265 réponses à ce sujet

[Rockpopple]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based believe based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Accepting empirical observations isn't faith. I played the game and that was the ending, thus I believe that that was the ending.




I honestly believe that indoctrination theory is people who hated the ending so much that they are literally refusing to believe it, and clinging on to any alternate framework offered, even though I regard it as very poorly supported.

One last thing (DAMN the BSN for being so damn addicting), I respect everyone I've had a convorstation/debate with in this thread. I don't want to leave with the impression that I think you're all idiots. I don't. I just think we're all set in our ways. 

But as a response to this specific quote: I wasn't upset with the ending when I discovered Indoc. Theory. You can look up my posts, I actually defended the endings. I took it at face value at first and I said it wasn't a great ending, and that it left a lot of holes and questions as to the fate of the Normandy crew, but that it was a bold vision and I commended BioWare for the title as a whole. I still do.

Then I Youtubed the rest of the endings, and I saw the Destroy ending and the "Breath" scene, and I started to ask questions. That how I got involved in Indoc. Theory.

That's really all there is to it.

[garruslover123]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

As I already said, space magic can be explained away.

Which is why I think the ending is terrible.



I just think it's a really big leap to go from "the ending is badly written" to "the ending isn't the ending".

dont you dare make me indoctrinate you. you will belive in the ending, I will make you belive ill make you right salvation on your hand and you will keep there till you are a beliver now beliver or suffer harbingers wraith muhahahaha. jk but seriously bioware messed up they should either keep the edning where the cycle continues or change it cause i want another trilogy with different mass effect characters

Modifié par garruslover123, 14 mars 2012 - 06:56 .

[Lemonwizard]

Rockpopple wrote...

One last thing (DAMN the BSN for being so damn addicting), I respect everyone I've had a convorstation/debate with in this thread. I don't want to leave with the impression that I think you're all idiots. I don't. I just think we're all set in our ways. 

But as a response to this specific quote: I wasn't upset with the ending when I discovered Indoc. Theory. You can look up my posts, I actually defended the endings. I took it at face value at first and I said it wasn't a great ending, and that it left a lot of holes and questions as to the fate of the Normandy crew, but that it was a bold vision and I commended BioWare for the title as a whole. I still do.

Then I Youtubed the rest of the endings, and I saw the Destroy ending and the "Breath" scene, and I started to ask questions. That how I got involved in Indoc. Theory.

That's really all there is to it.

This isn't a very substantial post, but I do think it's worth clarifying that you specifically are much more logical about this than most of it's supporters.

[DarkSeraphym]

Smiley556 wrote...

Absolutely. Where we are presenting a constant list of evidence from the game. Everytime we point something out the answer is 'plotholes'. Plotholes is you universal answer to everything. Its like debating with a 5 year old who has his fingers in his ears yelling 'LA LA LA PLOTHOLES LA LA'. Can you please Try to even support your explenation to the story with any ingame evidence, and not plotholes?

Nothing more than you have already provided. All I can do is provide you with precedents of similar inconsistencies in the other games and then have you be able to wave them all off, yet tell me that of all the things others can wave off like the rampant breaking of the laws of physics or nature elsewhere, the biggest concern for everyone is how did Shepard survive that explosion or how did Anderson manage to get in a room before Shepard.

I hope I'm not coming off as terribly rude, I just don't understand how you guys can wave off those other plotholes and yet be so concerned about these other ones to the point that you credit them as evidence for a theory because of how inconsistent they are.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 14 mars 2012 - 07:00 .

[balance5050]

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based belief based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Again, indoctrination has a whole set of "facts" to back it up. In RL if a relay explodes, it destroys the entire system.
But not in fantasy land!

At face value there are no facts in those endings, only lies...

[Zyrious]

balance5050 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based belief based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Again, indoctrination has a whole set of "facts" to back it up. In RL if a relay explodes, it destroys the entire system.
But not in fantasy land!

At face value there are no facts in those endings, only lies...

So bioware is incapable of plot-holes? They are the writing-gods of our time to perfection? They can't just screw up, forget something, or flub when the pressure is high? Every "plot-hole" is actually a sign of indoctrination or a secret plot-twist we just can't comprehend?  Endings are the hardest things to write, many movies are GREAT right up until the last 5 minutes (sometimes the last 10 seconds).

And bioware is not a company i imagine doing a "dream sequence". That kind of stuff has pissed off people almost equally as much as the current as-is endings have. People dont like playing through something and then being told "oh, yeah, that was all a dream".

Although, heh, in this case, clearly people are hopeful for it.

Modifié par Zyrious, 14 mars 2012 - 07:00 .

[Smiley556]

Zyrious wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based belief based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Again, indoctrination has a whole set of "facts" to back it up. In RL if a relay explodes, it destroys the entire system.
But not in fantasy land!

At face value there are no facts in those endings, only lies...

So bioware is incapable of plot-holes? They are the writing-gods of our time to perfection? They can't just screw up, forget something, or flub when the pressure is high? Every "plot-hole" is actually a sign of indoctrination or a secret plot-twist we just can't comprehend?  Endings are the hardest things to write, many movies are GREAT right up until the last 5 minutes (sometimes the last 10 seconds).

And bioware is not a company i imagine doing a "dream sequence". That kind of stuff has pissed off people almost equally as much as the current as-is endings have. People dont like playing through something and then being told "oh, yeah, that was all a dream".

Although, heh, in this case, clearly people are hopeful for it.

If there is no logical explenation found to something in the story, ie. it seems a true plothole, yeah, sure. I'm not saying Bioware cant make mistakes. But when there is a logical explenation to what others percieve as plotholes, I see no reason to believe its a plothole. Not unless Bioware comes around and states it is indeed a mistake and not intended.

And if you cant comprehend the indoctrination explenation, well, I'm sorry, cant help you with that except tell you to read one of the explenation on the forum here again. Many of us can infact comprehend it quite well.

And you cant imagine them doing dream sequences? So you mean to say the 3 scenes where you run through the forest chasing the kid are also real and not a dream?

Modifié par Smiley556, 14 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[balance5050]

Zyrious wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based belief based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Again, indoctrination has a whole set of "facts" to back it up. In RL if a relay explodes, it destroys the entire system.
But not in fantasy land!

At face value there are no facts in those endings, only lies...

So bioware is incapable of plot-holes? They are the writing-gods of our time to perfection? They can't just screw up, forget something, or flub when the pressure is high? Every "plot-hole" is actually a sign of indoctrination or a secret plot-twist we just can't comprehend?  Endings are the hardest things to write, many movies are GREAT right up until the last 5 minutes (sometimes the last 10 seconds).

And bioware is not a company i imagine doing a "dream sequence". That kind of stuff has pissed off people almost equally as much as the current as-is endings have. People dont like playing through something and then being told "oh, yeah, that was all a dream".

Although, heh, in this case, clearly people are hopeful for it.

Having "the arrival" DLC based pretty much around that, I'd say it's TOO big, there is a diference between plotholes and redflags/ clues.

[Lemonwizard]

Zyrious wrote...

And bioware is not a company i imagine doing a "dream sequence".  

There's already three of them in the game.


More if you count the beacon visions from the earlier installments.

[Koobarex]

Salarian scientists agree with the indoctrination theory.

[Zyrious]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

And bioware is not a company i imagine doing a "dream sequence".  

There's already three of them in the game.


More if you count the beacon visions from the earlier installments.

True...dang you nitpicking me i meant in this big a fashion, encompassing the whole narrative. As in, "This entire plot point was actually all a dream, never happened". Everything else is visions or shepard having a strange fixation on a young boy who was probably one of 600 to die. That was a joke...

[Zyrious]

balance5050 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based belief based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Again, indoctrination has a whole set of "facts" to back it up. In RL if a relay explodes, it destroys the entire system.
But not in fantasy land!

At face value there are no facts in those endings, only lies...

So bioware is incapable of plot-holes? They are the writing-gods of our time to perfection? They can't just screw up, forget something, or flub when the pressure is high? Every "plot-hole" is actually a sign of indoctrination or a secret plot-twist we just can't comprehend?  Endings are the hardest things to write, many movies are GREAT right up until the last 5 minutes (sometimes the last 10 seconds).

And bioware is not a company i imagine doing a "dream sequence". That kind of stuff has pissed off people almost equally as much as the current as-is endings have. People dont like playing through something and then being told "oh, yeah, that was all a dream".

Although, heh, in this case, clearly people are hopeful for it.

Having "the arrival" DLC based pretty much around that, I'd say it's TOO big, there is a diference between plotholes and redflags/ clues.

All of ME 1 is based around keeping the reapers from not only getting into the galaxy, but gaining control of the citadel because the citadel can be used to SHUT DOWN the relays so they can isolate star systems and destroy them one by one. They gain full control of the citadel in ME 3...then... then they..kind of...sit on it. That's an even bigger plot hole than "Weapon designed to harness the energy of a relay for a specific purpose doesn't cause it to nuke solar systems as a result of already using up all of its energy".

Modifié par Zyrious, 14 mars 2012 - 07:13 .

[EvilMind]

I have a very similar theory - Shepard fell asleep right before the final attack, that was his dream. In the DLC Shepard wakes up and the real attack begins

I agree with OP. Even it all was Shepards imagination, what difference does it make? That means noone made it to the beam, united flotilia will lose to Reapers, Cidatel remains closed and etc. People are just seeing what they want to see...

Modifié par EvilMind, 14 mars 2012 - 07:17 .

[Mcfly616]

Okay so was I just hallucinating when I saw the credits end and Shepard laying in the rubble(same spot he got blasted by Harbinger) and him gasp for air as he regains consciousness? This isn't pure cut and dry evidence that everything that took place afterwards was not reality?!....I feel like I'm taking crazy pills

[Marsoups]

I'm kinda worried that if this theory gains too much ground Bioware could use it as an excuse to ignore the true problems in the ending logic "leaving it to our interpretation." How did Mass Effect turn into a David Lynch film in it's last 15 minutes? (seems highly unlikely).... thought the ending was terribad. Great game overall though.

[Kayjin23]

Gonna take a quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle here: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." While this whole indoctrination idea started as a theory possibly fitting a few facts, it has quickly turned into twisting facts to fit the theory. Apparently people are desperate enough to believe Bioware is infallible that they're convinced this MUST be it. That or more likely, they're willing to believe anything that makes sense of this ending.

Even if this was Bioware's plan all along I fail to see how it was a remotely good idea. If they really wanted this in the game that's fine, but they should most definitely have included what happens after you 'free yourself'. Instead for this idea to work they'd give us the ending as DLC. Most likely it'll be paid DLC (I would be amazed, truly mindblown if it was free). If people are really okay with this then boy is Bioware going to bleed us for every penny in their next game. They're already learning they can get away DLC characters.

As it stands though the Indoctrination Theory does at least have fewer plot holes than the actual ending. So I guess there's that.

[Lemonwizard]

Zyrious wrote...

All of ME 1 is based around keeping the reapers from not only getting into the galaxy, but gaining control of the citadel because the citadel can be used to SHUT DOWN the relays so they can isolate star systems and destroy them one by one. They gain full control of the citadel in ME 3...then... then they..kind of...sit on it. That's an even bigger plot hole than "Weapon designed to harness the energy of a relay for a specific purpose doesn't cause it to nuke solar systems as a result of already using up all of its energy".

I don't think that's a plot hole.


What good would shutting down the relays do if there are already reapers occupying nearly every planet of consequence? All it would do is prevent the fleet from retreating.

[Turran]

Koobarex wrote...

Salarian scientists agree with the indoctrination theory.

Salarian scientists have a tendency to make rash, unthought decisions, almost taking a load of small pictures and trying to create a bigger picture out of them. Often it leads to a mistake and they pay quite dearly for it. 

[balance5050]

Zyrious wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based belief based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Again, indoctrination has a whole set of "facts" to back it up. In RL if a relay explodes, it destroys the entire system.
But not in fantasy land!

At face value there are no facts in those endings, only lies...

So bioware is incapable of plot-holes? They are the writing-gods of our time to perfection? They can't just screw up, forget something, or flub when the pressure is high? Every "plot-hole" is actually a sign of indoctrination or a secret plot-twist we just can't comprehend?  Endings are the hardest things to write, many movies are GREAT right up until the last 5 minutes (sometimes the last 10 seconds).

And bioware is not a company i imagine doing a "dream sequence". That kind of stuff has pissed off people almost equally as much as the current as-is endings have. People dont like playing through something and then being told "oh, yeah, that was all a dream".

Although, heh, in this case, clearly people are hopeful for it.

Having "the arrival" DLC based pretty much around that, I'd say it's TOO big, there is a diference between plotholes and redflags/ clues.

All of ME 1 is based around keeping the reapers from not only getting into the galaxy, but gaining control of the citadel because the citadel can be used to SHUT DOWN the relays so they can isolate star systems and destroy them one by one. They gain full control of the citadel in ME 3...then... then they..kind of...sit on it. That's an even bigger plot hole than "Weapon designed to harness the energy of a relay for a specific purpose doesn't cause it to nuke solar systems as a result of already using up all of its energy".

It was so they could use the relays to bring their brethren throught the conduit.

"
This greatly complicated matters for Sovereign. In order to unleash its brethren from dark space, it would have to find a way to manually activate the relay from inside the Citadel.  "


-taken from 
http://masseffect.wi...com/wiki/Reaper 

[Zyrious]

Lemonwizard wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

All of ME 1 is based around keeping the reapers from not only getting into the galaxy, but gaining control of the citadel because the citadel can be used to SHUT DOWN the relays so they can isolate star systems and destroy them one by one. They gain full control of the citadel in ME 3...then... then they..kind of...sit on it. That's an even bigger plot hole than "Weapon designed to harness the energy of a relay for a specific purpose doesn't cause it to nuke solar systems as a result of already using up all of its energy".

I don't think that's a plot hole.


What good would shutting down the relays do if there are already reapers occupying nearly every planet of consequence? All it would do is prevent the fleet from retreating.

They got control of the citadel and moved it because they found out about the Crucible. If they shut down the relays the fleet would've been stranded in deep space since they hadnt gone to earth yet and the reapers could finish off earth, the rest of the galaxy, and pick off the fleet as they please.

In every previous cycle the reapers would shut down the relays so the systems could not assist eachother or form any form of counterattack to any serious degree. Why they did not do so here when they had the opportunity is a mystery at best.

Modifié par Zyrious, 14 mars 2012 - 07:32 .

[balance5050]

Turran wrote...

Koobarex wrote...

Salarian scientists agree with the indoctrination theory.

Salarian scientists have a tendency to make rash, unthought decisions, almost taking a load of small pictures and trying to create a bigger picture out of them. Often it leads to a mistake and they pay quite dearly for it. 

Wow, indoctrination is the big picture, you sound like TIM.

[Well]

Lemonwizard wrote...

 You pick a premise and then frantically search for anything that can be interpreted to support it, ignoring the premise's utter lack of expression anywhere else.




Seriously guys, let's get some Occam's Razor in here.  The ending wasn't cryptic and needing analysis, it was actually just poorly done.



EDIT: It has become clear people are misinterpreting me when I tell them to use Occam's razor, so I'm going to spell this out:


It is not my assertion that the catalyst being an ancient AI ending is simpler or more logical than Shepard being indoctrinated.


It is my assertion that it's far more simple and logical to assume that Bioware wrote a bad ending that doesn't make sense, than that they vaguely alluded to some other one and expected their fans to piece it together from tiny unconnected clues.

I will take poorly done.They can come up with all the excuses in the world.Plaster us with blarney and bogus reasons but it doesn't change the fact it was terrible.IMHO.It isn't about Shep dying with me.It is about the second rate conclusion of this series.DA 2 in space.

[pprrff]

People, consider the implication of the reaper indoctrination theory:

1) No choices: No matter how you played the game you get indoctrinated.
2) No Closure: You're indoctrinated, what more need to be said? Everything is in your head, nothing you saw happened, or not the way you perceived. You don't even know the what reaper victory look like, much less their defeat.
3) No Happy Ending: Reaper wins, game over
4) Deliberate mind screw by Bioware, not enough that they said the ending was good when it wasn't, simply outright lying that there was an ending in the first place.
5) Shameless money grabbing scheme. Pay $60 for a game with a fake ending, pay $5 to to see how it REALLY ended.

Yea, that is not at all better than what we currently have.

[balance5050]

Well wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...

 You pick a premise and then frantically search for anything that can be interpreted to support it, ignoring the premise's utter lack of expression anywhere else.




Seriously guys, let's get some Occam's Razor in here.  The ending wasn't cryptic and needing analysis, it was actually just poorly done.



EDIT: It has become clear people are misinterpreting me when I tell them to use Occam's razor, so I'm going to spell this out:


It is not my assertion that the catalyst being an ancient AI ending is simpler or more logical than Shepard being indoctrinated.


It is my assertion that it's far more simple and logical to assume that Bioware wrote a bad ending that doesn't make sense, than that they vaguely alluded to some other one and expected their fans to piece it together from tiny unconnected clues.

I will take poorly done.They can come up with all the excuses in the world.Plaster us with blarney and bogus reasons but it doesn't change the fact it was terrible.IMHO.It isn't about Shep dying with me.It is about the second rate conclusion of this series.DA 2 in space.

Series not concluded...ME2 Chronologically ended with "The Arrival" DLC, which oddly enough is just a collection of clues pointing to indoctrination theory.

Series will end with DLC.

Modifié par balance5050, 14 mars 2012 - 07:44 .

[balance5050]

pprrff wrote...

People, consider the implication of the reaper indoctrination theory:

1) No choices: No matter how you played the game you get indoctrinated.
2) No Closure: You're indoctrinated, what more need to be said? Everything is in your head, nothing you saw happened, or not the way you perceived. You don't even know the what reaper victory look like, much less their defeat.
3) No Happy Ending: Reaper wins, game over
4) Deliberate mind screw by Bioware, not enough that they said the ending was good when it wasn't, simply outright lying that there was an ending in the first place.
5) Shameless money grabbing scheme. Pay $60 for a game with a fake ending, pay $5 to to see how it REALLY ended.

Yea, that is not at all better than what we currently have.

Actually the choices you make do matter, the goal is to NOT get indoctrinated and "wake up" (hidden ending)