223 réponses à ce sujet

[Shaani]

Davik Kang wrote...

You seem to be under the impression that IT is some wildly speculative idea based on the fact that Shepard falls unconscious a few times at the end.  This is simply not the case.  It is based on so many things that attempting to list them all would be futile.

Yes, it is all based on "things that appear in the game itself".  Like the idea that a dead Shepard would visit Afterlife, most if it is themeing done poorly, or taken out of context, or simply wildly misconstrued.

It would also be worth considering that many players including myself thought that the ending was an indoctrination attempt without ever having heard of IT.  You have to wonder how that's possible if it is not alluded to in the game itself.

There are no new ideas.  People have come to the same conclusion in other games. Using much the same methods.

squallsdead.com/

The ending does involve Indoctornation.  It gives wiggle room for this sort of thing.  I'm not surprised to see it there, but I am surprised that people keep pretending it's the author's intent when nothing much actually supports that.

[Ithurael]

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.

Outside of Bill Casey and maybe you I think most all ITers are looking for a post ending content to see how the fight is finished.

Casey is fine with the classic IT example
IIRC you subscribe to the Wakeing Nightmare or a kind of Deception Theory

Most ITers, however, seem to be classic IT. (Everything after being shot by Harbinger) is a dream and shep is still on earth. And, as we know, in classic IT the following are present:
- Shep is on earth
- War still going on
- Crucible hasn't docked
- Harbinger is standing over shep

I will agree that IT is a way to percieve the ending - but that is where it ends. ITers will have the same content as everyone else and we should just have to make due with what we have.

[estebanus]

It's a shame that in about 3 hours from now, this thread will probably be locked.

[TurianRebel212]

rEApers: This thread lives because we allow it. And it will die when we demand it.

[Davik Kang]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

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.

You are moving the goalposts: I never claimed that "an indoctrination attempt" could not have taken place. I never said that IT is false (which I cannot since IT is, in it's general form, non-falsifiable).
What I did say is that there is no evidence for IT being true. Earlier, I explained what evidence means - an observation consistent with IT only (I.e. inconsistent with the null hypothesis of "bad writing").

It's basic hypothesis testing: An observation consistent with both the experimental hypothesis and the null hypothesis does not allow you to conclude that the experimental hypothesis is correct; you need an observation inconsistent with the null hypothesis to reject it and conclude that the experimental hypothesis is true.

You do not have any observations inconsistent with the null hypothesis; concluding that IT is true would be like concluding that a coin is rigged after getting tails on 50 out of 100 tosses (I.e. exactly what you would expect from a fair coin)

And I did actually watch the documentary you alluded to, and I am not impressed: for example, it's easier to render static elements than characters so video games routinely have a maximum render distance; as a result, his observation that Anderson is not visible from the start of the Citadel level despite having clear line of sight is perfectly consistent with developers optimising the game for performance.

Or how about the beam run? From Harbinger not killing Shepard and the Normandy, he concludes that Harbinger is intentionally trying to keep Shepard alive. Ignoring the fact that the scene was only added to fix squadmates teleporting to the Normandy in the original version (I.e. it's perfectly consistent with bad writing), it's a complete non-sequitur to conclude that Shepard is or will be indoctrinated - Harbinger could be doing this for any number of reasons.

You appear to be having a conversation with yourself.  I didn't allude to any documentary, and I have no idea what documentary you're talking about.  The only documentary I've seen was one by Clevernoob which imo was full of complete crap.  It would often take two disparate ideas, lump them together, and somehow conclude that they were or weren't good evidence based on some random observation...

And you are still going on about rules of evidence as if you are somehow in possession of some great knowledge that the rest of us need to learn from you.  Yes mate well done evidence needs to support one conclusion and contradict the other.  There are tons of things that support IT and contradict bad writing.  Have you ever even talked to someone about IT?

How about you stop trying to show everybody how clever you are, and actually try to engage in a two way discussion.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:17 .

[TurianRebel212]

This AlexBrennan guy actually wiped out the scientific method to prove the IT is false. Damn. +12 reputation points for him.

[Wayning_Star]

quite frankly, IT doesn't matter. To keep trying to reinvent it is folly. Its a hoax at best and diversion at worst. Probably why they moved IT to it's own page for it's fans/followers. Even IF the writers thought of putting Shep through a dream scenerio, to wake up and smell the coffee at that exact moment to produce a canon ending choice, other fans would revolt against IT, as it steals their thunder.

The way the game is laid out, EVERYONE has a canon and noone does. It's a matter of choice and your belief in that choice. Good or not necessarily bad..lol

[Grubas]

There is enough hinting in the game, that devs have been playing with the idea of indoctrinating Shepard. It has been scraped, but the hints leading up to it, are still in the game. Even more obvious then the whole Dark Energy Plot.

Enough content to confuse many players, who followed the lead.. and found nothing.

[Wayning_Star]

TurianRebel212 wrote...

This AlexBrennan guy actually wiped out the scientific method to prove the IT is false. Damn. +12 reputation points for him.

do you mean "whipped" out?

[CoolioThane]

Lol let's say a different take on a video game is wrong because I think it happened one way. All other interpretations are hoaxes or diversions.

Literal or IT can be right, and of course we're all going to think differently. Blanket statements like "IT is a hoax" are jut ignorant. Sorry Wayning, but I could easily say literal is a hoax, which is kind of what IT implies lol

[TurianRebel212]

Wayning_Star wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

This AlexBrennan guy actually wiped out the scientific method to prove the IT is false. Damn. +12 reputation points for him.

do you mean "whipped" out?

Check Mate. You got me. 

[CoolioThane]

Grubas wrote...

There is enough hinting in the game, that devs have been playing with the idea of indoctrinating Shepard. It has been scraped, but the hints leading up to it, are still in the game. Even more obvious then the whole Dark Energy Plot.

Enough content to confuse many players, who followed the lead.. and found nothing.

Techincally the people who followed the lead of indoctrination have found Shepard to be indoctrinated at the end It is what IT is! 

[Wayning_Star]

Grubas wrote...

There is enough hinting in the game, that devs have been playing with the idea of indoctrinating Shepard. It has been scraped, but the hints leading up to it, are still in the game. Even more obvious then the whole Dark Energy Plot.

Enough content to confuse many players, who followed the lead.. and found nothing.

nah, that's just graphics subtrifuge confused as direct control, really just the catalyst/leviathan communication devices.

one uses telepathy, the other mechanical devices. orgo vs syntho.

IT'ers relies too much on the simplic nature of graphical misinterpretation. Beauty lies with the beholder..as it were.

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:28 .

[Davik Kang]

Shaani wrote...

Yes, it is all based on "things that appear in the game itself".  Like the idea that a dead Shepard would visit Afterlife, most if it is themeing done poorly, or taken out of context, or simply wildly misconstrued.
...

There are no new ideas.  People have come to the same conclusion in other games. Using much the same methods.

squallsdead.com/

The ending does involve Indoctornation.  It gives wiggle room for this sort of thing.  I'm not surprised to see it there, but I am surprised that people keep pretending it's the author's intent when nothing much actually supports that.

While I see where you're coming from, I don't think you're giving the theory enough credit.  It's not like people thought "ah wait, there was that thing called Indoctrination in ME1, right?  Maybe that explains it all!"  Indoctrination is specifically mentioned repeatedly in the penultimate conversation in the game.  Both Shepard and Anderson accuse TIM of being indoctrinated for the very reason that he believes he can control the Reapers.  So to claim that the authors never considered that the next scene could be construed as indoctrination seems bizarre.

[dorktainian]

Shaani wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...

Destroy does not only placate to IT and destroy is NOT only symbolic. Destroy is actually an option.

It's all in Shepard's head.  Except when it isn't.

context. if you see a skoda and think it's a volkswagon does that make it a volkswagon?

[Wayning_Star]

Davik Kang wrote...

Shaani wrote...

Yes, it is all based on "things that appear in the game itself".  Like the idea that a dead Shepard would visit Afterlife, most if it is themeing done poorly, or taken out of context, or simply wildly misconstrued.
...

There are no new ideas.  People have come to the same conclusion in other games. Using much the same methods.

squallsdead.com/

The ending does involve Indoctornation.  It gives wiggle room for this sort of thing.  I'm not surprised to see it there, but I am surprised that people keep pretending it's the author's intent when nothing much actually supports that.

While I see where you're coming from, I don't think you're giving the theory enough credit.  It's not like people thought "ah wait, there was that thing called Indoctrination in ME1, right?  Maybe that explains it all!"  Indoctrination is specifically mentioned repeatedly in the penultimate conversation in the game.  Both Shepard and Anderson accuse TIM of being indoctrinated for the very reason that he believes he can control the Reapers.  So to claim that the authors never considered that the next scene could be construed as indoctrination seems bizarre.

no, it's just the way the advanced creatures talk, of course it can be exploited and is by both levi and catalyst. There's  simple reason that is, as one invented the other and then it invented the reaperships..and the IT crowd confused by the dreamish nature of that communication and rely on the bastardization to prove something that doesn't exist.

[Davik Kang]

Wayning_Star wrote...
nah, that's just graphics subtrifuge

Do you mean subterfuge?  :happy:

Wayning_Star wrote...

quite frankly, IT doesn't matter. To keep trying to reinvent it is folly. Its a hoax at best and diversion at worst. Probably why they moved IT to it's own page for it's fans/followers. Even IF the writers thought of putting Shep through a dream scenerio, to wake up and smell the coffee at that exact moment to produce a canon ending choice, other fans would revolt against IT, as it steals their thunder.

The way the game is laid out, EVERYONE has a canon and noone does. It's a matter of choice and your belief in that choice. Good or not necessarily bad..lol

Yeah I agree which is why I kind of hope they leave it as it is.

[TurianRebel212]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Shaani wrote...

Yes, it is all based on "things that appear in the game itself".  Like the idea that a dead Shepard would visit Afterlife, most if it is themeing done poorly, or taken out of context, or simply wildly misconstrued.
...

There are no new ideas.  People have come to the same conclusion in other games. Using much the same methods.

squallsdead.com/

The ending does involve Indoctornation.  It gives wiggle room for this sort of thing.  I'm not surprised to see it there, but I am surprised that people keep pretending it's the author's intent when nothing much actually supports that.

While I see where you're coming from, I don't think you're giving the theory enough credit.  It's not like people thought "ah wait, there was that thing called Indoctrination in ME1, right?  Maybe that explains it all!"  Indoctrination is specifically mentioned repeatedly in the penultimate conversation in the game.  Both Shepard and Anderson accuse TIM of being indoctrinated for the very reason that he believes he can control the Reapers.  So to claim that the authors never considered that the next scene could be construed as indoctrination seems bizarre.

no, it's just the way the advanced creatures talk, of course it can be exploited and is by both levi and catalyst. There's  simple reason that is, as one invented the other and then it invented the reaperships..and the IT crowd confused by the dreamish nature of that communication and rely on the bastardization to prove something that doesn't exist.

Leviathan proves that a reaper can enter sheps mind. It also proves that the reapers perfected the thrall of indoctrination through the many cycles. Also, proves that the Reapers cannot be controled.

[Wayning_Star]

the catalyst isn't Evil, it's just confused by nature and why it wants to create and then destroy everything it creates. It's not out to decieve, not capable of it. Leviathan? Who knows.

[Grubas]

Wayning_Star wrote...

Grubas wrote...

There is enough hinting in the game, that devs have been playing with the idea of indoctrinating Shepard. It has been scraped, but the hints leading up to it, are still in the game. Even more obvious then the whole Dark Energy Plot.

Enough content to confuse many players, who followed the lead.. and found nothing.

nah, that's just graphics subtrifuge confused as direct control, really just the catalyst/leviathan communication devices.

one uses telepathy, the other mechanical devices. orgo vs syntho.

IT'ers relies too much on the simplic nature of graphical misinterpretation. Beauty lies with the beholder..as it were.

Nope. Devs admited that they planned at one point having shep indoctrinated. But scrapped it because of gameplay issues!
They did prepare it though. 
The dreams presented fit 1:1 with the way inodoctrination works. PTSD is just an alternative. 

Given the fact that inodoctrination was planned, but scrapped at the last moment, explains why there is no conclusion to this plot. 

Seams the most plausible dosnt it?

Modifié par Grubas, 29 janvier 2013 - 01:40 .

[Davik Kang]

Ithurael wrote...
Outside of Bill Casey and maybe you I think most all ITers are looking for a post ending content to see how the fight is finished.

Casey is fine with the classic IT example
IIRC you subscribe to the Wakeing Nightmare or a kind of Deception Theory

Most ITers, however, seem to be classic IT. (Everything after being shot by Harbinger) is a dream and shep is still on earth. And, as we know, in classic IT the following are present:
- Shep is on earth
- War still going on
- Crucible hasn't docked
- Harbinger is standing over shep

I will agree that IT is a way to percieve the ending - but that is where it ends. ITers will have the same content as everyone else and we should just have to make due with what we have.

Well there are at least a couple of others (RE: ending DLC) but you could be right.  Nonetheless, my point was that IT discussion is about talking about the game.  Post-ending DLC would be a confirmation, but the IT discussion is based on things we already have.

[dorktainian]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the catalyst isn't Evil, it's just confused by nature and why it wants to create and then destroy everything it creates. It's not out to decieve, not capable of it. Leviathan? Who knows.

   

''so be it...'' yeah no evilness there.  

[Wayning_Star]

Grubas wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

Grubas wrote...

There is enough hinting in the game, that devs have been playing with the idea of indoctrinating Shepard. It has been scraped, but the hints leading up to it, are still in the game. Even more obvious then the whole Dark Energy Plot.

Enough content to confuse many players, who followed the lead.. and found nothing.

nah, that's just graphics subtrifuge confused as direct control, really just the catalyst/leviathan communication devices.

one uses telepathy, the other mechanical devices. orgo vs syntho.

IT'ers relies too much on the simplic nature of graphical misinterpretation. Beauty lies with the beholder..as it were.

Nope. Devs admited that they planned at one point having shep indoctrinated. But scrapped it because of gameplay issues!
They did prepare it though. 
The dreams presented fit 1:1 with the way inodoctrination works. PTSD is just an alternative. 

no, they didn't, good try tho..kudos, for confusion.

[Davik Kang]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the catalyst isn't Evil, it's just confused by nature and why it wants to create and then destroy everything it creates. It's not out to decieve, not capable of it.

And this claim is based on what?  You're speculating on his intentions and abilities based on a single conversation with that same individual... furthermore, a conversation which many players claim is an attempt at deceit.

[chidingewe8036]

Whether you believe in IT or not ME3 is not as it seems in some way shape or form, the boy's starship at the beginning is proof of that "nothing is as it seems"

Again, whether you believe in IT or not something is off about ME3 as a whole and Bioware is keeping their lips sealed about it, that is why the deny everything we say, hear, and read. They are just keeping quiet, they have to they are paid too. They have to keep the fans interested right?