57139 réponses à ce sujet

[ynh]

GBGriffin wrote...

Rob Psyence wrote...


No means of implementing, care to state how they don't have the means when it can be done with psychological cues and suggestions. Last time i checked indoctorination is a big part of the whole series and is mentioned left and right.

Well, to be fair, that is more suggesting an idea rather than implementing it. To me, that information sets the groundwork for a mechanic, which they scrapped. It has to be there for that mechanic to even make sense.

If they scrap the mechanic (i.e. if they planned on it, but then dropped it at the end), then they can't exactly go back and undo everything. They have to leave what's in the game as is and end it as such, without their mechanic being implemented.

I somewhat agree, but I have reservations about your argument. What happens in the main game should set the framework. Auxillary cannon gleaned from devices external to the game itself should support it.

You don't leave major hints to game mechanics lying around in public view unless you are planning to monetize them at some point. Game companies are usually very meticulous about that kind of stuff (especially in regards to story).

My guess is, if these 'hints' that we have seen are for IT, Bioware has failed to make them apparent. 

[byne]

CLB17 wrote...

DuskRose wrote...

CLB17 wrote...

DuskRose wrote...

And it explains somethings like why you can see the kid at the beginning of the game, and those dreams, but Vendetta doesn't identify you as indoctrinated on Thessia.

I think that the prothean VIs can only detect indoctrination when the subject has reaper implants in them. That would explain why Kai Leng was noticed by the VI but not shepard if he is indoctrinated. On a side note, saren already had sovereign's impants in him when he went to Ilos, which would be how Vigil noticed him.

Agreed, only when the Reapers could assume direct mechanical control of a person, or when the person is actually giving off indoc waves.

The  whole induced mental disorder thought also explains why there is a destroy option after all, since it would literally be Shepard's fight against the part of her that is thinking with the Reapers, if that phrasing makes any sense.

Indoctrination seems to be similar to scizophrania or even split personality disorder. Benezia talks about how she was trapped in her own mind as she watched her indoctrinated self do saren's bidding.

I'm pretty sure Benezia said she purposefully walled off part of her mind to allow her to break free when she needed to most though, so I dont think thats how indoctrination usually works.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

Rob Psyence wrote...


No means of implementing, care to state how they don't have the means when it can be done with psychological cues and suggestions. Last time i checked indoctorination is a big part of the whole series and is mentioned left and right.

Well, to be fair, that is more suggesting an idea rather than implementing it. To me, that information sets the groundwork for a mechanic, which they scrapped. It has to be there for that mechanic to even make sense.

If they scrap the mechanic (i.e. if they planned on it, but then dropped it at the end), then they can't exactly go back and undo everything. They have to leave what's in the game as is and end it as such, without their mechanic being implemented.

And if what you say is true then their many statements of "speculation for everyone" makes sense.
But in my opinion.. those subtle cues are in the game for a reason. Is it so hard to believe that they moved the idea toward a player based interaction? To show us what it was to be indoctrinated? We know they have the writing talent. It just seems to me that the ending is such a heaping pile of crap at face value that it seems it was done intentional. And then with these intentional cues, it just makes IDT much more likely.

[Rob Psyence]

GBGriffin wrote...

Rob Psyence wrote...


No means of implementing, care to state how they don't have the means when it can be done with psychological cues and suggestions. Last time i checked indoctorination is a big part of the whole series and is mentioned left and right.

Well, to be fair, that is more suggesting an idea rather than implementing it. To me, that information sets the groundwork for a mechanic, which they scrapped. It has to be there for that mechanic to even make sense.

If they scrap the mechanic (i.e. if they planned on it, but then dropped it at the end), then they can't exactly go back and undo everything. They have to leave what's in the game as is and end it as such, without their mechanic being implemented.

Is it not possible that the A, B, and C choices can be considered a mechanic?

[Jadebaby]

CLB17 wrote...

Indoctrination seems to be similar to scizophrania or even split personality disorder. Benezia talks about how she was trapped in her own mind as she watched her indoctrinated self do saren's bidding.

Like Starchild is trying to do to Shepard.

[ynh]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Rob Psyence wrote...


No means of implementing, care to state how they don't have the means when it can be done with psychological cues and suggestions. Last time i checked indoctorination is a big part of the whole series and is mentioned left and right.

Well, to be fair, that is more suggesting an idea rather than implementing it. To me, that information sets the groundwork for a mechanic, which they scrapped. It has to be there for that mechanic to even make sense.

If they scrap the mechanic (i.e. if they planned on it, but then dropped it at the end), then they can't exactly go back and undo everything. They have to leave what's in the game as is and end it as such, without their mechanic being implemented.

And if what you say is true then their many statements of "speculation for everyone" makes sense.
But in my opinion.. those subtle cues are in the game for a reason. Is it so hard to believe that they moved the idea toward a player based interaction? To show us what it was to be indoctrinated? We know they have the writing talent. It just seems to me that the ending is such a heaping pile of crap at face value that it seems it was done intentional. And then with these intentional cues, it just makes IDT much more likely.

My two cents is, unless the DLC somehow makes these hints more apparent, IDT is unfortunately a theory at best. Indoctrination did not even cross my mind when I finished the game. It was only after I saw this thread and re-played it that I saw the hints everyone is pointing out.

[GBGriffin]

ynh wrote...

I somewhat agree, but I have reservations about your argument. What happens in the main game should set the framework. Auxillary cannon gleaned from devices external to the game itself should support it.

You don't leave major hints to game mechanics lying around in public view unless you are planning to monetize them at some point. Game companies are usually very meticulous about that kind of stuff (especially in regards to story).

My guess is, if these 'hints' that we have seen are for IT, Bioware has failed to make them apparent. 

My argument against the "hints" is that anything can be turned into a hint, anything at all. Someone said some proof is better than others, sure, but I think this speaks more for the ingenuity of the fans and their desire to make sense of the endings rather than BioWare leaving them as markers to guide us to an ending they haven't delivered yet.

To each his or her own, I suppose.

Modifié par GBGriffin, 02 avril 2012 - 04:36 .

[byne]

DuskRose wrote...

protognosis wrote...

Couldn't the level of Indoctrination be greater once the Prothean VI meets Shepard a second time, hence the "my security is gone so you can haz the deets" line?

Does it take awhile for the VI to warm up its indoctrination detectors?

The security protocol on the VI is essentially destroyed by that point, but I'd definitely agree that Shepard's mental/stress state is probably at its worst by that point.

Even if you didnt agree, its canon that Shep is more stressed than ever near the end, so there wouldnt be much you could do about it

[savagejuicebox]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I'm sorry but I refuse to beleive that a dev team would simply give up on a good idea. not even pertaining to indoc theory. But if they just gave up on every idea that they couldn't implement in the way they intended, then the game might just be a pile of crap. Obviously devs have to find workarounds. That's partly the reason why there are so many working with code and so many brainstorming/writing and figuring out the best way to implement those ideas.

It's a matter of beliefs, then. I'm not arguing that it's a poor idea; what I'm arguing is that, for whatever reasons (time, money, etc), they didn't have the resources to pull it off. They may have set out with the idea in mind, but it fell through. That can happen. Look at Peter Molyneux. He had ideas and no way to really execute half of them

You believe that a dev team running out of resources when faced with a good idea is unlikely; I believe it isn't. I don't expect either of us will sway the other, though, so I'm fine leaving it at that.

Honestly you have less proof about them doing a sh*tty job than we do about the IT. Your theory should have a name too, how about: The sh*t parade theory?

[GBGriffin]

savagejuicebox wrote...


Honestly you have less proof about them doing a sh*tty job than we do about the IT. Your theory should have a name too, how about: The sh*t parade theory?

Uncalled for. I prefer to think of my theory as the "rushed product" theory, because that's what I believe it is.

Can you prove that Mass Effect 3 was not the result of a rushed product?

[ynh]

GBGriffin wrote...

ynh wrote...

I somewhat agree, but I have reservations about your argument. What happens in the main game should set the framework. Auxillary cannon gleaned from devices external to the game itself should support it.

You don't leave major hints to game mechanics lying around in public view unless you are planning to monetize them at some point. Game companies are usually very meticulous about that kind of stuff (especially in regards to story).

My guess is, if these 'hints' that we have seen are for IT, Bioware has failed to make them apparent. 

My argument against the "hints" is that anything can be turned into a hint, anything at all. Someone said some proof is better than others, sure, but I think this speaks more for the ingenuity of the fans and their desire to make sense of the endings rather than BioWare leaving them as markers to guide us to an ending they haven't delivered yet.

To each his or her own, I suppose.

I agree that desperate people will try to cling to anything they can. However, I think some examples of evidence are much more compelling than others. For example, the '1 m 1' writing on the walls is really reaching at straws in my opinion. The blur and the weird trees you see as you move towards the beam (after being knocked out) are much more compelling.

Again though, IT will stay a theory unless Bioware somehow makes these hints much more apparent.

[CLB17]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I'm sorry but I refuse to beleive that a dev team would simply give up on a good idea. not even pertaining to indoc theory. But if they just gave up on every idea that they couldn't implement in the way they intended, then the game might just be a pile of crap. Obviously devs have to find workarounds. That's partly the reason why there are so many working with code and so many brainstorming/writing and figuring out the best way to implement those ideas.

It's a matter of beliefs, then. I'm not arguing that it's a poor idea; what I'm arguing is that, for whatever reasons (time, money, etc), they didn't have the resources to pull it off. They may have set out with the idea in mind, but it fell through. That can happen. Look at Peter Molyneux. He had ideas and no way to really execute half of them

You believe that a dev team running out of resources when faced with a good idea is unlikely; I believe it isn't. I don't expect either of us will sway the other, though, so I'm fine leaving it at that.

I don't know about you but if the two theories on why ME3 ended the way it did are A: Bioware ran out of time and resources and so gave us a crappy ending, or B: The Indoctrination Theory, the i choose the indoctrination theory. I don't know if thats correct since Bioware hasn't said anything but i really hope so becasue of teh alternative. Call me what you wish.

[n00bsauce2010]

ynh wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Rob Psyence wrote...


No means of implementing, care to state how they don't have the means when it can be done with psychological cues and suggestions. Last time i checked indoctorination is a big part of the whole series and is mentioned left and right.

Well, to be fair, that is more suggesting an idea rather than implementing it. To me, that information sets the groundwork for a mechanic, which they scrapped. It has to be there for that mechanic to even make sense.

If they scrap the mechanic (i.e. if they planned on it, but then dropped it at the end), then they can't exactly go back and undo everything. They have to leave what's in the game as is and end it as such, without their mechanic being implemented.

And if what you say is true then their many statements of "speculation for everyone" makes sense.
But in my opinion.. those subtle cues are in the game for a reason. Is it so hard to believe that they moved the idea toward a player based interaction? To show us what it was to be indoctrinated? We know they have the writing talent. It just seems to me that the ending is such a heaping pile of crap at face value that it seems it was done intentional. And then with these intentional cues, it just makes IDT much more likely.

My two cents is, unless the DLC somehow makes these hints more apparent, IDT is unfortunately a theory at best. Indoctrination did not even cross my mind when I finished the game. It was only after I saw this thread and re-played it that I saw the hints everyone is pointing out.

We know it''s a theory and full of speculation but my own opinion: The very process of indoctrination is subtle and cannot be detected by the indivdual so easily. That is why it makes sense. We can't know we were indoctrinated unless we go back and look for the intentional cues left by the devs. It's up to the player to decide if we should take the ending at face value.. or if there is something more to it. I believe there is something more to it.

[ynh]

savagejuicebox wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I'm sorry but I refuse to beleive that a dev team would simply give up on a good idea. not even pertaining to indoc theory. But if they just gave up on every idea that they couldn't implement in the way they intended, then the game might just be a pile of crap. Obviously devs have to find workarounds. That's partly the reason why there are so many working with code and so many brainstorming/writing and figuring out the best way to implement those ideas.

It's a matter of beliefs, then. I'm not arguing that it's a poor idea; what I'm arguing is that, for whatever reasons (time, money, etc), they didn't have the resources to pull it off. They may have set out with the idea in mind, but it fell through. That can happen. Look at Peter Molyneux. He had ideas and no way to really execute half of them

You believe that a dev team running out of resources when faced with a good idea is unlikely; I believe it isn't. I don't expect either of us will sway the other, though, so I'm fine leaving it at that.

Honestly you have less proof about them doing a sh*tty job than we do about the IT. Your theory should have a name too, how about: The sh*t parade theory?

Gonna have to agree with GB, you should reword your post. People have differing opinions. Insulting people isn't going to get us closer to clarification

[Rob Psyence]

ynh wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Rob Psyence wrote...


No means of implementing, care to state how they don't have the means when it can be done with psychological cues and suggestions. Last time i checked indoctorination is a big part of the whole series and is mentioned left and right.

Well, to be fair, that is more suggesting an idea rather than implementing it. To me, that information sets the groundwork for a mechanic, which they scrapped. It has to be there for that mechanic to even make sense.

If they scrap the mechanic (i.e. if they planned on it, but then dropped it at the end), then they can't exactly go back and undo everything. They have to leave what's in the game as is and end it as such, without their mechanic being implemented.

And if what you say is true then their many statements of "speculation for everyone" makes sense.
But in my opinion.. those subtle cues are in the game for a reason. Is it so hard to believe that they moved the idea toward a player based interaction? To show us what it was to be indoctrinated? We know they have the writing talent. It just seems to me that the ending is such a heaping pile of crap at face value that it seems it was done intentional. And then with these intentional cues, it just makes IDT much more likely.

My two cents is, unless the DLC somehow makes these hints more apparent, IDT is unfortunately a theory at best. Indoctrination did not even cross my mind when I finished the game. It was only after I saw this thread and re-played it that I saw the hints everyone is pointing out.

I myself figured it out while playing it the first time during the end (not tooting my own horn just saying) And the biggest things that stood out to me was the ai taking the form of the boy in Shepard's dreams and then TIM being seemingly paragon and anderson being seemingly renegade all of the sudden.

[savagejuicebox]

GBGriffin wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...


Honestly you have less proof about them doing a sh*tty job than we do about the IT. Your theory should have a name too, how about: The sh*t parade theory?

Uncalled for. I prefer to think of my theory as the "rushed product" theory, because that's what I believe it is.

Can you prove that Mass Effect 3 was not the result of a rushed product?

Can you prove the IT isnt true? (not until april 6th) No? ahh we have ourselves a stalemate, my friend!

[Shelbyman2]

I opened this in another post, thought I'd mention it here. Something I did realize upon my second play through that I dont think anyone has mentioned yet is that the last system you enter to start your final mission is called "PAX" ... which just so happens to be where bioware will be making their "big" announcement regarding the ending.

[GBGriffin]

ynh wrote...

I agree that desperate people will try to cling to anything they can. However, I think some examples of evidence are much more compelling than others. For example, the '1 m 1' writing on the walls is really reaching at straws in my opinion. The blur and the weird trees you see as you move towards the beam (after being knocked out) are much more compelling.

Again though, IT will stay a theory unless Bioware somehow makes these hints much more apparent.

It's compelling because you want it to be because it confirms your theory. For me, Shepard just got within spitting distance of a Reaper laser and is now wounded. I think the effect was more of a physical trauma experience.

The trees could just be a design element. Recycled texture, put there to mark a boundary. I guess I don't understand why the speculation on my part is "incorrect".

[n00bsauce2010]

savagejuicebox wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...


Honestly you have less proof about them doing a sh*tty job than we do about the IT. Your theory should have a name too, how about: The sh*t parade theory?

Uncalled for. I prefer to think of my theory as the "rushed product" theory, because that's what I believe it is.

Can you prove that Mass Effect 3 was not the result of a rushed product?

Can you prove the IT isnt true? (not until april 6th) No? ahh we have ourselves a stalemate, my friend!

Savage. You need to stop making me laugh. 

[Jadebaby]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I'm sorry but I refuse to beleive that a dev team would simply give up on a good idea. not even pertaining to indoc theory. But if they just gave up on every idea that they couldn't implement in the way they intended, then the game might just be a pile of crap. Obviously devs have to find workarounds. That's partly the reason why there are so many working with code and so many brainstorming/writing and figuring out the best way to implement those ideas.

It's a matter of beliefs, then. I'm not arguing that it's a poor idea; what I'm arguing is that, for whatever reasons (time, money, etc), they didn't have the resources to pull it off. They may have set out with the idea in mind, but it fell through. That can happen. Look at Peter Molyneux. He had ideas and no way to really execute half of them

You believe that a dev team running out of resources when faced with a good idea is unlikely; I believe it isn't. I don't expect either of us will sway the other, though, so I'm fine leaving it at that.

When they're teamed up with a multi-billion dollar company, yea I find it unlikely. But that's just me.

[Shelbyman2]

Openened another post about this but figured I'd mention it here.
Something I did realize upon my second play through that I dont think anyone has mentioned yet is that the last system you enter to start your final mission is called "PAX" ... which just so happens to be where bioware will be making their "big" announcement regarding the ending.
Coincidence?

Modifié par Shelbyman2, 02 avril 2012 - 04:45 .

[savagejuicebox]

ynh wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I'm sorry but I refuse to beleive that a dev team would simply give up on a good idea. not even pertaining to indoc theory. But if they just gave up on every idea that they couldn't implement in the way they intended, then the game might just be a pile of crap. Obviously devs have to find workarounds. That's partly the reason why there are so many working with code and so many brainstorming/writing and figuring out the best way to implement those ideas.

It's a matter of beliefs, then. I'm not arguing that it's a poor idea; what I'm arguing is that, for whatever reasons (time, money, etc), they didn't have the resources to pull it off. They may have set out with the idea in mind, but it fell through. That can happen. Look at Peter Molyneux. He had ideas and no way to really execute half of them

You believe that a dev team running out of resources when faced with a good idea is unlikely; I believe it isn't. I don't expect either of us will sway the other, though, so I'm fine leaving it at that.

Honestly you have less proof about them doing a sh*tty job than we do about the IT. Your theory should have a name too, how about: The sh*t parade theory?

Gonna have to agree with GB, you should reword your post. People have differing opinions. Insulting people isn't going to get us closer to clarification

Wasnt an insult, just trying to be humorous. Perhaps i should add some smilies next time?