223 réponses à ce sujet

[Davik Kang]

Hello everybody.  IT has become a highly controversial topic of late, especially what with the IT thread being locked down, and IT discussion barred from the forums outside of an IT group.

One thing that's a shame about the mention of IT is how it divides people.  It can provoke extremely negative and even angry reactions on these forums.  This might be because IT has become associated with an 'us vs them' mentality for almost all users.

Many posters I think understand IT as the following:

> ME3 ending was deeply disappointing for many players.

> EC was released which appeased some fans, but left others disappointed.

> IT was invented by fans as a way of dealing with the disappointment, by inventing a scenario where Bioware left the game unfinished and plan to release a final post-ending DLC which will reveal what 'really' happened.

Because of this, many people think that 'ITers' are delusional, and simply need to accept that Bioware ended the ME trilogy badly.  But this is a misconception.  There are players who support IT who think the game is finished and is fine as it is.  There are players who would like any upcoming DLC to address the ending, but not necessarily take place after the existing ME3 ending.  The link bewteen the various players is that they are observing some of the choices that were made in ME3's story, and concluding that there is more to the story than simply what we see.

The final missions in ME3 - Cronos Station, Priority:Earth - contain many confusing and bizarre aspects, and seem to get more confusing and bizarre as they go on, culminating in the infamous Decision Chamber scene.

At its heart, IT is simply one way of looking at these closing moments, to try and figure out what's happening.  There is evidence to suggest that an indoctrination attempt is involved at the end, just as there is evidence to suggest the opposite.  But the key point is that the evidence for either conclusion is based on what happens in the game, and not the prodect of wild speculation and headcanon.

Naturally, many players have come to the conclusion that Reaper indoctrination is not involved in the ending to ME3.  Others have come to the opposite conclusion.  What is a shame is that many players now see IT as irrelevant post-EC, or dependent on some huge DLC 'reveal'.  But the whole IT discussion is based on what is already there.  It is not 'wishful thinking' or a 'conspiracy theory', but simply an analysis of the events and dialogue throughout the game, and especially how they are related to the events and dialgue of the finale.  

Bear in mind that many players came to the conclusion that indoctrination was involved at the end of the game without ever having visited these forums or having heard of IT.  That alone should at least demonstrate that the idea is within the game itself, and not a convoluted fantasy.

Anyway, the point of this thread is to hopefully reduce some of the negativity and agression that is often provoked by the mention of IT or any indoctrination-related theory or discussion.  It's not about proving people wrong, or blindly defending Bioware, or seeing things that aren't there.  Ultimately it's all about talking about ME3 and the Mass Effect story as a whole, which is that these forums are all about.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 29 janvier 2013 - 03:19 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Davik Kang wrote...


> IT was invented by fans as a way of dealing with the disappointment, by inventing a scenario where Bioware left the game unfinished and plan to release a final post-ending DLC which will reveal what 'really' happened.

from story perspective it´s as much as bad as the actuall form of ME3, from customer´s perspective it´s blackmail...

I am done with BioWare and ME3 since the May of the last year and I am going with BAD WRITING THEORY, their ignorance, dishonest and lies are proof of that they are either simply did what they did only for profit or they are simply refusing to face a fact that ME3 suck.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:41 .

[Argolas]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...


> IT was invented by fans as a way of dealing with the disappointment, by inventing a scenario where Bioware left the game unfinished and plan to release a final post-ending DLC which will reveal what 'really' happened.

from story perspective it´s as much as bad as the actuall form of ME3, from customer´s perspective it´s blackmail...

IT DLC would have to be free, of course.

[Applepie_Svk]

Argolas wrote...




IT DLC would have to be free, of course.

... don´t think so 

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:39 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...


> IT was invented by fans as a way of dealing with the disappointment, by inventing a scenario where Bioware left the game unfinished and plan to release a final post-ending DLC which will reveal what 'really' happened.

from story perspective it´s as much as bad as the actuall form of ME3, from customer´s perspective it´s blackmail...

QFT.

Hey peeps, we'll cut off the ending of this game and sell it to you later! I'm sure you won't complain because you'll still be singing songs about how awesome we are and what a twist ending it was!!11one1!

[Davik Kang]

Applepie_Svk wrote...
I was done with BioWare and ME3 since the may of the last year and I am going with BAD WRITING THEORY, their ignorance, dishonest and lies are proof of that they are either simply did what they did only for profit or they are simply refusing to face a fact that ME3 suck.

But if "they did what they did only for profit", why didn't they make a very simple happy ending with a conventional victory over the Reapers?  This would've been received without controversy - some players might have been disappointed, but hardly enough to have created the reaction we've seen to the current endings.  Sales would've benefitted as there'd be no widespread criticism of the ending.

[Davik Kang]

pirate1802 wrote...
QFT.

Hey peeps, we'll cut off the ending of this game and sell it to you later! I'm sure you won't complain because you'll still be singing songs about how awesome we are and what a twist ending it was!!11one1!

This goes to the heart of the thread.  IT is not all about waiting for an upcoming DLC.  Many players who support IT don't want a new ending DLC.  It's about examining what happened at the end, and how it fits in with the rest of the ME universe, and with the narrative up to that point.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:47 .

[Applepie_Svk]

Davik Kang wrote...

But if "they did what they did only for profit", why didn't they make a very simple happy ending with a conventional victory over the Reapers?  This would've been received without controversy - some players might have been disappointed, but hardly enough to have created the reaction we've seen to the current endings.  Sales would've benefitted as there'd be no widespread criticism of the ending.

It´s starting to be pretty common among a game companies to make an ending which suck or cliffhanger ones, if the company has a big fanbase with even greater passion for their games that they count with a angry mob demanding better ending even willing to pay for it...

Look at Azura´s wrath, New Vegas, MGS ...

Davik Kang wrote...


This goes to the heart of the thread.  IT is not all about waiting for an upcoming DLC.  Many players who support IT don't want a new ending DLC.  It's about examining what happened at the end, and how it fits in with the rest of the ME universe, and with the narrative up to that point.

And I didn´t pay for game which ending will be answered by a dlc or the next game... if ever be explained...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:50 .

[frostybaby13]

I did have a question for ITers!

As I understood it, the "main consensus" was that when Shepard was hit with Harbinger's beam, that was when he/she entered a dreamlike state of the "final indoctrination" attempt - and then by choosing destroy, Shepard wakes up on Earth in the very place where he/she was hit by the beam.
I'm sure there are plenty of variations and such, but in general, that seemed to be what I heard. And I thought ITers were waiting for a "grand reveal" to see what happens after that point. But I've seen here & a few other posters mention that they were ITers and they were fine with the game as is with nothing else added. How does the indoctrination theory resolve Shepard's story if nothing else is added?

[Davik Kang]

Applepie_Svk wrote...
It´s starting to be pretty common among game companies to make an ending which suck or cliffhanger ones, if the company has a big fanbase with even greater passion for games that they count with a angry mob demanding better ending even willing to pay for it...

Look at Azura´s wrath, New Vegas, MGS ...

Bioware have an incredible reputation for making story-driving games.  They have in many ways pioneered the modern story-driven RPG with their efforts in the Baldur's Gate, KOTOR and Mass Effect franchises.

Their profits depend on retaining that reputation.  Making a small profit via ending DLC would sabotage that reputation.  What you're proposing simply makes no sense.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 29 janvier 2013 - 03:20 .

[Applepie_Svk]

frostybaby13 wrote...

But I've seen here & a few other posters mention that they were ITers and they were fine with the game as is with nothing else added. How does the indoctrination theory resolve Shepard's story if nothing else is added?

IT without content addition is nothing more then piece of wishes, even if BioWare told that IT is true without addition to content it would still suck. Since the last DA2 I´ve never saw BioWare´s game ends with cliffhanger...

Davik Kang wrote...

Bioware have an incredible reputation for making story-driving games.  They have in many ways pioneered that modern story-driven RPG with their efforts in the Baldur's Gate, KOTOR and Mass Effect franchises.

Their profits depend on retaining that reputation.  Making a small profit via ending DLC would sabotage that reputation.  What you're proposing simply makes no sense.

and yet DA2 and ME3 are their worst game released to date yet, they´ve mixed up story driven with cliché and cheap drama driven scenarios...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:59 .

[TurianRebel212]

Misconception: That Shepard is indoctrinated. Wrong. Shep's not indoctrinated. It's a battle of wills. The final choice is if he becomes indoctrinated or not.

I can't tell you how many times I've told people about IT and they say 'well he can't be indoctrinated, cause vendetta would have detected him on thessia. Wrong. The end game is Sheps test. Much like a 'crucible' is.

Also, and this is a major one: Shepard can't be indoctrinated. No where in the lore, narrative, codex anywhere does it state that Shep is immune to indoctrination. Shep is an organic. And all organics can succumb to indoctrination.

[TurianRebel212]

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Misconception: That Shepard is indoctrinated. Wrong. Shep's not indoctrinated. It's a battle of wills. The final choice is if he becomes indoctrinated or not.

I can't tell you how many times I've told people about IT and they say 'well he can't be indoctrinated, cause vendetta would have detected him on thessia.' Wrong. The end game is Sheps test. Much like a 'crucible' is.

Also, and this is a major one: Shepard can't be indoctrinated. No where in the lore, narrative, codex, or anywhere does it state that Shep is immune to indoctrination. Shep is an organic. And all organics can succumb to indoctrination.

[KiwiQuiche]

[TurianRebel212]

double post. Stupid.

[CynicalShep]

See, there are several types of ITers. I respect their privacy so I won't name individuals

1. People who "believe in IT" but usually keep the discussions in IT groups and in private. They will sometimes discuss it on a thread but will usually keep it decent and respect other viewpoints

2. People who "believe in IT" and try to shove it down everyone's throats. They will often start "sneaky IT threads" that start off as a regular thread and end up being a big flaming war with elements of mockery. They will disregard any opinion that doesn't match their own and try to start an argument with anyone who doesn't have the sense to stay out of said thread

3. People who "believe in IT" and everything else. They will usually not be as aggressive as nr.2 but will find proof for IT in anything starting with Shepard's shoe color and ending with that varren on Tuchanka. "Naive" is probably the closest description I can think of. Subsequently, this particular category will become the butt of all jokes, leading to off-topic and lockdowns.

Sorry, but while you might be part of nr.1 there are enough of 2 and 3 to cause what you're trying to mitigate

Modifié par CynicalShep, 29 janvier 2013 - 10:55 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Davik Kang wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...
QFT.

Hey peeps, we'll cut off the ending of this game and sell it to you later! I'm sure you won't complain because you'll still be singing songs about how awesome we are and what a twist ending it was!!11one1!

This goes to the heart of the thread.  IT is not all about waiting for an upcoming DLC.  Many players who support IT don't want a new ending DLC.  It's about examining what happened at the end, and how it fits in with the rest of the ME universe, and with the narrative up to that point.

If I understand IT correctly, what happens after Shepard beats indoc? The Reapers are still there, they still need to be defeated. Ergo, without a DLC the ending is incomplete if we're to believe classical IT (and not deception/nightmare theory).

[AlexMBrennan]

My main issue that IT supports simply do not understand what constitutes evidence, or a theory for that matter. If you can't be bothered to look up the correct words, you're not exactly off to a good start.

In particular, if you have two conflicting hypotheses (let's say "IT" and "it's a game and Bioware's writing is sub-par at times"), you on observation consistent with only one of them. For example, Shepard waking up from indoctrination would be inconsistent with the null hypothesis and thus prove IT.
Listing observations consistent with both hypotheses (which is all the alleged "proofs" of IT do) is not sufficient.

Because of this, many people think that 'ITers' are delusional, and simply need to accept that Bioware ended the ME trilogy badly. But this is a misconception.

No, it isn't. IT is an un-falsifiable hypothesis, much like Russel's teapot (google it) without any evidence (as explained above, the alleged "evidence" isn't evidence).

An example: you could be dreaming right now, and I could list endless facts consistent with you dreaming (and lack of flying pink unicorns does not prove that you are not dreaming since it could be a dream indistinguishable from reality). So take out your wallet and set it on fire.

So what's different about IT? Simple - you actively looking for a way out, a way to ignore canon without having to admit to it. IT gives you that way out; in contrast, you have no baseline interest in (literally) burning your money.

[Davik Kang]

Applepie_Svk wrote...
And I didn´t pay for game which ending will be answered by a dlc or the next game... if ever be explained...

But that's the thing, you don't need DLC or a sequel, there's plenty in the game already to look at.  There's nothing that proves IT or denies it, but there is stuff to talk about that happens in the game and relates to the ending, and a lot of IT discussion was based around that.  In many ways discussion of the ending suffered a little because it was almost exclusively IT supporters who discussed it, when it could have been more interesting if more people had been pointing out the opposite, to try to come to more objective conclusions.

frostybaby13 wrote...
As I understood it, the "main consensus" was that when Shepard was hit with Harbinger's beam, that was when he/she entered a dreamlike state of the "final indoctrination" attempt - and then by choosing destroy, Shepard wakes up on Earth in the very place where he/she was hit by the beam.
I'm sure there are plenty of variations and such, but in general, that seemed to be what I heard. And I thought ITers were waiting for a "grand reveal" to see what happens after that point.

You're right about the "main concensus", though there are plenty of people who think, for example, that indoctrination occurs but that there is no dream, or it starts somewhere else, etc.

frostybaby13 wrote...
But I've seen here & a few other posters mention that they were ITers and they were fine with the game as is with nothing else added. How does the indoctrination theory resolve Shepard's story if nothing else is added?

To answer your second question we'd probably need to discuss IT directly, which is unfortunately now banned on this forum.  I guess you could ask in the IT group.  But some examples include: some think the mental battle is the most important part and therefore an excellent way to end the game; some think that the ending was a trap and that defeating indoctrination is the only thing that Shepard can achieve.

My own repsonse is that I don't think the end was a dream, but that the final scene (decision chamber) was a hallucination influenced by various factors.  I think that Shepard actually made her choice at that control panel where TIM and Anderson died, and therefore that the 'Breath Scene' takes place on the Citadel.

[WolfyZA]

A lot of people were IT believers but slowly lost interest as months went by seeing nothing ever surfaced to prove the theory credible. Sure it would've been a nice twist to wake up from the beam to fight Harbinger one on one, or something really awesome I cant come up with at this moment.. But that never happened.

Most of the IT believers just abandoned all hope and eventually moved on to other games and carried on with their lives. Sure they'll come back every now and then to see whats new in the ME universe but wont expect too much from it.. Face it ME 3 is old news, and now trying to justify IT for what it was is just plain outrageous.

The only ironic thing about the aftermath of the whole IT disaster was that it was majority of their fanbase IMO. A thread that lived through 3 versions spanning over thousands of pages and had more than 3 000 000 views cant just be a drop in the bucket now, can it?

[AlexMBrennan]

Russel's teapot

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

The burden of proof is on you. You need to do better if you want me to take it seriously.

I'll leave you to ponder the parallels with religion.

[nos_astra]

I still don't get what ITers want.

Discuss their personal headcanon that for them reconciles the trilogy with the subpar ending? That's cool. It's always nice to talk to people whose opinion matches yours and things can get as detailed, techy and nerdy as it gets. That's fun and if it saves the ME universe for you ... all the power to you.

Tell everyone that this headcanon is a must because the rest of the series is just stellarly written and needs to be saved and this is the only way to do it because it's so intelligent (and so am I), so agree or be trolled forever! Um, thanks, but no thanks. (The dork and his red banana nonsense springs to mind.)

Truly believe that Bioware only shied away from the truly masterful, originally intended ending that is IT. The truth shall be heard and maybe if we whine long enough they'll give us the original true ending. Hm, that's were I begin to wonder if people are that delusional.

Maybe you could explain? Or maybe not because I have a feeling this thread will be locked.

Modifié par klarabella, 29 janvier 2013 - 11:13 .

[Davik Kang]

TurianRebel212 wrote...
Misconception: That Shepard is indoctrinated. Wrong. Shep's not indoctrinated. It's a battle of wills. The final choice is if he becomes indoctrinated or not.

I can't tell you how many times I've told people about IT and they say 'well he can't be indoctrinated, cause vendetta would have detected him on thessia. Wrong. The end game is Sheps test. Much like a 'crucible' is. 

Also, and this is a major one: Shepard can't be indoctrinated. No where in the lore, narrative, codex anywhere does it state that Shep is immune to indoctrination. Shep is an organic. And all organics can succumb to indoctrination. 

True, I don't think anyone thinks Shepard is necessarily indoctrinated at the end.  It's more that the final scenes are a visual representation of Shepard's mind during an indoctrination attempt.

CynicalShep wrote...

See, there are several types of ITers. I respect their privacy so I won't name individuals

1. People who "believe in IT" but usually keep the discussions in IT groups and in private. They will sometimes discuss it on a thread but will usually keep it decent and respect other viewpoints

2. People who "believe in IT" and try to shove it down everyone's throats. They will often start "sneaky IT threads" that start off as a regular thread and end up being a big flaming war with elements of mockery. They will disregard any opinion that doesn't match their own and try to start an argument with anyone who doesn't have the sense to stay out of said thread

3. People who "believe in IT" and everything else. They will usually not be as aggressive as nr.2 but will find proof for IT in anything starting with Shepard's shoe color and ending with that varren on Tuchanka. "Naive" is probably the closest description I can think of. Subsequently, this particular category will become the butt of all jokes, leading to off-topic and lockdowns.

Sorry, but while you might be part of nr.1 there are enough of 2 and 3 to cause what you're trying to mitigate

Well I don't know if I'm even #1 because I don't 'believe' in anything, and I don't believe there'll be any post ending DLC.  But the description of "believing in IT" misses the point a bit, because it's about discussing what happens in-game, not about acquiescing to some fanfic vision.

I also haven't seen many, if any, of #2 or #3.  Almost all IT discussion took place in the old IT thread.  #3 May appear that way because sometimes a player will look a little too hard to find something that supports their view, but I think that mainly happens because a lot of the most interesting things were brought up a long time ago.

[TurianRebel212]

Wow. To say that IT, has no evidence is just incredibly glib. C'mon, you don't have to believe it. But it is a very, very viable way of interpreting the endings. Also to state that 'ITers' are crazy and un-willing to except that Bioware messed up is yet another incredibly silly and ignorant generalization. Why? Cause I'm an 'ITer' and I've excepted that BioWare botched the end of ME3. But I also like to analyze and be open-minded, and in my playthroughs I think it's very likely that my Shep could be succumbing to indoctrination.

But I can also see where for other people IT is so far fetched and isn't possible. I understand. I disagree. But I understand. And that's the problem with the endings of ME that don't disprove or prove IT. I wish that BioWare just went with one or the other. But even they won't say. "No. IT is completely false." They say "well it's not up to us to say if fans interpretation of the ending is right or wrong". Or "in some of my playthroughs IT is possible, in others it's not". See, the endings are so open ended it's astounding.

[Applepie_Svk]

ME3 ending in literal form and IT together are like schizophrenia by definition...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 29 janvier 2013 - 11:19 .