249 réponses à ce sujet

[Naarad]

While I understand there's plenty of people that just plain hate the ending in all its forms since the moment the Catalyst comes up, let's put this clear (IMO):

A theory that has as many assumptions and  outside justifications going around to give it sense is as bad as the ending itself for the lack of context.

If you bend it enough, you could even justify that Shepard is in fact a unicorn. Really, you can hate the ending all you want, but making up a whole justification that is based on one assumption after the other doesn't really give it validity.

It's a cool theory, I'll give you that, but sadly it lacks as much proof as the actual ending does lack context.

[Talogrungi]

Naarad wrote...

While I understand there's plenty of people that just plain hate the ending in all its forms since the moment the Catalyst comes up, let's put this clear (IMO):

A theory that has as many assumptions and  outside justifications going around to give it sense is as bad as the ending itself for the lack of context.

If you bend it enough, you could even justify that Shepard is in fact a unicorn. Really, you can hate the ending all you want, but making up a whole justification that is based on one assumption after the other doesn't really give it validity.

It's a cool theory, I'll give you that, but sadly it lacks as much proof as the actual ending does lack context.

While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion .. nonsensical statements don't endear it to the outside reader.

Indoctrination/Hallucination makes sense, and is supported by the available data.
The given endings don't make sense and contradict the available data.

It's really as simple as that, as far as I'm concerned.

Modifié par Talogrungi, 14 mars 2012 - 06:19 .

[Naarad]

You deny the endings to support the Indoctrination theory. But if that was really what was going on, believe me, the writers would have put plausible, easy to understand, proof of that being the case. That's not the case, they actually go all the way to show you indoctrination... on TIM.

[savionen]

The only counter to the indoctrination theory is that it was all just "bad writing".

-Why is Commander Shepard the only one that pays attention to the vent boy? It seems like Anderson can't see him.
-Why does the vent boy say "You can't save me" when you first see him?
-Why does God Kid say "Wake up" softly instead of "Why are you here!?" if you have a high EMS score.
-How did the kid survive through a vent that says it's an electrical hazard?
-How did the kid survive even though he was in a building that got destroyed by Reapers?
-Why doesn't anyone help the kid get onto the shuttle? They completely ignore him. One of the guards is actually pointing his gun in the direction of the kid for a few seconds.
-Why is the vent boy also the god kid?
-Why is Shepard so jarred by this one kid even though he killed hundreds of thousands of batarians (including children)?

Modifié par savionen, 14 mars 2012 - 06:28 .

[Nefelius]

Op, you have my approval.

[Talogrungi]

Naarad wrote...

You deny the endings to support the Indoctrination theory. But if that was really what was going on, believe me, the writers would have put plausible, easy to understand, proof of that being the case. That's not the case, they actually go all the way to show you indoctrination... on TIM.

I don't deny the endings.

The endings are part of the indoctrination theory.

Remember, the entire encounter with TIM was inside the "hallucination" and is therefore as suspect as the rest of the weird things that happen therein.

[Nefelius]

savionen wrote...

The only counter to the indoctrination theory that it was just "bad writing"

-Why is Commander Shepard the only one that pays attention to the vent boy? It seems like Anderson can't see him.
-Why does the vent boy say "You can't save me" when you first see him?
-Why does God Kid say "Wake up" softly instead of "Why are you here!?" if you have a high EMS score.
-How did the kid survive through a vent that says it's an electrical hazard?
-How did the kid survive even though he was in a building that got destroyed by Reapers?
-Why doesn't anyone help the kid get onto the shuttle? They completely ignore him. One of the guards is actually pointing his gun in the direction of the kid for a few seconds.
-Why is the vent boy also the god kid?
-Why is Shepard so jarred by this one kid even though he killed hundreds of thousands of batarians (including children)?

- Because. The boy. Is inside. A vent. U can tell from the angle where Anderson stood he could never saw the kid.
- Because he's scared. and everyone's dying. Everyone. As opposed to noone.
- Because the higher EMS you have the more effort is put into Crucible creation. And as we know Crucible alters the way the spacebaby wizard thinks.
- How did Shepard survive exposure to the Prothean beacon?
- How did Shepard survive a fall back in the Collector Base which  IRL would end up in every of his bone broken?
- They do not close the shuttle doors before he gets in.
- Because the image haunts Shepard and represents "the people lost".
- Because he's a little kid. Little boy. A child. A life that ended before it truly started.

Modifié par Nefelius, 14 mars 2012 - 06:30 .

[Naarad]

savionen wrote...

-Why is Commander Shepard the only one that pays attention to the vent boy? It seems like Anderson can't see him.
-Why does the vent boy say "You can't save me" when you first see him?
-Why does God Kid say "Wake up" softly instead of "Why are you here!?" if you have a high EMS score.
-How did the kid survive through a vent that says it's an electrical hazard?
-How did the kid survive even though he was in a building that got destroyed by Reapers?
-Why doesn't anyone help the kid get onto the shuttle? They completely ignore him. One of the guards is actually pointing his gun in the direction of the kid for a few seconds.
-Why is the vent boy also the god kid?
-Why is Shepard so jarred by this one kid even though he killed hundreds of thousands of batarians (including children)?

Because those are the things you want to interpret as such. Anderson is not even paying attention to Shepard, he's clearly concerned by escaping alive. No mystery there, really.
-Because he's seen massive machines of death destroying Vancouver? 
-There's no explanation. There's a massive lack of context on the ending, so noone of us knows why other than "because it's a variation in the ending"
-How did Shepard and Anderson survive? It works both ways
-He's a kid, not a guy in a wheelchair. About the guard... really?
-Legion mentions using forms that are familiar to Shepard when he's on the Geth network (hence why the quarians wear masks). So, why can't the Catalyst assume the form of something that has caused Shepard a massive impact because he saw a kid he believes to be 7 or 8 die while trying to flee from the Reaper attack?
-Thousands of batarians he didn't see, and for which we haven't really see the true impact it caused on Shepard (though there are several scenes in ME3 that make quite clear that it made a big impact on him), while at the same time there's some kind of "greater good" justification. The kid is a helpless kid that dies to a Reaper attack.

Occam's razor, really. 

[Astarmos]

Everything after you got hit by prothean beacon on Eden Prime is an illusion, a dream. Prove me wrong.

Modifié par Astarmos, 14 mars 2012 - 06:38 .

[Nefelius]

Astarmos wrote...

Everything after you got hit by prothean beacon on Eden Prime is an illusion, a dream. Proof me wrong.

You are an unicorn. Prove me wrong.

Modifié par Nefelius, 14 mars 2012 - 06:39 .

[bytemarks]

Plenty of evidence to suggest indoctrination, none that would suggest he's a unicorn. Stop trying to prove people's opinions wrong because you can't.

Modifié par bytemarks, 14 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[Meshaber]

I, in fact, believe that Shepard never woke up from his encounter with the beacon on Eden Prime, and ME4 will reexplore the real story of Mass Effect, namely the war against Saren and his Geth servants.

Edit: Damn you :ph34r::ph34r::ph34r::ph34r:

Modifié par Meshaber, 14 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[Nefelius]

bytemarks wrote...

Plenty of evidence to suggest indoctrination, none that would suggest he's a unicorn. Stop trying to prove people's opinions wrong because you can't.

You see there's a diference between Evidence and Assumptions.

Evidence is when - Prothean VI states he's not indoctrinated.
Assumption is when - you say Habinja indoctrinates Shepard after he hits him with his main gun laser.

[bytemarks]

Evidence? The indoctrination didn't consume Shepard until the end when was vulnerable and running off pure adrenaline. Evidence to support indoctrination can be found throughout the whole campaign, not to mention the description given in the codex.

EDIT- am I saying I'm right? No, but you can't say I'm wrong either.

Modifié par bytemarks, 14 mars 2012 - 06:48 .

[Amish Love Machine]

Naarad wrote...

While I understand there's plenty of people that just plain hate the ending in all its forms since the moment the Catalyst comes up, let's put this clear (IMO):

A theory that has as many assumptions and  outside justifications going around to give it sense is as bad as the ending itself for the lack of context.

If you bend it enough, you could even justify that Shepard is in fact a unicorn. Really, you can hate the ending all you want, but making up a whole justification that is based on one assumption after the other doesn't really give it validity.

It's a cool theory, I'll give you that, but sadly it lacks as much proof as the actual ending does lack context.

Please show how Shepard is a unicorn.

[Nefelius]

bytemarks wrote...

Evidence? The indoctrination didn't consume Shepard until the end when was vulnerable and running off pure adrenaline. Evidence to support indoctrination can be found throughout the whole campaign, not to mention the description given in the codex.

This is only your assumptions not evidence.
 

The indoctrination didn't consume Shepard until the end when was vulnerable and running off pure adrenaline.

 Is u are being guessing and speculating.

The only real evidence is the Prothean VI's statement. 

Modifié par Nefelius, 14 mars 2012 - 06:52 .

[jimmartens12]

Bioware could've ended up the game in the moment Shepard couldn't reach the console anymore. Instead they brought in the god child. That has nothing to do with indoctrination yes or no. It has to do with the point that Bioware's writers had no idea of how ending all this after they put Shepard and all his friends into a position in which victory is without success. Why is everyone dead without Anderson and Shepard. Anderson was ways beyond Shepard and now with all the Reapers around Anderson followed Shepard. That's simply unbelievable at all.

[Arokel]

Idk if the theory is true or not. Its nice to have some hope though.

As far as I can tell the only solid evidence against indoctrination is the Prothean VI on Thessia not registering Shep as indoctrinated.

This is the only thing that prevents me from fully accepting the theory. I'll play devil's (for lack of a better term) advocate and argue that the VI was unable to detect Shep's indoctrination because unlike Cerberus he was not under their control yet. They had their claws in him but couldn't control him yet.

[Astarmos]

Benezzia was able to break from indoctrination for short time after she was almost killed. So it seems that people near death can deny indoctrination effects for a short time but ultimately you can't defeat it
Edit:
"She described the horrors of indoctrination, how it feels to be trapped
in your own mind: "beating upon the glass as your hands torture and
murder...""
So indoctrination isn't about some imaginary child-friend conversation. It isn't something pleasant. Reapers just take cantrol and it's over. At best you can shoot yourself.

Modifié par Astarmos, 14 mars 2012 - 06:55 .

[Raanz]

Naarad wrote...

While I understand there's plenty of people that just plain hate the ending in all its forms since the moment the Catalyst comes up, let's put this clear (IMO):

A theory that has as many assumptions and  outside justifications going around to give it sense is as bad as the ending itself for the lack of context.

If you bend it enough, you could even justify that Shepard is in fact a unicorn. Really, you can hate the ending all you want, but making up a whole justification that is based on one assumption after the other doesn't really give it validity.

It's a cool theory, I'll give you that, but sadly it lacks as much proof as the actual ending does lack context.

hehe  Man I opened this thread in hopes of seeing or reading a cool counterpoint to the theory but I find someone who doesn't agree and the argument is:  "because it doesn't"    But at least we know that you don't agree with it.

[Llames]

Nefelius wrote...

bytemarks wrote...

Plenty of evidence to suggest indoctrination, none that would suggest he's a unicorn. Stop trying to prove people's opinions wrong because you can't.

You see there's a diference between Evidence and Assumptions.

Evidence is when - Prothean VI states he's not indoctrinated.
Assumption is when - you say Habinja indoctrinates Shepard after he hits him with his main gun laser.

I didn't know you could actually talk to the Prothean VI AFTER you get hit by the laser? So you woke up wounded, went ahead and talking to the to VI one more time before heading into the crucible? Nice, you played a differen't game than me

Because otherwise how would he know if he was indoctrinated on earth? .. Yeah you don't get indoctrinated right away (Maybe you could actually, as ADRENALINE speeds up the process A LOT if you listened to experiements Cerberus made, and he was greatly wounded and had lost tons of will power after losing to KAI, seeing Thessia burn, and founding out about the citadel-crucible too late, aka they moved it to earth).

And the most probable point that you can't dissaprove: How much indoctration is needed before the Prothean VI can read it? Maybe he just wasn't indoctrinated enough for the VI to see the influence of the reapers? Shepard never loses control before that point in the theory, as he ALWAYS resists/snaps out of it, and only succumbs in the end(And even resists that in the end if he destroys).

[Meltemph]

Naarad wrote...

While I understand there's plenty of people that just plain hate the ending in all its forms since the moment the Catalyst comes up, let's put this clear (IMO):

A theory that has as many assumptions and  outside justifications going around to give it sense is as bad as the ending itself for the lack of context.

If you bend it enough, you could even justify that Shepard is in fact a unicorn. Really, you can hate the ending all you want, but making up a whole justification that is based on one assumption after the other doesn't really give it validity.

It's a cool theory, I'll give you that, but sadly it lacks as much proof as the actual ending does lack context.

Actually, you could easily argue that the idea that the ending was not what it appeared is more accurate then what happened, happened.  The kid lying about destroying the crucible destroys ALL synthetics(obvious a lie since Shep can still breath, since we all know he had major organs replaced with synthetics), the writers putting your squad on the normandy at the end, knowing full well they put the squad on earth, the star child claming a synthetic/organic mutation would fix the problems, when Javik tells you that the "synthetic" race of his time that created tons of problems WAS exactly that.

Seriously, more points to the ending NOT being the end, then points to it being the end.

[bytemarks]

Nefelius wrote...

bytemarks wrote...

Evidence? The indoctrination didn't consume Shepard until the end when was vulnerable and running off pure adrenaline. Evidence to support indoctrination can be found throughout the whole campaign, not to mention the description given in the codex.

This is only your assumptions not evidence.  " The indoctrination didn't consume Shepard until the end when was vulnerable and running off pure adrenaline." is u are being guessing and speculating.

The only real evidence is the Prothean VI's statement. 

Ok, let me rephrase that. Evidence to support the theory can be found throughout the campaign. Also, when the Prothean VI detects indoctrination, how do you know he's not talking about Shepard? (forgive me if he makes it more clear in the game, this just came to me but it makes sense)

[GrumpyM00SE]

Arokel wrote...

Idk if the theory is true or not. Its nice to have some hope though.

As far as I can tell the only solid evidence against indoctrination is the Prothean VI on Thessia not registering Shep as indoctrinated.

This is the only thing that prevents me from fully accepting the theory. I'll play devil's (for lack of a better term) advocate and argue that the VI was unable to detect Shep's indoctrination because unlike Cerberus he was not under their control yet. They had their claws in him but couldn't control him yet.

The theory is that shepard is not fully indoctrinated until the end of the game. The Prothean VI on Thessia says that Kei Leng is fully indoctrinated.

[Lambchopz]

I like this theory, I think it makes sense, I think it's plausible. That is not really an argument as far as I'm concerned.

What bothers me about this theory is many people are genuinely convinced this was the plan all along. If they implemented this ending, I would be fine with it, I would like it. But I guarantee you this isn't some master plan by BioWare.

The sad part is, this is rejecting the current ending as much as those who just say it is bad writing (which it is regardless). Like I said, the theory is plausible, and to some far preferable over what we have now. That doesn't mean it's fullproof as some have forced themselves to believe.

I really think this argument is simply pointless. People are welcome to believe what the reason REALLY is behind this whole ending, but we need to work ourselves back to the uniting outcry of "These endings sucked"

This is forcing the people who don't like the endings into a counter-productive dichotomy.