223 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexMBrennan]

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

That's not the same as being supported by evidence. That's kinda my point - you don't even understand what evidence means.

[Davik Kang]

pirate1802 wrote...
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).

Many players have different opinions about this and it's hard to go into this without making another IT thread.  For what it's worth, I agree with what you're saying, but as I touvhed on earlier, I do think the game ends, Shepard uses the Crucible, and the story is finished, so I may not be the best person to ask about this.

But the thing is, these things can be discussed without anger or vitriol.  Virtually everyone I talked to about IT is intelligent, has reasons to back up any assertions, and can see two or more sides to every story, which is why it was fun talking to them in the IT thread.  Much of the dogmatic, angry stuff comes from elsewhere.

AlexMBrennan wrote...
snip

Ok man you do seem pretty hostile.  You aren't pointing out anything new, everyone knows about the burden of proof with regard to suggesting that what happened was different to what we were presented with.  That's why the whole IT discussion involved bringing in-game facts up to evince this or that.

Telling people that they need to look up the meaning of 'evidence' or 'proof' is basically rude.  I don't know who you've been talking to but the reason IT discussion went on for months is because people weren't accepting things dogmatically, but feeling the need to anaylse and explain stuff.  Really you come across more like you're just trying to show us how clever you are (e.g. by putting things like "google it" in your statement.)

Maybe this is a result of having an argument with someone who was hostile to you and tried to make you feel stupid?  Cos I've had many such arguments, but not with people in the IT thread.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 29 janvier 2013 - 03:22 .

[CynicalShep]

Davik Kang wrote...

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.

That is why I used quotation marks. "Believing in IT" = believing that the Indoctrination Theory is true, I wasn't insinuating anything. I have nothing against headcanon, everybody is free to believe what they want. 

I see them daily. There are way more of nr.3 than there are nr.2 but the latter are way more vocal (and a few of them are quite famous on BSN, I could tell you a few of the top of my head). I don't think the lack of new data is what's causing nr.3. Obviously, most of the details have been analysed over and over again (otherwise there would be no IT) but some of the things that are brought up are downright ridiculous(hence the jokes). Why gasp at straws when you have a whole theory worked out and many facts that actually have some merit already there? Bringing up newer and weaker proof only degrades the credibility of this theory. So, to put it differently - digging their own hole

[Davik Kang]

WolfyZA wrote...

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. 

Yes that's true, the game did lose it's appeal to the majority fairly early on, and speculating didn't really resolve that.  I do wonder how Bioware feels about this.

klarabella wrote...

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.

Well again this goes to the core of this thread.  IT isn't some invented headcanon that goes against the trilogy's core narrative, or canon events.  

For a start without an ME sequel yet, we don't know which events, if any, are canon.

Secondly it's not about inventing things out of thin air.  The ideas that make up parts of people's interpretations are derived from what happens in the game.  

Also bear in mind that many players who take the endings at face value find themselves suddenly needing to quite heavily speculate when they are asked to explain certain things in the game.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 29 janvier 2013 - 03:23 .

[X086573]

MY OPINION:

Depicting something as evidence, even though in any other circumstance it wouldn't even be considered as evidence, isn't evidence.

It may help out your theory alot more if:

1. You would cast all the BS that you claim is evidence aside, and only focus on the absolute mind-numbing questions. (For example: not being able to shoot the keepers and having a gun w/ a bottomless clip should be cast aside, because if they aren't then you could make the case that Big Boss is fighting the battle of indoctrination at the end of MGS3, and that Shepard has been fighting indoctrination since he first landed on the Citadel in ME1, a truly absurd concept)

2. If you could grasp that the concept that IT depends on perception of events, and not events themselves. If you see the shape of a dog in the clouds, but i don't, it doesn't make the cloud a dog, it's still a cloud.

I want to be clear and say IT is a remarkable idea, and if the devs had actually intended it, i would've been amazed, but as it stands now, the literal interpretation is reality (so to speak).

But i don't ridicule you for believing in IT, i just wish you'd acknowledge it as your own perspective.

[Deathsaurer]

Davik Kang wrote...

But the thing is, these things can be discussed without anger or vitriol.

In a perfect world... Sadly the exuberant ones turn other people off rather badly. When you start jumping down peoples throats they tend to want to tell you to GTFO. You're luck you've missed those types is all I can say.

[Davik Kang]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

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

That's not the same as being supported by evidence. That's kinda my point - you don't even understand what evidence means.

No dude, it means that either you don't know what evidence means, or you don't understand what people are talking about when saying that an indoctrination attemot could have been taking place at the end of the game.

CynicalShep wrote...
That is why I used quotation marks. "Believing in IT" = believing that the Indoctrination Theory is true, I wasn't insinuating anything. I have nothing against headcanon, everybody is free to believe what they want. 

I see them daily. There are way more of nr.3 than there are nr.2 but the latter are way more vocal (and a few of them are quite famous on BSN, I could tell you a few of the top of my head). I don't think the lack of new data is what's causing nr.3. Obviously, most of the details have been analysed over and over again (otherwise there would be no IT) but some of the things that are brought up are downright ridiculous(hence the jokes). Why gasp at straws when you have a whole theory worked out and many facts that actually have some merit already there? Bringing up newer and weaker proof only degrades the credibility of this theory. So, to put it differently - digging their own hole

But again, IT isn't about headcanon.  It's about looking at what heppens in the games themselves.  It is a logical conclusion to certain things that happen.  I'm happy to go into them but you'd be better off posting in an IT discussion thread.

I wholeheartedly agree that some things brought up are downright ridiculous.  I have had many arguments with various IT guys over some of the crap I see.  Not least because it makes the whole thing look stupid, which will give totally the wrong idea to casual observers.  But there are a great deal of very interesting things which do genuinely suggest that more is involved than the straight up Deus Ex 3 choice scenario, and as I've touched on before, there are a lot of things that simply don't make sense if you're trying to interpret the whole thing exactly as it's shown, without referring to headcanon or speculation.

Another thing is that, although people will sometimes bring up silly stuff, this is ultimately a forum about discussing a video game, and hence should be fun.  You don't have to agree with someone's crackpot idea, but you also don't have to be antagonistic in reponding to it.  I have often been guilty of overreacting to some of the stuff people suggest; in the end, I'd rather hear someone's idea than get the impression that people are too scared to suggest something.

[Davik Kang]

X086573 wrote...

MY OPINION:

Depicting something as evidence, even though in any other circumstance it wouldn't even be considered as evidence, isn't evidence.

It may help out your theory alot more if:

1. You would cast all the BS that you claim is evidence aside, and only focus on the absolute mind-numbing questions. (For example: not being able to shoot the keepers and having a gun w/ a bottomless clip should be cast aside, because if they aren't then you could make the case that Big Boss is fighting the battle of indoctrination at the end of MGS3, and that Shepard has been fighting indoctrination since he first landed on the Citadel in ME1, a truly absurd concept)

2. If you could grasp that the concept that IT depends on perception of events, and not events themselves. If you see the shape of a dog in the clouds, but i don't, it doesn't make the cloud a dog, it's still a cloud.

I want to be clear and say IT is a remarkable idea, and if the devs had actually intended it, i would've been amazed, but as it stands now, the literal interpretation is reality (so to speak).

But i don't ridicule you for believing in IT, i just wish you'd acknowledge it as your own perspective.

This isn't 'my theory'.  If you really care (which I very much doubt you do) my theory can be found in my signature, where by the way you will note that I repeatedly point out that it is my opinion and not some claim of what definitely happened in the game.

When you write suggestions like the bullet points above, you can come across as a little absurd.  Asking ITers to "grasp the concept" that a dog-shaped cloud is a cloud is not only pitifully arrogant and condescending, it also shows that you don't actually know anyone in the IT thread, given that they are, on the whole, very intelligent.

Remember that I disagree with a lot of what the IT guys say, but I don't get the kind of responses that I'm seeing here.  It would help settle the general anti-IT feeling if people would stop making the assumption that they are somehow more intelligent than the average ITer because the average ITer doesn't understand the rules of evidence or the bruden of proof.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 29 janvier 2013 - 03:25 .

[Davik Kang]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

But the thing is, these things can be discussed without anger or vitriol.

In a perfect world... Sadly the exuberant ones turn other people off rather badly. When you start jumping down peoples throats they tend to want to tell you to GTFO. You're luck you've missed those types is all I can say.

I haven't missed those types, I have found them almost exclusively in other threads, especially those dedicated to whining about X, Y or Z.

[X086573]

Davik Kang wrote...

X086573 wrote...

MY OPINION:

Depicting something as evidence, even though in any other circumstance it wouldn't even be considered as evidence, isn't evidence.

It may help out your theory alot more if:

1. You would cast all the BS that you claim is evidence aside, and only focus on the absolute mind-numbing questions. (For example: not being able to shoot the keepers and having a gun w/ a bottomless clip should be cast aside, because if they aren't then you could make the case that Big Boss is fighting the battle of indoctrination at the end of MGS3, and that Shepard has been fighting indoctrination since he first landed on the Citadel in ME1, a truly absurd concept)

2. If you could grasp that the concept that IT depends on perception of events, and not events themselves. If you see the shape of a dog in the clouds, but i don't, it doesn't make the cloud a dog, it's still a cloud.

I want to be clear and say IT is a remarkable idea, and if the devs had actually intended it, i would've been amazed, but as it stands now, the literal interpretation is reality (so to speak).

But i don't ridicule you for believing in IT, i just wish you'd acknowledge it as your own perspective.

This isn't 'my theory'.  If you really care (which I very much doubt you do) my theory can be found in my signature, where by the way you will note that I repeatedly point out that it is my opinion and not some claim of what definitely happened in the game.

When you write suggestions like the bullet points above, you can come across as a little absurd.  Asking ITers to "grasp the concept" that a dog-shaped cloud isa cloud is not only pitifully arrogant and condescending, it also shows that you don't actually know anyone in the IT thread, given that they are, on the whole, very intelligent.

Remember that I disagree with a lot fo what the IT guys say, but I don't get the kind of responses that I'm seeing here.  It would help settle the general anti-IT feeling if people would stop making the assumption that they are somehow more intelligent than the average ITer because the average ITer doesn't understand the rules of evidence or the bruden of proof.

why would you take my comment directed towards you if you don't  subscribe to the theory?  i honestly hadn't targeted any specific person w/ my comment, so you taking it as a remark towards you specifically was unneccesary.

bullet points themselves can make it alot easier to process the argument i'm proposing, and spaces out each point thoroughly, giving the mind time to digest it.  I only use them because it helps me voice my opinion more clearly, not because I feel the recipients are too "feeble-minded" to understand paragraphs.

and i use the cloud shape analogy only as a vessel to forward the notion that the belief in the theory solely relies on perception, not hard facts, and also I have never questioned anyones intelligence or stated that I was more smarter-er.

and i don't get how someone can get so defensive towards me for simply voicing my opinion.

and if it matters, i dropped outta high school, so i'm one of the least intelligent people you could care to talk to, but that doesn't make my opinion any less valiable than yours. and please stop thinking that i think i'm above anyone for belieiving in IT, i'm fine w/ them believing it, just wished they wouldn't declare it as "in the game", when it is simply a matter of perspective.

[Ageless Face]

In the ashes
IT will never be.
IT's place is in rubble,
Where Shepard hurt her knee.

Indoctrinaiton is bad,
This is not new.
Indoctrination is stylish,
It comes in green and blue.

Red saves you.
But does it really?
Red might capture you,
Because Shepard can be silly.

And people argue,
Wether this is true.
But BioWare will never tell,
Because either way they lose.

The end.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 29 janvier 2013 - 12:21 .

[CynicalShep]

Davik Kang wrote...

But again, IT isn't about headcanon.  It's about looking at what heppens in the games themselves.  It is a logical conclusion to certain things that happen.  I'm happy to go into them but you'd be better off posting in an IT discussion thread.

I wholeheartedly agree that some things brought up are downright ridiculous.  I have had many arguments with various IT guys over some of the crap I see.  Not least because it makes the whole thing look stupid, which will give totally the wrong idea to casual observers.  But there are a great deal of very interesting things which do genuinely suggest that more is involved than the straight up Deus Ex 3 choice scenario, and as I've touched on before, there are a lot of things that simply don't make sense if you're trying to interpret the whole thing exactly as it's shown, without referring to headcanon or speculation.

Another thing is that, although people will sometimes bring up silly stuff, this is ultimately a forum about discussing a video game, and hence should be fun.  You don't have to agree with someone's crackpot idea, but you also don't have to be antagonistic in reponding to it.  I have often been guilty of overreacting to some of the stuff people suggest; in the end, I'd rather hear someone's idea than get the impression that people are too scared to suggest something.

I didn't say IT was all about headcanon but you can't deny that there is some of that involved. Something that might seem like a logical conclusion to you can look like a less-than-logical conclusion to someone else - hence the whole ending fiasco. There are two sides of the coin and we both know that IT isn't perfect. 

And weaker arguments are exactly what alienated casual observers. That and the infamous "nr.2" I mentioned earlier. I agree that there are good arguments on your side but truth is - IT would probably not exist if most fans were satisfied with the endings. I understand that some people might have gone with it regardless but their number would be significantly smaller. Size matters

See, you usually discuss the theory in the group - 2 and 3 discuss it in the forum. And since IT isn't allowed there anymore it only takes one ardent supporter to lock a thread for off-topic. The decision to "ban" IT from the forums might have been controversial but it was understandable given what was happening here. You can't talk about romance and LIs either (for the exact same reason). I am anything but antagonistic about it but I can help but crack jokes about some of the suggestions that fit the "ridiculous" criteria see my nickname. 

[Obitim]

Davik Kang wrote...

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 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.

I've made my feelings about the decline of the bioware RPG here:
http://social.biowar...ndex/15577858/3

So feel that the ending was a bit rushed, hence the poor reaction, I love the idea of IT or the puzzle theory and do hope they're true...but I don;t understand the levels of hate for IT and the arrogance of soem ITers' if soemone doesn;t accept your theory or choices then what;s the big deal?

[jstme]

Sure, IT is as legitimate as any other interpretation of ME3 vague, out of place and senseless ending. Which still makes ending a bad one - nobody really knows for sure what happened with main character in a role playing game.
You can head canon that it is brilliant because it all is inner struggle against indoctrination and that nothing after Anderson scene is really real.
Someone else can head canon that it is brilliant because everything really happens as it is shown and is thought provoking ,metaphysical and full of dark sacrifice.
Someone else can head canon that it is shameful because game was made vague on purpose because they wanted to sell DLCs and were afraid that EMS will be not good enough to drive the sales so all the explanations were planned to be in those - look at Lethiathan.
Et ctr. All speculations are valid and this in my opinion is horrible. Last chapter of adventure book is written in different style ,with windings font and several pages are missing and this is not a good writing practice.

[TurianRebel212]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

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

That's not the same as being supported by evidence. That's kinda my point - you don't even understand what evidence means.

What? Wow. Like I said. Glib. It is supported by evidence. Go read it. It's got like 3000 pages, also 3 incredibly well made documentaries on youtube.

No evidence, lol. :lol:

[Restrider]

X086573 wrote...

MY OPINION:

Depicting something as evidence, even though in any other circumstance it wouldn't even be considered as evidence, isn't evidence.

It may help out your theory alot more if:

1. You would cast all the BS that you claim is evidence aside, and only focus on the absolute mind-numbing questions. (For example: not being able to shoot the keepers and having a gun w/ a bottomless clip should be cast aside, because if they aren't then you could make the case that Big Boss is fighting the battle of indoctrination at the end of MGS3, and that Shepard has been fighting indoctrination since he first landed on the Citadel in ME1, a truly absurd concept)

2. If you could grasp that the concept that IT depends on perception of events, and not events themselves. If you see the shape of a dog in the clouds, but i don't, it doesn't make the cloud a dog, it's still a cloud.

I want to be clear and say IT is a remarkable idea, and if the devs had actually intended it, i would've been amazed, but as it stands now, the literal interpretation is reality (so to speak).

But i don't ridicule you for believing in IT, i just wish you'd acknowledge it as your own perspective.

I have to agree that there are more than one example of ITers overanalyzing things and drawing conclusions that are - to say it carefully - far fetched.

However, the best way to grasp the core of IT is to think about the themes of the ME trilogy. This is fiction after all and things are usually put into the story for a reason.

A simple example for what I mean would be the following:

1. How does the Guardian acquire the form of that child in Vancouver and Shepard's dream?

To answer this question without using ridiculous assumptions (i.e. the Destroyer on Vancouver saw Shepard seeing the Kid and told the Guardian about it...), we have to assume that the Guardian has access to Shepard's memories. And we have an example for such an event in the Leviathan DLC as well, to proof that this is indeed possible in the ME universe.

2. Why does the Guardian acquire the form of that child in Vancouver and Shepard's dream?

To facilitate communication you may say (i.e. like in the movie "Contact"...). That is a reasonable assumption, but wouldn't a normal, adult humanoid form suffice for that? Why a child and especially a child that has caused Shepard feelings of guilt?
To appear less hostile maybe?
And here is the point, this is already the Guardian manipulating Shepard. And knowing the entire background of the Reapers and their notion to manipulate/indoctrinate, it is thematically consistent that the self-proclaimed leader would use similar tactics.

I don't want to expand too much on this topic, but I think this is an approach that you could use for a fictional analysis.
And please remember that this is a fictional analysis after all, using concepts like "Occam's Razor" does not really work here, since everything is usually put into the story for a reason, unless you handwave everything and yell "Bad Writing!".

Modifié par Restrider, 29 janvier 2013 - 12:31 .

[Grubas]

HagarIshay wrote...

In the ashes
IT will never be.
IT's place is in rubble,
Where Shepard hurt her knee.

Indoctrinaiton is bad,
This is not new.
Indoctrination is stylish,
It comes in green and blue.

Red saves you.
But does it really?
Red might capture you,
Because Shepard can be silly.

And people argue,
Wether this is true.
But BioWare will never tell,
Because either way they lose.

The end.

This sums it up.

[Restrider]

Grubas wrote...

-snip-


This sums it up.

Lol, nice.

[dorktainian]

i have no problem with anyone that thinks the endings are literal. each to their own i suppose. What the literalists dont seem to understand is that us ITers see an ending that is so amazing when you take into account 'IT' (bit of a dirty phrase round here if the red banana mob see it).

It gets dismissed out of hand by some on these forums. That the ending might make sense after all. All I say is look at the evidence (it is there if you look) and make up your own minds.

[TurianRebel212]

Grubas wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

In the ashes
IT will never be.
IT's place is in rubble,
Where Shepard hurt her knee.

Indoctrinaiton is bad,
This is not new.
Indoctrination is stylish,
It comes in green and blue.

Red saves you.
But does it really?
Red might capture you,
Because Shepard can be silly.

And people argue,
Wether this is true.
But BioWare will never tell,
Because either way they lose.

The end.

This sums it up.

So. Much. Win. 

[Shaani]

Davik Kang wrote...

But again, IT isn't about headcanon.  It's about looking at what heppens in the games themselves.  It is a logical conclusion to certain things that happen.

But it's also inconsequental if you stop and think about it for five seconds.

"Looking at what happenes in the games themselves", one could come to a similar conclusion that Shepard really does die at the beginning of ME2, and everything that happens after the Normandy blows up is a dying dream.  You could point to the theming (Where does Shepard go after dying?  "Afterlife!") and you can point to every inconsistancy that happens after that point, and it would have the exact same "proof" as IT.

Furthermore, IT is not an ending.  It's an advertisement for "ME4: No Really, This Time We'll Really End It, We Promise".

[dorktainian]

Shaani wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

But again, IT isn't about headcanon.  It's about looking at what heppens in the games themselves.  It is a logical conclusion to certain things that happen.

Furthermore, IT is not an ending.  It's an advertisement for "ME4: No Really, This Time We'll Really End It, We Promise".

typical literalist coment.

IT isn't about the ending....it's about the context of Shepards reality within ME3.    

[CynicalShep]

HagarIshay wrote...

In the ashes
IT will never be.
IT's place is in rubble,
Where Shepard hurt her knee.

Indoctrinaiton is bad,
This is not new.
Indoctrination is stylish,
It comes in green and blue.

Red saves you.
But does it really?
Red might capture you,
Because Shepard can be silly.

And people argue,
Wether this is true.
But BioWare will never tell,
Because either way they lose.

The end.

Did you write this?

[X086573]

dorktainian wrote...

i have no problem with anyone that thinks the endings are literal. each to their own i suppose. What the literalists dont seem to understand is that us ITers see an ending that is so amazing when you take into account 'IT' (bit of a dirty phrase round here if the red banana mob see it).

It gets dismissed out of hand by some on these forums. That the ending might make sense after all. All I say is look at the evidence (it is there if you look) and make up your own minds.

I agree, IT is a remarkable concept, as i've said. I just don't think it was ever intended or will ever be intended for ME.
If a developer had used it, my mind would've been blown, but to declare that IT HAS been implemented in ME3, based on subjective evidence doesn't do the theory any good.

Stating, "I personally think IT is in the game, and these following reasons are what made me draw this conclusion, A,B,C, etc." would be a lot more tolerable. But to declare that "Because of these reasons, IT IS in the game, and whether or not you see it doesn't matter", hurts your cause IMO.

[CoolioThane]

There's more headcanon in not-believing the IT...