274 réponses à ce sujet

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

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

Facts are indisputable.

[MajorKellyRisner]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

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

Which translates to not facted based conjecture. Again, as i said, Bad writing is merely a matter of opinion

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

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

Facts are indisputable.

For the last time, THEY ARE NOT FACTS! Period, end on story

[BleedingUranium]

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.

Look, for all your talk like this, you're not being very scientific. You're assuming the Literal interpretation is correct by default.

Start neutral, with both Literal and IT as hypotheses. Then figure out evidence for and against each.

That's being objective.

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

For the last time, THEY ARE NOT FACTS! Period, end on story

They are facts: Anderson is not at the conduit acces, and he does claim to have followed Shpeard up. 

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

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

Facts are indisputable.

And the only facts you have are that Anderson is not there, then he is there. Any conclusion you draw from that is your own conjecture.

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

For the last time, THEY ARE NOT FACTS! Period, end on story

They are facts: Anderson is not at the conduit acces, and he does claim to have followed Shpeard up. 

Not facts, merely what you assume happened.

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Look, for all your talk like this, you're not being very scientific. You're assuming the Literal interpretation is correct by default.

Start neutral, with both Literal and IT as hypotheses. Then figure out evidence for and against each.

That's being objective.

Unfortuantly for the IT, a verifiable contradiction/inconsitancy within the narative, trumphs the usage of conjecture.  

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Look, for all your talk like this, you're not being very scientific. You're assuming the Literal interpretation is correct by default.

Start neutral, with both Literal and IT as hypotheses. Then figure out evidence for and against each.

That's being objective.

Unfortuantly for the IT, a verifiable contradiction/inconsitancy within the narative, trumphs the usage of conjecture.  

Irrelevant. Matter of opinion

Modifié par MajorKellyRisner, 29 septembre 2012 - 08:48 .

[RebelTitan428]

AresKeith wrote...

fil009 wrote...

Thread linking to a blog post?

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

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Not facts, merely what you assume happened.

Alright I really have to ask, How are these not facts?

Anderson is nowhere to be seen at the conduit acces in London: Proven within the game - I never saw him.
Anderson says he follows Shepard up: Proven withing again - It's said in a cutscene.

How can you even dispute these?

Modifié par Fixers0, 29 septembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Irrelevant. Matter of opinion

Facts trumph conjecture.

Modifié par Fixers0, 29 septembre 2012 - 08:51 .

[zioninzion]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

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?

^^^^ THIS....said perfectly, lead the way! Curious to hear your rebutal

[Davik Kang]

Fixers0 wrote...
Unfortuantly for the IT, a verifiable contradiction/inconsitancy within the narative, trumphs the usage of conjecture.  

This is so entertaining.  But why is anyone trying to argue with this guy?  He can prove stuff just by writing it down!  He has triumph powers!  He uses big words like conjecture!  It's hopeless.

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Not facts, merely what you assume happened.

Alright i really have to ask, How are these not facts?

Anderson is nowhere to be seen at the conduit acces in London: Proven within the game - I never saw him,
Anderson says he follows Shepard up: Proven withing again - It's said in a cutscene.

How can you even dispute these?

Because Anderson could have been behind Shepard after a few seconds or possibly even a minute. All we can do is assume.

And they not fact because it is what YOU yourself interupt from playing the game. Other people see and play the game differently than yourself. I say IT is bs, other people say otherwise. I say Anderson was with me, you say otherwise. etc etc. Its not fact but a matter of opinion

[Fixers0]

Davik Kang wrote...

This is so entertaining.  But why is anyone trying to argue with this guy?  He can prove stuff just by writing it down!  He has triumph powers!  He uses big words like conjecture!  It's hopeless.

you have yet to make substantial arguments.

[MajorKellyRisner]

Fixers0 wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

This is so entertaining.  But why is anyone trying to argue with this guy?  He can prove stuff just by writing it down!  He has triumph powers!  He uses big words like conjecture!  It's hopeless.

you have yet to make substantial arguments.

I agree

[Fixers0]

MajorKellyRisner wrote...

Because Anderson could have been behind Shepard after a few seconds or possibly even a minute. All we can do is assume.

But's that's conjecture (unproven statment), all the game shows us is that he isn't there at all.

MajorKellyRisner wrote...
I say Anderson was with me, you say otherwise. etc etc. Its not fact but a matter of opinion

He was with you...Because of a contradictory narative.

[BleedingUranium]

Fixers0 wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

This is so entertaining.  But why is anyone trying to argue with this guy?  He can prove stuff just by writing it down!  He has triumph powers!  He uses big words like conjecture!  It's hopeless.

you have yet to make substantial arguments.

I already did. The only facts you have are that Anderson is not there, then is there. Those are facts, you're 100% right about that.

However, you're assuming it's bad writing, which is conjecture on your part.

[LilLino]

Why would anyone even argue against IT? It's total fanfiction, it's as real as people believe it to be.

[BansheeOwnage]

It's hard for something to be a fact. If your defninition of a fact is something that cannot be disputed, then we are not dealing with any facts right now, because we're disputing them.

[MajorKellyRisner]

LilLino wrote...

Why would anyone even argue against IT? It's total fanfiction, it's as real as people believe it to be.

THIS!!! 

[BleedingUranium]

LilLino wrote...

Why would anyone even argue against IT? It's total fanfiction, it's as real as people believe it to be.

It's not fanfiction because nothing was invented. Also, Bioware agrees it's not fanfiction. Next.

[Fixers0]

BleedingUranium wrote...

I already did. The only facts you have are that Anderson is not there, then is there. Those are facts, you're 100% right about that.

However, you're assuming it's bad writing, which is conjecture on your part.

It's a clear contradiction/inconsistancy within the narative, those are generally accepted a signs of bad writing.

[BansheeOwnage]

LilLino wrote...

Why would anyone even argue against IT? It's total fanfiction, it's as real as people believe it to be.

Actually, according to Bioware, it's not fanfiction. It is described as "a valid possibility for the end of the game." Meaning, it could have happened, just as much as the literal POV.