567 réponses à ce sujet

[teh DRUMPf!!]

That's the joke.

Ahhh, you were joking. 'Hard to tell the jokes apart from people explaining things with IT, I apologize!

Now the disappointment with the massive narrative incoherence that is the ME3 ending is being summarized as a traumatic reaction to Shepard not being on a beach with his or her "space waifu." I fail to see how this perspective is any less narrow-minded than IT.

There was no narrative incoherence, just failure of understanding.

And let's not kid ourselves about narrative incoherence being any problem to fans when they get any sort of desirable outcome. MEHEM does not solve all problems with the ending but its users do not go on about them for a reason.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Remember everyone, personal insults towards individuals or groups is against the Site Rules. 

[Franky Figgs]

Wow. I wanna call troll. I mean how can anyone still cling to IT after the EC and the ending slides SHOWED what happened..happened.

Just because you don't like it and don't want to accept it doesn't give credit to a bat-sith crazy "theory"

Given your strong expression againts ending deniers id like to ask you - What would you call a theory based around the ending and how it involves indoctrination but has nothing to do with hallucinations or false epilogues?

[The Heretic of Time]

I've seen ITers talking about how they looked for "clues" for IT in the ME3 multiplayer, so....

 

By constantly shifting the goalpost the IT is here to stay. The fact that the ME3 MP team works on ME4 means nothing to the ITers. They'll just look for "clues" in the ME3 MP to "prove" IT was in the ME3 MP all along which "proves" it might be resolved in ME4.

That's how the IT folks operate guys. They'll always find new excuses to keep their "theory" alive.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That's a contradiction. An insult to a group can't be personal.

Sure it can. A group is just a bunch of individuals, thus insulting a group is personally insulting everyone in that group.

 

Here is what the rule states: 

• Personal attacks: Do not insult, degrade or criticize any person or group of people. Personal attacks are hurtful and destroy useful discussion.
• Attacks on groups: Attacking groups of people, companies, or user locations, including, but not limited to, home countries, is prohibited.

[The Heretic of Time]

 

Sure it can. A group is just a bunch of individuals, thus insulting a group is personally insulting everyone in that group.

 

Here is what the rule states: 

• Personal attacks: Do not insult, degrade or criticize any person or group of people. Personal attacks are hurtful and destroy useful discussion.
• Attacks on groups: Attacking groups of people, companies, or user locations, including, but not limited to, home countries, is prohibited.

 

 

Then the rules are wrong. An attack on a group can by very definition not be a personal attack. "Personal" means directed at one single specific individual.


But we all know the rules, we can all read them and we all most likely have read them at some point. So there is no need to play backseat-moderator, which is also against the rules. If the real mods don't like what they see they'll do something about it.

[JobacNoor]

Indoctrination Theory.

 

In 2015.

 

Let it go, man.

[Spacepunk01]

Well, if we consider people who believe in Indoctrination Theory to be a group/religion/cult, then (according to this community) you can't attack them or call them crazy. I would argue that people who subscribe to Indoctrination Theory is no more "crazy" than your avarage religious believer, cult member or any other spiritual person out there.

 

The theory is actually interesting, and it provides an explanation to people who can't accept the mediocre ending that BioWare created.

 

True. Attacks on a religion are considered a bannable offense here.

 

What about criticism? No ideas should be exempt from criticism. 

[Seboist]

To see how nutty the IT really is, you have to look at their own words, here are some examples I saved from the past couple of years.

 

This piece of "evidence" for IT involves market stands from the Citadel DLC.

 

 

 

 

This is one where they accuse Glyph of working with the reapers.

 

 

Here they claim Mac Walters wrote the "greatest plot twist in history" (they sure are modest about their "theory")

 

 

Just lol at this one.

 

 

 

 

 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I believe most of the IT community writes the people above as reaching/carzy. Their website has a Scary Door section for all these thoughts. 

[Seboist]

I believe most of the IT community writes the people above as reaching/carzy. Their website has a Scary Door section for all these thoughts. 

 

Everything relating to IT is nuts, the only difference are the degrees of it. This bizarre grasping at straws over a third person shooter game not having a happy ending is not healthy, they need to face facts and move on with their lives.

[DarthSliver]

Everything relating to IT is nuts, the only difference are the degrees of it. This bizarre grasping at straws over a third person shooter game not having a happy ending is not healthy, they need to face facts and move on with their lives.

 

I subscribe to the Original theory when it first started. IT is a product from bad endings for anyone to say they were ok with the endings probably werent heavily invested in the ME series at some others. If you played all the ME series you will see how far off the series took when it comes to those endings. 

 

Indoctrination is used throughout the series and to think the Reapers wouldn't use it on Shepard is foolish or still bad writing. 

[Seboist]

I subscribe to the Original theory when it first started. IT is a product from bad endings for anyone to say they were ok with the endings probably werent heavily invested in the ME series at some others. If you played all the ME series you will see how far off the series took when it comes to those endings. 

 

Indoctrination is used throughout the series and to think the Reapers wouldn't use it on Shepard is foolish or still bad writing. 

 

The endings were the end result of a trilogy that wasn't written all that well and was inconsistent as heck. The only logical ending to ME3 based on how ME2 was a complete and utter waste of time where Shepard spends no time finding a means to stop the reapers or organize the galaxy in preparation for their arrival would have been a Reaper victory within the first couple of hours of the game after they went for the citadel and took control the relays. Most fans should be grateful for the actual endings in fact...

 

Indoctrination was never more than a gimmick to generate mooks to kill, linearize the plot and a license to kill against certain characters like Udina and TIM. That it wasn't used on Shep is not really all that surprising.

[BioWareMod01]

Hello everyone. Let's keep it civil in here and avoid any name calling. Thank you.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Remember everyone, personal insults towards individuals or groups is against the Site Rules. 

 

It is also against the rules at the new IT nuthouse -- where seemingly every other active member has mod powers -- but there is no end of vitriol-fueled posting towards everyone/anyone calling their nonsense for what it is. What is your excuse, exactly?

[DarthSliver]

The endings were the end result of a trilogy that wasn't written all that well and was inconsistent as heck. The only logical ending to ME3 based on how ME2 was a complete and utter waste of time where Shepard spends no time finding a means to stop the reapers or organize the galaxy in preparation for their arrival would have been a Reaper victory within the first couple of hours of the game after they went for the citadel and took control the relays. Most fans should be grateful for the actual endings in fact...

 

Indoctrination was never more than a gimmick to generate mooks to kill, linearize the plot and a license to kill against certain characters like Udina and TIM. That it wasn't used on Shep is not really all that surprising.

 

I like the ME series so with ME:A I will accept that we are moving to a different galaxy. But it also seems like they probably are taking the easy way out of having to deal with ME3 endings and there are people who just want them to actually disapprove IT or approve of it. IT will forever live because Bioware messed up with ME3 ending. I by far enjoyed the series up until that final moment being brought up to the Starkid instead of the big red button not being the big red button of Reaper doom it should've been. The Starkid is truly what is wrong with ME3 and the Starkid happens to be the ending of ME3, the finish moment that should've been wasn't. Watching Anderson die in front of you then your struggle to press that button on the console to do what you came to do and that was to destroy the Reapers. 

 

You may think IT is a crazy theory but remember from the first game Shepard set out to destroy the Reapers and even throughout ME3 Shepard was doing exactly that, trying to destroy the Reapers. The fact that button didn't destroy the Reapers goes against everything the series set out to due. The choices you made throughout the series should've reflected that too. So much more could've came from the ME3 endings that didn't

[AlanC9]

Well, if we consider people who believe in Indoctrination Theory to be a group/religion/cult, then (according to this community) you can't attack them or call them crazy.

I actually got a warning point once for complaining about IT being essentially a religion. Just sayin'.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

The indoctrination theory is nothing more than wishful thinking. Let it go man, mass effect 3 had a garbage ending and thats really all there is to it. Just let it go..Let it go...Cant hold it back anymore.

[Artemis_Entrari]

Let's put it this way: it's as likely MEA will involve IT as it is that Bioware will retroactively release ME3 DLC with IT.

 

Yeah, if Bio was going to go with the IT, they would have done so in a DLC for ME3 by now.  It might have been a decent theory at one point, but it's well beyond the point it would make sense to introduce it now.

[Franky Figgs]

Everything relating to IT is nuts, the only difference are the degrees of it. This bizarre grasping at straws over a third person shooter game not having a happy ending is not healthy, they need to face facts and move on with their lives.

 

I'm not saying this is infallible but, rejecting any hallucination concepts outright, do you really think its nuts for someone to come to a conclusion that in aligning with an "entrallers" goals to ones own as a sign of indoctrination and then after being presented with a similar opportunity to think to themselves "seems like an indoctrination set up"? 

 

I'm just saying, why hate on these folks if it's in the games DNA for anyone to pick up, true or not.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

It is also against the rules at the new IT nuthouse -- where seemingly every other active member has mod powers -- but there is no end of vitriol-fueled posting towards everyone/anyone calling their nonsense for what it is. What is your excuse, exactly?

My excuse for what? 

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

Well, if we consider people who believe in Indoctrination Theory to be a group/religion/cult, then (according to this community) you can't attack them or call them crazy. I would argue that people who subscribe to Indoctrination Theory is no more "crazy" than your avarage religious believer, cult member or any other spiritual person out there.

 

The theory is actually interesting, and it provides an explanation to people who can't accept the mediocre ending that BioWare created.

 

 

What about criticism? No ideas should be exempt from criticism. 

that includes the idea of criticism itself.

[Dovahzeymahlkey]

I'm not saying this is infallible but, rejecting any hallucination concepts outright, do you really think its nuts for someone to come to a conclusion that in aligning with an "entrallers" goals to ones own as a sign of indoctrination and then after being presented with a similar opportunity to think to themselves "seems like an indoctrination set up"? 

 

I'm just saying, why hate on these folks if it's in the games DNA for anyone to pick up, true or not.

because the devs pretty much shut down the indoctrination theory with the Citadel DLC. It doesnt fit the frame of the narrative and has been addressed. Mass 3 simply has a bad ending. btw im not hatin on the IT crowd,criticizing the Indoctrination theory shouldnt be used to make fun of people. Seboist is being a ****** by using the IT debate to take potshots at people.

 

And for the love of Celestia, please turn off that pretentious white filter over your text.

[AlanC9]

You may think IT is a crazy theory but remember from the first game Shepard set out to destroy the Reapers and even throughout ME3 Shepard was doing exactly that, trying to destroy the Reapers. The fact that button didn't destroy the Reapers goes against everything the series set out to due. The choices you made throughout the series should've reflected that too. So much more could've came from the ME3 endings that didn't

My Shepards were typically trying to stop the Reapers, actually. Sure, they figured that they'd do it by blowing them up, but enslaving them works too.

And Synthesis goes all the way back to Saren. Nothing wrong with throwing in with Saren's vision. We were able to go DS in KotOR, and I don't remember anyone whining about that.

[Spacepunk01]

I subscribe to the Original theory when it first started. IT is a product from bad endings for anyone to say they were ok with the endings probably werent heavily invested in the ME series at some others. If you played all the ME series you will see how far off the series took when it comes to those endings. 

 

Indoctrination is used throughout the series and to think the Reapers wouldn't use it on Shepard is foolish or still bad writing. 

 

The Indoctrination Theory seems to be a respons from people who were very invested in the series, and who probably knew more about Mass Effect than BioWare themselves. They required a better explanation. This is understandable. Human beings have always been wired to look for explanations on how the world works. When people were happy to accept the Geocentric model of the Universe, others were more inquisitive, and they couldn't easily accept an explanation that weren't consistent with observations. 

 

The IT subscribers knew the Universe of Mass Effect, and they could see the inconsistencies very clearly. 

 

that includes the idea of criticism itself.

 

Philosopher