While there is some stuff that kind of supports it, there is plenty of evidence that the theory is wrong.
-The game directly tells you that Shepard has just ended the Reaper threat, despite the endings of the theory either being Shepard failing (in which case the Crucible won't activate) or Shepard not ending the Reaper threat by the end of the game. It doesn't say that Shepard will go on to end the Reaper threat, but that in what you just played Shepard ended the Reaper threat, which simply isn't true in the indoctrination ending.
-You do not simply break free of indoctrination. You can't choose to stop listening to "electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods" (which is how the ME3 codex describes indoctrinations functionality). Take Saren for example - he was both a very strong willed individual and one Sovereign was activeley trying not to indoctrinate too much so that he'd still be useful. The only way he broke free was suicide. The same goes for TIM, although I imagine he was more under their influence than Saren was.
-People point to the codex as evidence, despite the codex contradicting the theory. "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." Shepard never once complains of headaches, or buzzing in his ears, or feelings of being watched. We never see hallucinations in the game. We never hear the Reapers' voices in Shepard's mind. Some people point to the dream sequences, but they're just that - dreams. The whispers are from the charcaters you've met, and the people-shaped wisps of smoke simply represent the dead. The dreams are representative - they show that even with more and more people dying around him, this one child's death is what is haunting Shepard.
-People say that the sequence of Shepard waking up in London must be a sign that he was lying there all along, but look at the scenery. When running for the Conduit, you are running across open ground. In the ending scene. Shepard is lying on layers of ruined building - you can see pipes and bits of wall, which simply weren't present beforehand. People point to the trees that weren't there before just before the Conduit as a sign of the ending being an illusion - surely this total change of scenery would imply the same thing? Shepard is not lying in the same place he was - nowehere near - and yet this is conveniently ignored despite scenery changes being a main point of the theory's evidence.
-Why would Bioware, a company built on making story-based games, end ME3 - the conclusion to one of their most successful and popular stories ever - on a cliffhanger simply so they could end it later with DLC?
-Why market everything about this game as being around the concept of taking Earth back if you don't actually get to do that? If this theory is correct, the game ends before you get the chance to 'take Earth back'.
-Why implement GaW at all if it makes no difference? In this theory, destroy is the only option allowing Shepard to break free, and it is available with the lowest GaW scores. There is no reason for it to exist in this theory - it doesn't affect Earth's fate, as you haven't saved Earth yet. It doesn't affect your choices - the only successful choice is available regardless. It doesn't affect the fate of your squadmates - their dead bodies are part of the illusion. There is no reason for it to exist in this theory despite it being the major focus of the game.
-Why give Shepard only one option if GaW is low? No matter what, Shepard is within a few metres of reaching the Conduit. The Reapers know that they have built the Crucible, and that Shepard was within seconds of reaching the Catalyst. So why then provide Shepard with only one choice that means he breaks free of indoctraintion? If he's made it this far, regardless of how strong the fleet is, he's proven himself to be incredible dangerous to the Reapers. Why go to all the trouble of fabricating this entire sequence if its only purpose is to ensure Shepard breaks free?
-Why does Bioware show the player the Reapers being destroyed/leaving, the Relays being destroyed and the Normandy crashing in every ending? This isn't stuff Shepard can see, its stuff being shown to the player. If Shepard breaks free, why show the Reapers being destroyed if they haven't actually been destroyed? And if he chooses wrong and falls under the Reapers' influence, why keep the illusions going? He is under their control - they don't need to show an illusion of the Reapers leaving Earth.
-Why, in any of the theory's endings, would the Reapers make Shepard imagine the Normandy crashing ona a random planet?
-Why does the Prothean VI detect no indoctrination on Shepard and yet mere hours later Shepard has become so indoctrinated that he is imagining entire sequences? Indoctrination is not rapid - the fastest indoctrination ruins the subject's mind, yet Shepard is still in control of his mind to come extent. This implies slow indoctrination, which raises two questions. Firstly, how did Shepard get so indoctrinated in such a short space of time if right before the battle the game tells you that you're not indoctrinated? Secondly, if the Reapers are capable of indoctrinating him in this timeframe, then why not go all out and reduce him to a vegetable?
And while these points alone aren't enough to 100% disprove the theory for some people, they are surely enough to call it into serious doubt at least.
Modifié par Candidate 88766, 14 mars 2012 - 04:18 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
