebody asks me why i am here along with pointless insult, you don't expect me to give a serious anwser.

Let's hear these facts then

[Harbinger1945]

Does anybody ever explained mysterious TIM biotics in the end? How he could control shepard?

[demersel]

The Twilight God wrote...

 I assert the endings make perfect sense and IT simply states what occurs.

I agree with this statement. 

Now, I've breezed through your long topic post that you gave the link for. And it seams to me that it is a detailed outline of the points that make the bulk of indoctrination theory's theoretical part (not proof related). 

So my question is this - hows that different from the Indoctrination Theory, and what exactly are we agrueing about then? 

P.S. Sorry for just breezing through your post, and not reading it in full, but it does seem like the recollection of all points and reasoning behind the IT, and you state yourself, that you have not read the forums nor even played mass effect 3 before the EC. And we have, and bought those exact points countless times in early versions of this thread. The fact that you came up with them on your own accord, just further proves that that is in fact what the game implies, and tells you, the player right in your face. 

Modifié par demersel, 25 août 2012 - 10:57 .

[BluRay]

guys,IT is a fail,yeah there are the facts but bioware decided not to use it,so give up,deal with it

[princekai13]

I really don't want to be "that douchebag" that comes in during a long dicussion and brings up the dead horse to take another beating, but this is just WAY too much for me to read and get some answers.  I was hoping someone would be kind enough to help me out.

As I haven't formed my opinion on the theory, I'm not looking for a debate, just the points/ counter points to IT.

1.  In the 'best' ending (red with enough war assets) Shepard takes a breath at the end.  He's surrounded by concrete, like he would be on earth, but not on the citadel.  This point is re-enforced by Shepard's inability to survive a fall to earth from orbit, and that the citadel exploded, not crash landed. 

2. Joker turining into a coward and leaving the fight to jump through a mass relay just in time to get caught up in a *insert color here* explosion.  I've heard the rebutal to this was a simple "bad writting" or "someone thought it would look cool".  While that seems viable as I've come across writers like geoff johns who do stuff like that.  I was wondering if there was something I missed.

3. The dream sequences,  I see how it fits into the IT, but I think more is needed.  In point one, Shepard taking a breath and freeing himself from indoctrination also makes sense, but, it is backed up by the concrete, and Shepard's Superhuman survival from the citadel.  Is there any more back up for the dream sequences?

4. The God-kid.  He says that if pick destroy, you'll die because you are part synthetic, but you survive (sort of).  Then in the other two endings, Shepard ends up with indoctrinated eyes before he dies.

5. Why not embrace it?  The IT is a really cool idea.  One that i personally would never have seen coming.  Not to mention it would be one of my top 3 twists, of all time.  SO i'm thinking if it's such a cool idea, why wouldn't Bioware embrace it rather than just giving you a "breath" at the end of destroy if you were able to break through?  If the IT were indeed what Bioware had planned, (I'm also keeping in mind all the "wildly different endings based on choices over the 3 games" quotes I read from staff) I would expect the choices you make throughout the games, would give you more clues that you're indoctrinated, where as others would lead you to believe otherwise.  (maybe Shepard points out the god-kid's circular logic, or maybe your trek to the illusive man and Anderson is done in the style of the previous dream sequences, but only if you made certain choices).

[Fixers0]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

So you readily admit to not being here for rational open minded discussion but instead to mock? Yeah, totally not trolling

No, i'm here to voice my opinion and speak out the facts, if somebody asks me why i am here along with pointless insult, you don't expect me to give a serious anwser.

Let's hear these facts then

Kinetic barriers deflects bullet impacts, armor blocks weapon bullet impacs and micro computers in the armor heal wounds with non-conductive medi-gel.

[Ambrosine333]

IT naysayers, one thing we can all agree on is that Bioware is not taking sides. Trying to prove one idea is more right over another is a waste of time. Unless you're here to learn more about IT or genuinely want to provide compelling observations from the game, you being in this thread to "debate" is also a waste of everyone's time. If it's a merry go round of seeing who's got the cleverest passive aggressive response you're interested in, go start a thread somewhere else called "Indoctrination or literal?" or join one that exists and argue over there.

[masster blaster]

Harbinger1945 wrote...

Does anybody ever explained mysterious TIM biotics in the end? How he could control shepard?

We have but right now is not a good time. Right now everyone is acting like 7, to 8 year olds. I mean everyone yes it's good to argue how is right, and who is wrong, but take it some were else. Also Hanar supports IT, but we was only speaking as a literal person. the other two that came here, came with a bad interduction, as did we. Look bottem line is that if you don't like IT then why are you here, and if you don't want to argue more with them than stop. Look I came here to speculate not b**** about who is right, and GTFO.

So please stop before everyone started to show up, Paxxton, and Hanar were having a good debate, as well as a few others. So please again stop.

[demersel]

Fixers0 wrote...

Kinetic barriers deflects bullet impacts, armor blocks weapon bullet impacs and micro computers in the armor heal wounds with non-conductive medi-gel.

.....and? So what? 

[spotlessvoid]

Fixers0 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

So you readily admit to not being here for rational open minded discussion but instead to mock? Yeah, totally not trolling

No, i'm here to voice my opinion and speak out the facts, if somebody asks me why i am here along with pointless insult, you don't expect me to give a serious anwser.

Let's hear these facts then

Kinetic barriers deflects bullet impacts, armor blocks weapon bullet impacs and micro computers in the armor heal wounds with non-conductive medi-gel.

What does any of that have to do with it? Please tell me that isn't the entirety of your argument for "bad writing"

If it is-let's just drop this all together

[Fixers0]

demersel wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Kinetic barriers deflects bullet impacts, armor blocks weapon bullet impacs and micro computers in the armor heal wounds with non-conductive medi-gel.

.....and? So what? 

spotlessvoid wrote...

What does any of that have to do with it? Please tell me that isn't the entirety of your argument for "bad writing"

If it is-let's just drop this all together

Anderson shouldn't have died.

Modifié par Fixers0, 25 août 2012 - 10:58 .

[demersel]

masster blaster wrote...

 Look I came here to speculate not b**** about who is right, and GTFO.

Finally! 

So, the leviathan trailer. There is a reaper in it. It is on the same planet that the leviathan is. 

It is either leviathan itself, or it is just some reaper that followed shepard to find leviathan, and there will be a huge fight Leviathan vs this reaper. 

Thoughts? 

[Hrothdane]

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Kinetic barriers deflects bullet impacts, armor blocks weapon bullet impacs and micro computers in the armor heal wounds with non-conductive medi-gel.

.....and? So what? 

spotlessvoid wrote...

What does any of that have to do with it? Please tell me that isn't the entirety of your argument for "bad writing"

If it is-let's just drop this all together

Anderson shouldn't have died.

Maybe the lack of kinetic shielding should be a clue that that scene isn't entirely real .

Explain the shadows here.

[demersel]

Fixers0 wrote...

Anderson shouldn't have died.

But he did. And that means....?

[Fixers0]

Hrothdane wrote...
Maybe the lack of kinetic shielding should be a clue that that scene isn't entirely real .

demersel wrote...

But he did. And that means....?

It shows the writers don't give a **** about lore any more .

Modifié par Fixers0, 25 août 2012 - 11:03 .

[byne]

Fixers0 wrote...

demersel wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Kinetic barriers deflects bullet impacts, armor blocks weapon bullet impacs and micro computers in the armor heal wounds with non-conductive medi-gel.

.....and? So what? 

spotlessvoid wrote...

What does any of that have to do with it? Please tell me that isn't the entirety of your argument for "bad writing"

If it is-let's just drop this all together

Anderson shouldn't have died.

He wasnt exactly very armored, and we dont even know if that kind of uniform has kinetic barriers on it.

But really, technically lots of people in the games shouldnt have died due to getting shot but did because thats how story and gameplay segregation works. Thats not exactly proof of anything.

[Fixers0]

byne wrote...

He wasnt exactly very armored, and we dont even know if that kind of uniform has kinetic barriers on it.

He's dress uniform in the opening had kinetic barriers, so did Shepard's battledress

byne wrote...
But really, technically lots of people in the games shouldnt have died due to getting shot but did because thats how story and gameplay segregation works. Thats not exactly proof of anything.

I Directly refered to the codex, the codex is not gameplay.

Modifié par Fixers0, 25 août 2012 - 11:05 .

[spotlessvoid]

Princekail13....
Greetings! I think the answer to number 5 can be answered several ways.

Bioware wanted a meta ending that "indoctrinates" Shepard as well as the player

Bioware didn't have enough development time to add the ending in full so instead left a cliff hanger

Bioware is milking this for all the MP and DLC money they can by keeping people speculating until the big reveal down the line

Bioware can't write and we're just making all this up