54 réponses à ce sujet

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Don't you see? It was the kid in the beginning. No one saw the kid except Shepard. The kid was on top of a building in a garden you couldn't get to. The kid then got to a vent no one could get to and survived a blast he shouldn't have. Then no one saw the kid during the evacuation except Shepard. The reaper blew up the shuttle. And Shepard had dreams of the kid. The kid was Harbinger. When we were given three choices in the original ending there was only one that wasn't a reaper friendly solution - and it was poisoned by the fact you had to destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy to kill the reapers including your allies - even you were part synthetic. They were your bros. So choose control or synthesis. Be one with them. Become indoctrinated. That's what it was. Shepard choosing anything other than blowing up the reapers was indoctrinated. And who did Shepard see on the Citadel? The kid! It was IT, I tell you!

 

Why bring this up again? I need you to believe.

[Alamar2078]

@Shotgun Julia:  IT is a fair enough theory esp. if you're happy with it.  Nobody should shout you down for believing it or wanting it to be true.  At this point I honestly believe what we have currently is all we're going to get whether we believe IT or not

 

With what I consider a lack of "any idea" what the Crucible does or any solid ideas of how to beat the Reapers I'm not convinced that anyone could come up with an ending that "fixed" everything --- at least not to my personal satisfaction.  Even if IT is true then how does the game end?  Is there any choice of endings?  Do we trade one "where did that come from" series of events for another to get an ending that does what everyone wants??

 

I'm not trying to downplay IT or any other POV but I just don't see how it makes a difference at this point.

[capn233]

It should have been called Indoctrination Hypothesis, at best.

[Rusted Cage]

It should have been called Indoctrination Hypothesis, at best.

A hypothesis which makes more sense than synthesis, just putting that out there...

[ImaginaryMatter]

It should have been called Indoctrination Hypothesis, at best.

 

IH doesn't roll nearly off the tongue as well though.

[capn233]

A hypothesis which makes more sense than synthesis, just putting that out there...

 

Perhaps.

 

Setting aside the entire discussion about whether or not IH was supported in game, I have a feeling at least as many people would have been upset if the end was essentially a hallucination.

 

The biggest failing of the end wasn't really even the story or plot, it was just that Priority Earth wasn't particularly fun to play.  The Citadel portion is extremely poor being essentially all 25th hour exposition (was supposed to have a boss fight, but was taken out because "that's what they'd expect us to do!").

 

Starchild wasn't particularly necessary, he is mainly just there so that new players aren't lost, at least that is my hunch.  You could easily swap in Harbinger to try and talk down Shepard, or lobby for Synthesis (they missed an opportunity to put in a "Critical Mission Failure" screen after you pick that one).

[Rusted Cage]

Perhaps.

 

Setting aside the entire discussion about whether or not IH was supported in game, I have a feeling at least as many people would have been upset if the end was essentially a hallucination.

 

The biggest failing of the end wasn't really even the story or plot, it was just that Priority Earth wasn't particularly fun to play.  The Citadel portion is extremely poor being essentially all 25th hour exposition (was supposed to have a boss fight, but was taken out because "that's what they'd expect us to do!").

 

Starchild wasn't particularly necessary, he is mainly just there so that new players aren't lost, at least that is my hunch.  You could easily swap in Harbinger to try and talk down Shepard, or lobby for Synthesis (they missed an opportunity to put in a "Critical Mission Failure" screen after you pick that one).

The evidence is all circumstantial for the Indoctrination Theory but I still deep down believe that at one time there was a plan to release the "real" ending as a dlc. Making everything from being hit by Harbinger's beam, Marauder Shields and everything else a hallucination may have been a bad decision, especially given the bad press already circulating because of From Ashes being a paid dlc for non CE owners yet existing within the disc, but it would have explained a few things I reckon. It's a moot point now but I think it could have been a gutsy decision to make providing they made it free. Sure there would have been bitching but if they gave us the ending we sort of were expecting I think the lob term damage the brand has suffered wouldn't have been as huge.

 

I think the dialogue sequences in Priority: Earth set the right tone and I genuinely like the opening sequence of stepping out of that shuttle into a hail of bullets but I agree it goes down hill from there. As for the Catalyst, I'm still trying to wrap my head around that with Valmar and Vazgen in another thread. I've excepted two of the endings even enjoy the way Leviathan adds to the lore and explanation for the Cycles. I just don't understand how the Catalyst can assume a form only Shepard has seen yet not be able to read his mind, or that if it has read Sheps mind and is the creator of the Reapers, how is Shepard not Indoctrinated? But that really is a subject for another thread...

[Xamufam]

According to this guy we never got the ending, (concept artist)

[capn233]

The evidence is all circumstantial for the Indoctrination Theory but I still deep down believe that at one time there was a plan to release the "real" ending as a dlc. Making everything from being hit by Harbinger's beam, Marauder Shields and everything else a hallucination may have been a bad decision, especially given the bad press already circulating because of From Ashes being a paid dlc for non CE owners yet existing within the disc, but it would have explained a few things I reckon. It's a moot point now but I think it could have been a gutsy decision to make providing they made it free. Sure there would have been bitching but if they gave us the ending we sort of were expecting I think the lob term damage the brand has suffered wouldn't have been as huge.

 

I think the dialogue sequences in Priority: Earth set the right tone and I genuinely like the opening sequence of stepping out of that shuttle into a hail of bullets but I agree it goes down hill from there. As for the Catalyst, I'm still trying to wrap my head around that with Valmar and Vazgen in another thread. I've excepted two of the endings even enjoy the way Leviathan adds to the lore and explanation for the Cycles. I just don't understand how the Catalyst can assume a form only Shepard has seen yet not be able to read his mind, or that if it has read Sheps mind and is the creator of the Reapers, how is Shepard not Indoctrinated? But that really is a subject for another thread...

 

Personally I doubt there was a plan for a different ending via DLC.  What Extended Cut did in reality was push the timelines for the rest of the plot DLC back, specifically Leviathan.  Perhaps in a way that was ending DLC, but it actually makes more sense as exposition before you get to the ending so the whole Catalyst AI doesn't seem to appear from left field.

 

As for Shepard being indoctrinated, or rather resisting indoctrination, there are several potential ways this could be explained, although it never is in game.  Perhaps all the tinkering in his mind during ME1 (Prothean beacons and memory from Thorian, Liara meddling) made him resistant.  Maybe it was just that he was in Liara's words "remarkably strong willed" (aka fortunate genetic accident).  Or even more likely, RoboShepard incorporated some Cerberus tech for indoctrination resistance.  Or perhaps it is all simply a conceit to gameplay (game wouldn't get off the ground if Shep and entire crew from ME2 is indoctrinated before the end of that game).

 

All of this real ending talk is mostly based on speculation and the fact that the game was delayed and then EA rejected their request to delay release further.  The gamergate guy, who actually didn't work for Bioware or EA, just basically rambled on about information that was largely already out there.  The staff had already claimed that the ending was revamped a couple times, although they didn't explicitly say it was due to time, IIRC.  It was already assumed Omega would be a DLC, and assuming that it was to be part of the original game isn't a stretch (although likely it was always planned as DLC).

[Rusted Cage]

Personally I doubt there was a plan for a different ending via DLC.  What Extended Cut did in reality was push the timelines for the rest of the plot DLC back, specifically Leviathan.  Perhaps in a way that was ending DLC, but it actually makes more sense as exposition before you get to the ending so the whole Catalyst AI doesn't seem to appear from left field.

 

<snip>

 

All of this real ending talk is mostly based on speculation and the fact that the game was delayed and then EA rejected their request to delay release further.  The gamergate guy, who actually didn't work for Bioware or EA, just basically rambled on about information that was largely already out there.  The staff had already claimed that the ending was revamped a couple times, although they didn't explicitly say it was due to time, IIRC.  It was already assumed Omega would be a DLC, and assuming that it was to be part of the original game isn't a stretch (although likely it was always planned as DLC).

 

 

According to this guy we never got the ending, (concept artist)

 

I've been listening to the whole thing but it was rather dull. The conclusion I've drawn from the video is that Bioware knew the ending was wrong when it was packaged and sold because it relied on dlc which wasn't finished yet but their petition to get the game delayed was rejected.

 

As for Shepard being indoctrinated, or rather resisting indoctrination, there are several potential ways this could be explained, although it never is in game.  Perhaps all the tinkering in his mind during ME1 (Prothean beacons and memory from Thorian, Liara meddling) made him resistant.  Maybe it was just that he was in Liara's words "remarkably strong willed" (aka fortunate genetic accident).

 

Liara's assessment and your genetic accident are quite compelling actually, certainly in my mind they add weight to the Reaper's interest in Shepard in ME2. Like, finally after all this time and after countless cycles, the "Cosmic Imperative" has finally produced an organic being immune to Reaper Indoctrination.

[Aisabel]

There's either that ending or the ending that it's all a dream. 

 

Shepard was shot just like Anderson and was injured to the point that she/he couldn't move to the computer console. There's the option that she/he died and then afterwards the rest is a dream. Like people point out- Shepard isn't wearing a helmet and is in space.

[WizzyWarlock]

I'm all for the indoctrination theory, there were just so many hints along the way that I can't really imagine it being anything else. From an email about Indoctrination, to the dreams, the child, the settings.. it's all been said before, much better than I can say. Just look up some videos on YouTube. One thing I have considered, however, that I haven't seen elsewhere is that 1) Shepard was never fired at by Harbinger and 2) Shepard never left the beam.

 

I think Harbinger takes over as soon as Shepard is close enough, making him believe he's been injured by firing an illusionary blast. If you listen to when it happens, it sounds different, Harbinger makes a rather odd noise, and then there's a high pitched whine like ringing in the ears. The next moment, Shepard is waking up apparently injured, missing his armour and weapons, and there are trees and bushes around him that didn't exist before, but do exist in the dreams he had.

 

Shepard moves slowly to the beam, shooting a gun with unlimited ammo at a few enemies. If you look carefully as you approach, the area matches up extremely well with the rubble in the 'breath' bonus scene, so obviously he didn't go any further than this point. My thought is that the Crucible/Citadel is controlled mentally from the ground, he never actually gets ported up to the Citadel at all. The Reapers and the ones that made them were all capable of mental control, and considering the Citadel explodes when the Crucible fires, it's pretty sensible not to be standing on it when it goes off.

 

So you have Harbinger placing illusions into Shepards head, making him believe he's somewhere he's not. If you look at the point on the Citadel where the control panel is situated, the circular floor looks exactly the same as the circular floor at the base of the beam. So parts of reality are leaking in to the illusions, as Shepard fights for control. The rest is well known, with The Illusive Man being Harbinger, while Anderson is the part trying to fight, with Shepard acting as the mind it's all happening in.

 

Once the battle for the mind is over, the child appears, which is Harbinger trying to influence the decision on what to do with the Crucible. The child states that it can't make the choice, it can't fire the Crucible, so Harbinger needs Shepard to be able to make the choice for it. It tries to influence him away from Destruction and to one of the others, Control or Synthesis, both of which lead to complete indoctrination and a win for the Reapers, as they get to live.

 

There's a lot more proof out there, you can watch movies on YouTube all day and still find out more. I don't see the ending any other way, it's simple trick of the mind indoctrination.

[DuskWanderer]

Said it once, said it a million times: Indoctrination Theory is bogus, total hogwash shoved down our throats by people disappointed in the ending. 

 

You can call the ending bad writing (I do). You can call it lazy (I do). You can say it was total BS (it is). But don't chase bad writing by the developers with bad writing from the fans. All the ending was is total crap. That's all it needs to be. 

[Vazgen]

IT is not shoved down anybody's throat. It's fanfiction. You may like and accept it or dislike and reject it, no one forces you to do one or the other.

And sorry if I got you wrong, but your post seems to suggest that your opinion is the correct one and there is no truth other than that. I get that mostly from these lines:

You can call the ending bad writing (I do). You can call it lazy (I do). You can say it was total BS (it is). But don't chase bad writing by the developers with bad writing from the fans. All the ending was is total crap. That's all it needs to be. 

For the record, there are people who are satisfied (or even like) the endings and don't consider them "crap" or "bad writing". You're entitled to your opinion but keep in mind that it's not the only one out there.

[WizzyWarlock]

DuskWanderer - "You can call the ending bad writing (I do). You can call it lazy (I do). You can say it was total BS (it is). But don't chase bad writing by developers with bad writing from the fans. All the ending was is total crap. That's all it needs to be.".

 

I used to be just like you, I hated the ending and couldn't believe how bad it was. But the more I look into this idea of Indoctrination, the more evidence there is to support it. It's everywhere, there are hints all over the game, none more so than the kid and the dreams, but the biggest thing I like about it is that the indoctrination had to happen in such a way that the player didn't even realise it. It was trying to subvert your own ideas and plans, and the fact they managed this and people are still arguing about it, shows how amazingly cleverly written it actually was.

 

For an example, at the end of the game, where you have to make the final decision, they reverse the colours: They make Control blue to have it appear as the Paragon choice, and the Destruction red to show it as a Renegade option. In fact, if you choose Control you become fully indoctrinated, as evidenced by the change in the eyes, while if you choose Destruction your eyes remain the same, at the very last moment you break out of indoctrination, as evidenced by the gun change, and you potentially survive the whole experience if your rating is high enough.

 

Its very clever writing, very subliminal hints throughout that you may not notice unless you really look at it (the kid running through a door that remained locked throughout, for example). I think this is what Bioware intended, there are two camps because there should be. There are those that broke through the indoctrination and saw the ending for what it was, and those that didn't and took it all at face value.

[dorktainian]

Yes, if the Indoctrination Theory is correct, then we haven't seen the ending of ME3 yet. I'm not sure this detracts from the theory in any way.

Mass Effect 3 has an ending.  It's right after the starman says ''one more story'' and you return to the normandy as Commander Shepard.  As in the events after that are kind of not really happening if you can always return to that point in time.

 

Can IT be proven?  No.  Does IT explain the ending in a way that makes the ending make some kind of sense?  Yes.

 

 

 

 

Speculations everywhere....

[ImaginaryMatter]

DuskWanderer - "You can call the ending bad writing (I do). You can call it lazy (I do). You can say it was total BS (it is). But don't chase bad writing by developers with bad writing from the fans. All the ending was is total crap. That's all it needs to be.".

 

I used to be just like you, I hated the ending and couldn't believe how bad it was. But the more I look into this idea of Indoctrination, the more evidence there is to support it. It's everywhere, there are hints all over the game, none more so than the kid and the dreams, but the biggest thing I like about it is that the indoctrination had to happen in such a way that the player didn't even realise it. It was trying to subvert your own ideas and plans, and the fact they managed this and people are still arguing about it, shows how amazingly cleverly written it actually was.

 

For an example, at the end of the game, where you have to make the final decision, they reverse the colours: They make Control blue to have it appear as the Paragon choice, and the Destruction red to show it as a Renegade option. In fact, if you choose Control you become fully indoctrinated, as evidenced by the change in the eyes, while if you choose Destruction your eyes remain the same, at the very last moment you break out of indoctrination, as evidenced by the gun change, and you potentially survive the whole experience if your rating is high enough.

 

Its very clever writing, very subliminal hints throughout that you may not notice unless you really look at it (the kid running through a door that remained locked throughout, for example). I think this is what Bioware intended, there are two camps because there should be. There are those that broke through the indoctrination and saw the ending for what it was, and those that didn't and took it all at face value.

 

The color subversion isn't anything new, that was back all the way in ME2. As for the eyes they don't mean much of anything either, the Lazarus project replaced parts of Shepard with cybernetics, including his eyes. When dissolving it's stripping Shepard away revealing those underlying cybernetics. On that note, the gun change doesn't mean anything as well. Remember all those scenes where Shepard's weapon switches to the default Predator or Avenger? Those scenes weren't Indoctrination either. Guess what's happening at the end? The scene switches to the default Predator. It's nothing clever, just lazy programming.

 

Which gets to the overall point. None of these things are exactly evidence. They're circumstantial. And when you have a game this big in a futuristic setting with this much unpolish and gameplay/story segregation you will end up with lots of these weird moments. More importantly the indoctrination of the Indoctrination Theory is a different than the Indoctrination in the game. Indoctrination has a reasonably precise set of rules which don't cover most of the things IT says are happening to Shepard. Instead, IT relies on a view where anything anyone can assign some sort of subtext to (ie almost everything) is signs of some sort of mental attack. Even those things that would disprove the Indoctrination are signs that there is indoctrination happening (just look at the rational IT gives for the two moments in ME3 where an Indoctrination detecting program detects no Indoctrination in Shepard).

[Iakus]

So why would I have to pay for an ending for a game that I bought under the assumption that there was an ending?

Assuming Indoctrination Theory is correct and I bought a game without an ending, would it be unreasonable to demand a refund?  Or demand patches fixing this immediately?  It's not exactly an unreasonable assumption to make that a game which claims to be the "end" of a trilogy has an ending.

That's why I hope it's wrong.  I would prefer a bad ending get rectified to a horrific business decision like not giving me an ending.

If it's true, it would represent a new low in DLC selling methods.  I would never buy Bioware again, though I'm already not buying DA3 or SWTOR so I'm not sure how valid a threat that is anymore.

Frankly, I'd consider "No ending" to be a vast improvement over what we got.

[Wayning_Star]

actually OP.. IF the IT thing is correct, the story never actually started as the "bugs" and the catalyst are just pulling our leg on general principals... that story has been done many many times in SF, but usually has the mind bender/attempted mind bender at the end/epilogue.

[GalacticWolf5]

For an example, at the end of the game, where you have to make the final decision, they reverse the colours: They make Control blue to have it appear as the Paragon choice, and the Destruction red to show it as a Renegade option. In fact, if you choose Control you become fully indoctrinated, as evidenced by the change in the eyes, while if you choose Destruction your eyes remain the same, at the very last moment you break out of indoctrination, as evidenced by the gun change, and you potentially survive the whole experience if your rating is high enough.

 

I won't talk about the other things you said because we're already talking about that in another thread, but I wanted to adress this.

 

The endings are not associated with Paragon and Renegade. It's not because something is blue that it's automatically Paragon, same goes for red and Renegade.

 

And Control is both Paragon and Renegade, you know that right? The epilogue changes whether you're Paragon or Renegade.

 

Why would Control be a Paragon choice if it's also Renegade? Simple answer is that the endings are not associated with a specific Morality.

[capn233]

It's fanfiction.

 

The most important thing to keep in mind when discussing IT.

 

As far as the endings, I agree with above, they don't have real moral alignments.  Instead each is the acceptance of one of the arguments presented by different characters in ME.

 

Control - TIM basically starts to make the case for this even in ME2.

 

Synthesis - This is acceptance of the Catalyst's viewpoint regarding the organic / synthetic problem and its solutions.

 

Destroy - Anderson sums it up in the end, but in reality and perhaps ironically the argument is really first introduced by Legion and the Geth in ME2.

[DuskWanderer]

DuskWanderer - "You can call the ending bad writing (I do). You can call it lazy (I do). You can say it was total BS (it is). But don't chase bad writing by developers with bad writing from the fans. All the ending was is total crap. That's all it needs to be.".

 

I used to be just like you, I hated the ending and couldn't believe how bad it was. But the more I look into this idea of Indoctrination, the more evidence there is to support it. It's everywhere, there are hints all over the game, none more so than the kid and the dreams, but the biggest thing I like about it is that the indoctrination had to happen in such a way that the player didn't even realise it. It was trying to subvert your own ideas and plans, and the fact they managed this and people are still arguing about it, shows how amazingly cleverly written it actually was.

 

For an example, at the end of the game, where you have to make the final decision, they reverse the colours: They make Control blue to have it appear as the Paragon choice, and the Destruction red to show it as a Renegade option. In fact, if you choose Control you become fully indoctrinated, as evidenced by the change in the eyes, while if you choose Destruction your eyes remain the same, at the very last moment you break out of indoctrination, as evidenced by the gun change, and you potentially survive the whole experience if your rating is high enough.

 

Its very clever writing, very subliminal hints throughout that you may not notice unless you really look at it (the kid running through a door that remained locked throughout, for example). I think this is what Bioware intended, there are two camps because there should be. There are those that broke through the indoctrination and saw the ending for what it was, and those that didn't and took it all at face value.

 

If that's what they wanted, they'd have come out and said it by now. Sorry, but I don't buy that theory. It's just bad writing, both from the fans and from Bioware. 

[themikefest]

On that note, the gun change doesn't mean anything as well. Remember all those scenes where Shepard's weapon switches to the default Predator or Avenger? Those scenes weren't Indoctrination either. Guess what's happening at the end? The scene switches to the default Predator. It's nothing clever, just lazy programming.

 

 

Would lazy programming also account for TIM reaching down behind Anderson to get a pistol when neither had one on their person? 

[GalacticWolf5]

Would lazy programming also account for TIM reaching down behind Anderson to get a pistol when neither had one on their person? 

 

That also happens in the beginning of the game in Vancouver when Anderson suddenly has a pistol on his side and gives it to Shepard. It also happens other times in the game but I don't remember exactly when though.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Would lazy programming also account for TIM reaching down behind Anderson to get a pistol when neither had one on their person? 

 

Probably, unless Anderson was, err... smuggling it past security.