I am about to do something I very rarely do. I am going to quote someone else's entire post in blocks and respond to each block separately. I don't like to do this because it can make the reply seem more flippant than intended; most flame wars I've seen take this form. However, because the post I am responding to is structured the way it is, I can't just reply with a single or even double block of text and do it justice. So here we go.
If one is to make such an advanced statement like the entire ending is a hallucination - something I have shown and demonstrated using the content in the game itself cannot happen - you need to show what evidence this statement has to support it. And it really needs to be concrete otherwise it comes off as more a fallacious argument than evidence.
Basically extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
[/quote]
The evidence has long since already been given and you claimed to be familiar with it. I am also not going to cite something from the Mass Effect game in the Mass Effect forum because it falls under Common Knowledge.
People hopped onto IT for largely two reasons
1 - The ending sequence was so impossible that there was NO WAY it could happen
2 - IT offered people a way out of the horrible ending since there was, to point one, NO WAY it could be possible and opens plot holes the size of a dreadnaught.
See, that's just too cynical. The Indoctrination Theory is based on in-game evidence that constructs a partial fill for the largest plot holes, not a pitch for a plot hole plug that grabs whatever evidence it can find to support itself. If I thought it were the latter, I'd have abandoned it. Arguing that the masses of outraged fans were all looking for an out and chose IT simply because it made them feel good is akin to claiming the bulk of IT'ers are weak minded... which would be an insult. This is not a good position to take. Most Mass Effect players I've met, IT'er or otherwise, are reasonably smart people. Many of us have also lived through bad game endings without freaking out (citation needed! ;-)).
There is no way you can make an argument of any kind when the basis of that argument is "It HAS to be a dream - there is absolutely NO WAY that could be happening in reality"
IT does not base its argument on this. It is but one aspect of the breath scene and decision chamber among many other things that build up the theory. You know that.
This is the issue, if you are going to give true evidence to support your claim you need to cite evidence. If you are saying that IT is and was developer intent AND is replicated by the core product you need to give some sort of citation that shows and demonstrates it.
No I don't. I constructed a simple argument with common knowledge and gave it a wide degree of leeway. It's up to MLA standards.
This cannot be some quote like "and if you are still in the rubble" (that came from the citadel DLC I think) or a quote supporting Destroy made by anderson or Javik or citing some note by the IT team in the citadel DLC that stops the combat simulator.
Objectively how can a quote from Javik about wanting to destroy the reapers == reapers being able to create a highly detailed dream sequence?
You have used an absurdity as an example. No one has argued that. No one is arguing that. You know this.
This would be a good citation:
http://masseffect.wi...#Indoctrination
"Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.
Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable. Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years. In the case of strong willed victims, the Reaper can create and manipulate the victims ability to perceive false realities in which to lure them to willingly choose to be indoctrinated*"
* = What I added in.
Altering a citation is like linking to a Wiki article and then editing said article yourself to suit your needs. If you actually demand all debate posts follow the rules of Practical Composition 101, please stick to it. I would have failed the class if I had done that... and gotten caught. 
...no, I never did that. I wouldn't dare because I can't lie worth ****.
Well...here is something to counter that belief:
-Nothing in the core game shows that the reapers can create highly detailed dreamscapes
I suppose your only counter to this - objectively - is to say that bioware could implement IT in their next game - via the Ascended Fanon. They could do this, albeit they would need to explain how the events happened - though when the next game is the best place to start I doubt they are going to conclude a 5+ year long story in it. Basically while "what if" is fun, it should never be taken absolutely. In addition, while remaining hopefuly about "what if" can be fun...personally I would rather stay objective and critical.
Actually I pointed out that the ability was added in the Leviathan DLC. Which it was. Reapers have perfected the Leviathan's enthrallment abilities in the form of indoctrination which, being a superset ability of the Leviathan's ability, would include the ability to suck a mind into a dreamscape and construct objects and people within that dreamscape to interact with said mind. You countered on a minor point regarding my saying that Harbinger did this whereas in the base game it could also be a faceless (ha!) Reaper. (It's funny 'cause Harbinger has a smiley face! ....right, moving on then.)
I don't take much absolutely. I like apples. I am willing, however, to take a stand at the edge of the plank and risk being proven wrong.
I think the best way to communicate this is: You don't believe all the stuff in the Scary Door is real or even replicated in the core game right? That is all speculation on what COULD be possible, what some WANT it to be or just blatant headcanon.
So...again. If you want to have IT as YOUR interpretation of how the game and the series ended - this is perfect. Bioware wants us to be able to choose our own ending. To them IT is just as valid as Green or Blue or Red or the Dinosaur Ending or the Rychnol Theory.
Bad Sushi Theory FTW! Incidentally, Bad Sushi Theory is also an absurdity. Also, I had never gotten around to reading the replies to that thing. Heh heh heh.
But if you are going to say that IT was the core product - and all you do is cite speculations, quotes about the destroy ending, and fall back on "It HAS to be a dream...there is NO WAY that [event] could be happening". This is very bad...and I have pointed out why it is bad.
Guilty? There's only so much work I'm going to put into this thread, after all. And again, I thought you were already familiar with the material.
I am happy you are getting new hats though...those old ones were starting to lose their shine.
.....that just means the hats are working. 
Lastly, I predict Street Magic will like both of our posts within 24 hours.
Retour en haut
