274 réponses à ce sujet

[MajorKellyRisner]

Which means that your "facts" are irrelevant.

Anderson could be buried next to Shepard somewhere.
He even could be up on the Catalyst still sitting there.

Modifié par MajorKellyRisner, 29 septembre 2012 - 07:59 .

[Davik Kang]

Fixers0 wrote...
It isn't there, he's nowhere.

FACT!!  He's nowhere!!  PROOF!!

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Which means that your "facts" are irrelevant.

Facts are facts, they're always relevant in a discussing of truth.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
Anderson could be buried next to Shepard somewhere.

Conjecture.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
He even could be up on the Catalyst still sitting there.

Again, WTF does this mean?

[Fixers0]

Davik Kang wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...
It isn't there, he's nowhere.

FACT!!  He's nowhere!!  PROOF!!

Thanks for agreeing with me once again.

[MajorKellyRisner]

It means that Anderson could have been shot and died where he was with Shepard before being beamed up.

Fixers, you have nothing to back your claims, proof that confirms what you say, all of it is just guess work

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

It means that Anderson could have been shot and died where he was with Shepard before being beamed up.

What does this mean? if he dies he shouldn't talk.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
Fixers, you have nothing to back your claims,

I do, the Game gives me my evidence.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
proof that confirms what you say, all of it is just guess work

Yes, Evidence form the game proves that i'm right, finally.

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

It means that Anderson could have been shot and died where he was with Shepard before being beamed up.

What does this mean? if he dies he shouldn't talk.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
Fixers, you have nothing to back your claims,

I do, the Game gives me my evidence.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
proof that confirms what you say, all of it is just guess work

Yes, Evidence form the game proves that i'm right, finally.

And back to irrelevant information...-sigh-

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

And back to irrelevant information...-sigh-

Facts are never irrelvant, if you disagree then we might as well just stop arguing.

[ElSuperGecko]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
This post that I 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".

It won't ruffle any feathers, really. The vast majority of the people who follow IT are more than happy to delve into the speculation around the game.

After all, the more arguments AGAINST Indoctrination Theory that can be disproved or rebuffed, the more convincing, complete and valid a theory it becomes.

So let's take a look at your argument, shall we?

First off, do you really think that half-a-dozen hastily written and badly researched paragraphs will hold up against over 5,000 pages of (mostly civilised) speculation and discussion, plus supporting in-game evidence, detailed videos and research into the story, background and game files of Mass Effect 3? And your argument IS badly researched and hastily put together, as proven in your opening argument on the "Last Breath" scene.

"Shepard is buried under a pile of rubble, with the chest plate exposed, and Shepard takes one single breath. And some how, this scene is supports the theory."

So, you don't actually know how the "Shepard Breathes" scene supports Indoctrination Theory? If you don't know how it supports the theory, how can you effectively argue against it? Answer: You can't; you've shot yourself in the foot before you've even begun. If you wanted to disprove this particular point, then do your research, explain HOW the scene is believed to supports IT, and then prove it doesn't with supporting evidence. If you can't do this, you're doing nothing more than wasting everybody's time.

Secondly, the Prothean VI's. The indoctrination theory states the Shepard is undergoing a full indoctrination attempt at the END of Mass Effect 3 - following the encounter with Harbinger as Shepard charges to the beam, in fact.

So why on Earth do you think the Prothean VI's inability to detect indoctrination in Shepard disproves the theory? The attempt to manipulate Shepard hasn't even happened when you speak to Vendetta on Thessia (or the Cerberus Base, for that matter), and it CERTAINLY hasn't happened on Ilos during the events of the first game.

And even if we accept your argument with regards to the Prothean VI's, Javik quite clearly states that the Prothean Empire's attempts at building the Crucible were sabotaged from within by an indoctrinated Prothean factions, who - shock, horror - wanted to use it to Control the Reapers. Sound familiar? If the Prothean VI's were infallible, then surely that would never have happened.

Let's move on to your argument regarding Shepard's death. The problem you have with debating this chronologically is that we KNOW from Bioware's own mouths that the ending of Mass Effect 3 hadn't been written or even concieved of at the time that Mass Effect 2 was written. While Indoctrination Theory does draw from elements that are present throughout the series (and Reaper Indoctrination is a major plot device encountered and discussed many times in all three games), the main evidence for the Indoctrination Theory comes from the story that is told in Mass Effect 3.

What's next? Ah, yes. "The Leviathan content." Your discussion of the Leviathan content comes across as pure speculative whimsy - you provide no evidence of substance, just a muddled-up list of "i think's", "what if's" and "so there's". There's nothing here but your opinion, and your opinion is clearly biased against IT. We'll dismiss those claims. Your discussion of a vaguely-rumoured piece of DLC is also irrelevant, as the Indoctrination Theory doesn't rely on it in any way shape or form. You're speculating about something that doesn't exist, which is frankly absurd.

Bioware's response. Yes, that's what we're ALL waiting for, one way or another. Bioware are very reluctant to talk about the endings, or theories regarding the endings, and until they do, all we can do is speculate.

That said, Bioware have OPENLY ADMITTED that they were working on including indoctrinaion in the game's final sequences.

From the Final Hours app:

Casey Hudson:
"The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still much debate. 'One night walters scribbled down some thought on various ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'

In truth the final bits of dialogue were debated right up until the end of 2011. Martin sheen's voice-over session for the illusive man, originally scheduled for August, was delayed until mid-November so the writers would have more time to finesse the ending.

And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped because the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices)."

Sure, the gameplay mechanic was dropped, but there you have it, from the horses mouth that indoctrination WAS intended to play a part in the end of the game. And if the GAMEPLAY element was dropped at the very last minute, how much of the STORY leading up to that point still remains?

And of course, if it's a Bioware response you're looking for, we also have Chris Priestly's words on the matter:

Chris Priestly wrote...
"No. The IT thread remains here as it is a valid possibility for the end of the game.

Anyone who does not like the IT or thinks it not to be correct is STRONGLY enouraged to stay away from discussion on it."

Maybe, if you felt that strongly about it, you should have took Chris Priestly's advice?

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 29 septembre 2012 - 08:13 .

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

And back to irrelevant information...-sigh-

Facts are never irrelvant, if you disagree then we might as well just stop arguing.

YOU HAVE NO FACTS. You are basing your supposed facts on one single scene. The same scene that started this IT bs in the first place. 

[DeathScepter]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

And back to irrelevant information...-sigh-

Facts are never irrelvant, if you disagree then we might as well just stop arguing.

YOU HAVE NO FACTS. You are basing your supposed facts on one single scene. The same scene that started this IT bs in the first place. 

Remember Listen to Chris Priestly. For he is smart. 

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

YOU HAVE NO FACTS. You are basing your supposed facts on one single scene. The same scene that started this IT bs in the first place. 

I have facts, Anderson isn't down at the conduit acces, i know this becaues i don't see or hear him, they only way you would have a point is if you can prove Anderson was down at the beam with direct evidence from the game, which you haven't. 

 

[MajorKellyRisner]

Facts have things to back them up, not one simple thing can prove that your "facts" are in fact true. And not have you given evidence either. Just because Anderson isn't there don't in fact mean that he could be there.

Modifié par MajorKellyRisner, 29 septembre 2012 - 08:16 .

[I_eat_unicorns]

TJBartlemus wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Still makes Bad writing.

...what? No, it's one or the other.

Wait one sec. Fixers...do you believe everything in Mass Effect is bad writing or just the ending?

The whole plot could have been better. 

Ex; citadel attack. Why would they kill udina when we were just about to get along with him for once?

Mass effect has always had some poor plots, like a lot of stories, but that dosen't mean the writers are secretly intending something. 

Take the derelict reaper in me2. Why couldn't shep and crew take the council and show them that the reapers exist?

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Facts have things to back them up, not one simple thing can prove that your "facts" are in fact true. And not have you given evidence either. Just because Anderson isn't there don't in fact mean that he could be there.

He isn't there, that's what the game shows us, it's a fact. If the game later contradicts itself and make us question the quality of the narative then we're back to bad writing. 

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Facts have things to back them up, not one simple thing can prove that your "facts" are in fact true. And not have you given evidence either. Just because Anderson isn't there don't in fact mean that he could be there.

He isn't there, that's what the game shows us, it's a fact. If the game later contradicts itself and make us question the quality of the narative then we're back to bad writing. 

Can you prove that Bioware intentionally made Anderson disappear to support your claim? 

My evidence is that Anderson died by TIM shooting him and is either sitting where he was, or is buried somewhere.

Bad writing is irrelevent. I liked the games writing style and narrative myself. 

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
Can you prove that Bioware intentionally made Anderson disappear to support your claim? 

All i have to prove is that Anderson isn't there though he claims to have followed shepard up, creating an inconsistent narrative, which i've just done over the course of three pages.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
My evidence is that Anderson died by TIM shooting him and is either sitting where he was, or is buried somewhere.

That doesn't disprove the point that Aanderson wasn't at the conduit acces.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
Bad writing is irrelevent. I liked the games writing style and narrative myself. 

Your opinon is irrelevant, bad writing is a fact.

Modifié par Fixers0, 29 septembre 2012 - 08:25 .

[MajorKellyRisner]

Bad writing is a matter of opinion, not fact. Smarten up

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Bad writing is a matter of opinion, not fact. Smarten up

Bad writing can be objectively proven through analysis.

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Bad writing is a matter of opinion, not fact. Smarten up

Bad writing can be objectively proven through analysis.

And Analysis can go either way, wiether it is in the matter of opinion that it was good or bad. 

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

And Analysis can go either way, wiether it is in the matter of opinion that it was good or bad. 

 An analysis is always based upon factual observations.

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
Can you prove that Bioware intentionally made Anderson disappear to support your claim? 

All i have to prove is that Anderson isn't there though he claims to have followed shepard up, creating an inconsistent narrative, which i've just done over the course of three pages.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
My evidence is that Anderson died by TIM shooting him and is either sitting where he was, or is buried somewhere.

That doesn't disprove the point that Aanderson wasn't at the conduit acces.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
Bad writing is irrelevent. I liked the games writing style and narrative myself. 

Your opinon is irrelevant, bad writing is a fact.

No.

Anderson not there + Anderson there =/= Bad writing. It has other explainations. Find one that has no IT explaination.

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

And Analysis can go either way, wiether it is in the matter of opinion that it was good or bad. 

 An analysis is always based upon factual observations.

Which of course can be view in many shade and lights of views, depending on who is doing the observations.

[I_eat_unicorns]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

And Analysis can go either way, wiether it is in the matter of opinion that it was good or bad. 

 An analysis is always based upon factual observations.

Which of course can be view in many shade and lights of views, depending on who is doing the observations.

No, then that just becomes bias/wishful thinking

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Anderson not there + Anderson there =/= Bad writing. It has other explainations. Find one that has no IT explaination.

Anderson is not there, you've got that right, IT is based soley on conjecture, therefore it will never surpass verifiable facts from the game itself. 

Modifié par Fixers0, 29 septembre 2012 - 08:43 .