274 réponses à ce sujet

[MajorKellyRisner]

sirredhunt.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-indoctrination-theory-makes-no.html

This post that I have worked on will ruffle a few feathers, but everyone is able to express their own views. 

Either way, wiether you like it or not, I think i have some valid points to this "theory".

Modifié par MajorKellyRisner, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:40 .

[Samtheman63]

Bioware: "IT is a valid interpretation"

Stupid fan: "No its not"


ok

[fil009]

Thread linking to a blog post?

[ShepnTali]

Does this pro..... nevermind.


IT is a valid interpretation. Is all this obsession against it out of feeling threatened by it or something?

[MajorKellyRisner]

If you didn't read, why bother posting a response?

[BansheeOwnage]

ShepnTali wrote...

Does this pro..... nevermind.


IT is a valid interpretation. Is all this obsession against it out of feeling threatened by it or something?

This guy/girl seems like an intelligent person. I too do not understand why, even if you don't "believe" IT, you would try so hard to disprove it. And destroy is the best option too.

[AresKeith]

fil009 wrote...

Thread linking to a blog post?

everytime I see this gif, Guile's theme for Street Fighter pops in my head lol

[MajorKellyRisner]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Does this pro..... nevermind.


IT is a valid interpretation. Is all this obsession against it out of feeling threatened by it or something?

This guy/girl seems like an intelligent person. I too do not understand why, even if you don't "believe" IT, you would try so hard to disprove it. And destroy is the best option too.

True, but it is also hard to prove if "IT" is in fact valid to the game. That is the thing.

[Obeded the 2nd]

fil009 wrote...

Thread linking to a blog post?

[Davik Kang]

Samtheman63 wrote...

Bioware: "IT is a valid interpretation"

Stupid fan: "No its not"


ok

TOO GOOD.

This author has done a nice job of drawing attention to him/herself.  If I find the time, I will go through the whole thing and make logical explanations as to why this 'proof' is nothing of the sort, but I doubt anyone will listen who isn't already dogmatically convinced that Bioware don't know how to write...

[BansheeOwnage]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Does this pro..... nevermind.


IT is a valid interpretation. Is all this obsession against it out of feeling threatened by it or something?

This guy/girl seems like an intelligent person. I too do not understand why, even if you don't "believe" IT, you would try so hard to disprove it. And destroy is the best option too.

True, but it is also hard to prove if "IT" is in fact valid to the game. That is the thing.

If you're saying, "It's hard to prove that IT is a valid interpretation" it's not hard at all. Evil-Chris said it was as valid as the literal interpretation, yet people still feel the need to bash it with arguments that are so unsound literalitst think they're stupid.

[BansheeOwnage]

Davik Kang wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

Bioware: "IT is a valid interpretation"

Stupid fan: "No its not"


ok

TOO GOOD.

This author has done a nice job of drawing attention to him/herself.  If I find the time, I will go through the whole thing and make logical explanations as to why this 'proof' is nothing of the sort, but I doubt anyone will listen who isn't already dogmatically convinced that Bioware don't know how to write...

True on all counts, and it's really sad.
"Bioware sucks at writing!"
"Why?"
"Because the endings!"
"How do you know the endings are bad writing?"
Because Bioware sucks at writing!"
"How do you know they suck at writing?"
"Because endings!"

Catalyst/Circular logic

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[MajorKellyRisner]

I'm try not drawing attention to myself, I am merely stating my opinion on this relevant topic. Whether you like what I had to say or not is up to you.

[Fixers0]

Indoctrination theory is a valid headcannon. Bad writing is a fact.

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

Indoctrination theory is a valid headcannon. Bad writing is a fact.

Prove it.

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...
Prove it.

Here you go.

Modifié par Fixers0, 29 septembre 2012 - 07:06 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

Ive been working on a new theory called the Stupid Player theory.

Modifié par GethPrimeMKII, 29 septembre 2012 - 07:07 .

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
Prove it.

Here you go.

I am not watching an hour and a half video. Give me one piece of evidence that can only be bad writing.

[blueumi]

the ending makes no sense any way you look at it it's just bad at least they tried with IT to use sfuff from all 3 games the ending is just bad writing

IT was just fun and made the ending seem better then it really is thats why I liked it

[MajorKellyRisner]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Ive been working on a new theory called the Stupid Player theory.

Bet that will be a real hit for you...Good luck with that

[TJBartlemus]

 Geez...so many inconsistencies and things that have already been dealt with...

#1 - First off Shepard isn't indoctrinated. He is the process of being indoctrinated. The reason the breath scene supports IT is that it is the only choice in which Shepard lives, doesn't give up (throwing gun away), doesn't get the "indoctrinated eyes" (eyes of saren and TIM both of who have been leaders that were indoctrinated and are advocates for Control / Synthesis).

http://t3.gstatic.co...r0D9tcsUng08-8w

Destroy is also the only choice (pre-EC) that didn't benefit the Reapers in some way. Control lets the Reapers live and rule over the galaxy. Synthesis is just accomplishing what the Reapers goals were from the beginning. 

#2 - The Prothean Vi's can only detect those who are already INDOCTRINATED. Not people who are undergoing indoctrination. 

#3 -In ME3 Shepard becomes the very icon of the resistance of the Reapers. To have him as a Reaper puppet would demoralize the entire resistance and make the war go much easier for the Reapers.

To kill him would accomplish the same effect. Either way to the Reapers it is a win win. Some how Shepard always makes it out. So as a back up for failing to kill him the Reapers use indoctrination (their most powerful weapon).

4- Once again...Shepard isn't indoctrinated. Reapers can only control him if he is indoctrinated. Why he is the focus? As I said in #3 he is the very face of the resistance.

#5 - Project X...I agree...not enough to go on.

#6 - Once again with the most popular inconsistency. Shepard isn't indoctrinated yet. He is undergoing the process of indoctrination. 

Your Conclusion - From reading your blog it is certain you haven't fully realized what the IT is stating. Also on the fact of "having been based on just one pinnacle scene and dozens of speculative context and content, is merely a fan based opinion and should be moved into the fan portion of the forums" is complete BS. There are many on many pages of proof and hints placed by BioWare that lead to the fact that Shepard is undergoing indoctrination. I would recommend politely for you to analyse what you are arguing against like any proper debater before you decide to make such claims. It just makes you look foolish otherwise.

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...

I am not watching an hour and a half video. Give me one piece of evidence that can only be bad writing.

Anderson.

[BleedingUranium]

blueumi wrote...

the ending makes no sense any way you look at it it's just bad at least they tried with IT to use sfuff from all 3 games the ending is just bad writing

IT was just fun and made the ending seem better then it really is thats why I liked it

No, everyting makes perfect sense with IT. Prove bad writing.

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I am not watching an hour and a half video. Give me one piece of evidence that can only be bad writing.

Anderson.

You'll have to explain that one more. What about him?

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I am not watching an hour and a half video. Give me one piece of evidence that can only be bad writing.

Anderson.

You'll have to explain that one more. What about him?

His Armor.
His Location.
His Dialogue.
His Behaviour.
His Death.