249 réponses à ce sujet

[GnusmasTHX]

Shepard being all up in Reapers faces for three games and not being indoctrinated makes more sense, when you think about it.

[Urumashi]

Leafs43 wrote...

 If the theory doesn't work support why it doesn't with facts.

Don't say the theory doesn't work because you dislike it.

Thank you, good to see that some logic still exits on these forums.

[Astarmos]

Why would reapers indoctrinate? To play with Shepard? Come on people. Reapers indoctrinated in order to use people as pawns when they weren't here. But when they are possessing citadel and are overpowering fleet, why do they need almost dead Shepard?

[Arrow70]

I still believe the indoctrination theory is just the result of rational people clutching at straws to make sense of the official ending.

Fo me head canon has replaced actual canon, no justification needed.

[Nefelius]

The PLC wrote...

Then how come Shepard was hearing whispers when he was on the Citadel?

Erm... people kinda.... sometimes speak you know...and when there are a lot of ppl in one place it can turn in gibberish... besid "crowd speaking" i didnt hear anything that can be passed as "wispers in his head".

And There are no facts that pointing to "After shepard being hit by laser indoc. attempt" nonsense.
So believing in this makes no sense too.
The only fact that we got about this is that Habinja shoots a big red fking laser to kill Shepard. I doubt this can be passed as indoctrination attempt. 
Again the shooting part is a fact, the "hidden behind this" indoctrination part is a speculation.

Modifié par Nefelius, 14 mars 2012 - 08:03 .

[MustacheManatee]

The Illusive man is likely slow indoctrinated starting with the incident that left him with his blue eyes in Mass Effect Evolution. Everything TIM has done has furthered the Rapers cause, despite his protestations. He has always been working for them.

[Arrow70]

Astarmos wrote...

Why would reapers indoctrinate? To play with Shepard? Come on people. Reapers indoctrinated in order to use people as pawns when they weren't here. But when they are possessing citadel and are overpowering fleet, why do they need almost dead Shepard?

The thoery really doesn't hold up. I hope people can put it aside and accept the reality of the [bad] endings so we can push for new ones (which more than likely will not happen)

[Lambchopz]

Arrow70 wrote...

I still believe the indoctrination theory is just the result of rational people clutching at straws to make sense of the official ending.

Fo me head canon has replaced actual canon, no justification needed.

This is pretty much how I see it.

Don't get me wrong, I personally like the theory, think it makes sense, etc etc.

I wrote a page long summary on these forums laying out all the arguments and evidence for christ's sake in an organized fashion just for the sake of having it.

I would still rather have an extra DLC to add either this theory or something that doesn't suck in every way to the actual game and the official canon. It doesn't neccesarily have to be this theory, just not what we have.

Barring that, yeah, I guess I will just continue to headcanon the theory.

[Astarmos]

In fact! TIM actually tried REAL indoctrination although not perfect on Shepard. Some people talks about strange dark liquidish thing in the ending. It appears only when TIM is trying to indoctrinate/control Shepard.

[Deltateam Elcor]

Why is it always the denouncers of things, that lack the exact thing they are accusing the people who brought up the idea.

It really should not be called a theory, it is simply an hypothesis, however most non science related folk don't understand the difference.

[Thumb Fu]

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.

I've played the game twice, and ran through the endings about 10 times. I fully believe the payer/shepard is being indoctrinated. No "bending" of the game and whats happening is required i'm afraid, the clues are there. If the indoctrination idea is wrong, then its a HUGE set of co-incidences. Also these "assumptions" do you not think bioware have put everything in place, just enough for people to piece it together?

I would like your thoughts on why the indoctrination idea is actually flawed. Perhaps you have another idea or you just think the ending is what it is at face value? Not being agressive or provocative, just looking for more insite on your ideas. Thank you.

[Urumashi]

Arrow70 wrote...

I still believe the indoctrination theory is just the result of rational people clutching at straws to make sense of the official ending.

Fo me head canon has replaced actual canon, no justification needed.

So you're saying its perfectly rediculous to look for deeper meaning in an ending filled with symbolism and hints of there being more, backed by tweets and media statements made by Bioware staff. But it's perfectly sensible to say that one of the top development teams in the US, with one of the best writing records of all time, with one of the most highly criticly acclaimed series ever is just flat out screwing with us and it isnt worth investigating.

This folks...is what we call true denial.

[savionen]

Astarmos wrote...

Smiley556 wrote...

So you are saying that Harbinger couldnt have TRIED to indoctrinate shepard at the end, because shepard wasnt already indoctrinated when he got to the prothean VI earlier? That, good sir, makes absolutely no sense.

He would rather kill him. Without crucible fleet will lose. Without Shepard to enter the citadel reapers will win.

According to what? According to my game my army was massive and was easily holding Palaven, Earth, etc. The Protheans lasted hundreds of years before eventually being destroyed by the Reapers, and the main reason they permanently lost was because they had indoctrinated sleeper agents in their government.

Harbinger's primary interest was always to indoctrinate Shephard. He's a prime specimen of human DNA. Dead or alive Harbinger could use him for something, disentigrating him into dust doesn't make sense. Harbinger (not sure if its just Harbinger, or multiple reapers) can take the thoughts, memories, everything from somebody's mind. If Harbinger knew EVERYTHING that Shepard knew then not only would this generation of humans fail to the Reapers, but Harbinger would have a massive advantage in the future against future humans. Humans are unique in Harbinger's mind.

Also, in regards to the VI, the Protheans had sleeper agents all over the place and their VI never detected them, that's part of the reason they lost to the Reapers.

Modifié par savionen, 14 mars 2012 - 08:10 .

[Urumashi]

Thumb Fu wrote...

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.

I've played the game twice, and ran through the endings about 10 times. I fully believe the payer/shepard is being indoctrinated. No "bending" of the game and whats happening is required i'm afraid, the clues are there. If the indoctrination idea is wrong, then its a HUGE set of co-incidences. Also these "assumptions" do you not think bioware have put everything in place, just enough for people to piece it together?

I would like your thoughts on why the indoctrination idea is actually flawed. Perhaps you have another idea or you just think the ending is what it is at face value? Not being agressive or provocative, just looking for more insite on your ideas. Thank you.

I'm with you on this one, i will never understand how people will go through the 400 pages of theories we've developed thus far and still find it more satisfying to just say "no you're wrong." i'm really yet to see a single bit of counter-evidence other than the phrase "because i said so"

[MustacheManatee]

What savionen said.

[savionen]

Thumb Fu wrote...

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.

I've played the game twice, and ran through the endings about 10 times. I fully believe the payer/shepard is being indoctrinated. No "bending" of the game and whats happening is required i'm afraid, the clues are there. If the indoctrination idea is wrong, then its a HUGE set of co-incidences. Also these "assumptions" do you not think bioware have put everything in place, just enough for people to piece it together?

I would like your thoughts on why the indoctrination idea is actually flawed. Perhaps you have another idea or you just think the ending is what it is at face value? Not being agressive or provocative, just looking for more insite on your ideas. Thank you.

I definitely agree. You just look at the kid, and the kid alone, and there's either 10 elements that support indoctrination, or 10 major plotholes.

-Shepard is the only person that sees the kid at the beginning.
-The kid says "You can't save me."
-The kid is in a building that gets destroyed by the reapers and somehow lives unscathed.
-He goes into a vent that is an electrical hazard, and suddenly disappears again.
-He gets onto the shuttle, the guards help a wounded person but completely ignore the kid.
-Why does God-Kid look like the Vent-Boy?

Etc. If this were a horror game, I'd be like "The main character is insane, or going insane."

Modifié par savionen, 14 mars 2012 - 08:14 .

[MustacheManatee]

Entire forums worth of observations, and evidence vs "The VI didn't detect him", and "you are wrong".

[mereck7980]

This entire point is moot, IMHO, because when you get to the end you a choice to counter the Reapers stated goals.

What other person has ever had a choice be indoctrinated? They just are. You don't have to pick Control or Synthesis. You can choose Destroy. Nothing in the ME lore leads me to believe that Indoctrination is that open ended.

BTW, the state of Shepard's indoctrination is irrelevant in at least a third of the endings because the Reapers all die.

It seems like people have been grasping at straws because they were shocked by how bad the endings are, so they are trying to figure out some way to justify what they have just witnessed.

[Naarad]

Thumb Fu wrote...
I've played the game twice, and ran through the endings about 10 times. I fully believe the payer/shepard is being indoctrinated. No "bending" of the game and whats happening is required i'm afraid, the clues are there. If the indoctrination idea is wrong, then its a HUGE set of co-incidences. Also these "assumptions" do you not think bioware have put everything in place, just enough for people to piece it together?

I would like your thoughts on why the indoctrination idea is actually flawed. Perhaps you have another idea or you just think the ending is what it is at face value? Not being agressive or provocative, just looking for more insite on your ideas. Thank you.

Regarding the assumptions part,  I'm sure Bioware did leave intentionally things up to speculation, especially with indoctrinations. But the basic conclusion of indoctrination actually is that the ending is no ending. Which in itself doesn't work really well in my mind. A story needs some kind of closure.

It's not that the indoctrination idea is flawed, it's (for me) the assumptions one has to do to consider it solid. I don't hate the ending, what I don't like is that there's just too much lack of context for too many new concepts and too many things that went unexplained or just poorly presented. I wrote about it and what I think where the flaws of the ending, on a previous thread a couple days ago: 
http://social.biowar...index/9815872/1 you can read it there (just to avoid copy pasting it here). 

I hope it does help you understand where I'm trying to come from. Cheers.

[Urumashi]

savionen wrote...

Thumb Fu wrote...

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.

I've played the game twice, and ran through the endings about 10 times. I fully believe the payer/shepard is being indoctrinated. No "bending" of the game and whats happening is required i'm afraid, the clues are there. If the indoctrination idea is wrong, then its a HUGE set of co-incidences. Also these "assumptions" do you not think bioware have put everything in place, just enough for people to piece it together?

I would like your thoughts on why the indoctrination idea is actually flawed. Perhaps you have another idea or you just think the ending is what it is at face value? Not being agressive or provocative, just looking for more insite on your ideas. Thank you.

I definitely agree. You just look at the kid, and the kid alone, and there's either 10 elements that support indoctrination, or 10 major plotholes.

-Shepard is the only person that sees the kid at the beginning.
-The kid says "You can't save me."
-The kid is in a building that gets destroyed by the reapers and somehow lives unscathed.
-He goes into a vent that is an electrical hazard, and suddenly disappears again.
-He gets onto the shuttle, the guards help a wounded person but completely ignore the kid.
-Why does God-Kid look like the Vent-Boy?

Etc.

So very much of this, i think our main problem at this point is that word simply isnt getting around fast enough about our discoveries on the indoctrination theory and people are becoming so enamoured with the idea that the ending is unchangibly horrible that they are no longer willing to read into the facts. I'm reasonably sure i was the first person to bring up the inconsistencies in the child's projected psychological traits along with the chances of surviving the blast to the building back on the main thread and that was about three days ago, people are still treading it like its new news.

[Croakamancer]

Well, to put another point on the pile of evidence in favour

Harbinger and the beam. What is the point of the interrupt and getting struck by the attack, if it's not a dream sequence? It'd just be a pointless detour. You could either be the only one who reached the beam up through the fire anyway, still removing the issue of squadmates. In fact, that arguably flows better. The final action hurrah, that only Shepard can manage.

Instead, there's this awkward moment when you get up, limp towards the beam... and no reaper forces seriously try to stop you. IIRC, Harby actually runs away. I... can't understand that if the theory's not true.

[Astarmos]

savionen wrote...

According to what? According to my game my army was massive and was easily holding Palaven, Earth, etc. The Protheans lasted hundreds of years before eventually being destroyed by the Reapers, and the main reason they permanently lost was because they had indoctrinated sleeper agents in their government.

No. Earth, where most of the reapers came, was lost almost instantly. The process of completely destroying and killing everyone is long, not defeating them. So you think Earth was giving a real fight to the reapers? Defence commitee was shocked by how easily they are, in fact, annihilating the fleet. 
Reapers do not rush. They just come to a planet and slowly burn everyone and everything. Until that they do not really attack with full power other planets. Besides they knew in the end, that all forces will come to Earth so it is easier to wait for them - "prey will come to us". Sleeper agents were used to kill remaining protheans, not some powerful forces

Modifié par Astarmos, 14 mars 2012 - 08:19 .

[Urumashi]

MustacheManatee wrote...

Entire forums worth of observations, and evidence vs "The VI didn't detect him", and "you are wrong".

Head smashingly frustrating, i know. We've been counteracting people and trying to spread the theories for days, at some point it feels almost as progressive as trying to get the council to help you with something.

[Rinji the Bearded]

The VI doesn't detect Shepard because Shepard isn't indoctrinated yet.  Indoctrination can be a very slow process.

The moment that Shepard believes that the Reapers are correct is the moment he/she is indoctrinated.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 14 mars 2012 - 08:19 .

[Spearmint]

An important thing to consider is that if Bioware wants you to talk about the ending by deliberately making it vague, the indoctrination theory is as wrong as the other theories are or as the 'implied' ending is, namely not at all.

There is no definite ending if it is deliberately vague. Don't get me wrong, I very much prefer sensical, plothole free endings that give closure by giving certainty (and yes, I admit I also wish to build a certain someone a house on the homeworld instead of having said person starve to death on a certain jungle planet because she cannot eat Levo food, and if said person can, then all humans/asari will starve, Garrus gets lucky in that case)

Anyway, the indoctrination ending, as it stands, is likely to be as real as the depressing ending. I know this does not fix all the issues you/we have at all, but it might console you a bit regarding the personal blow I took to the emotional stability when I started thinking about the ending.

But then again, anything is possible, and Bioware still has my infinite respect for making the best gaming trilogy I have ever played, the ending was a (immense) shame in my opinion just for the amount of bad it made me feel with the lack of any beauty to it, like Mordin of Thane's death, but this does not take away that the rest of the game was a masterpiece.