249 réponses à ce sujet

[Deltateam Elcor]

Naarad wrote...

Smiley556 wrote...

Yet we never see one presented. 

Because you expect facts against something that was made up. It's like presenting facts against God's existence. You can't, same way you can't prove he exists. The game, what happens, at no point even hints at Shepard being indoctrinated. 

My fact is three games and their respective plots. 

Your facts are based on behind-the-scenes assumptions. Intepretations of sentences and twisting events of the game to present them from a different perspective based on your idea. 

We know for a fact that contact with reaper artifacts is dangerous, shepard has come within literally a few feet of many of them, to say that he is somehow completely immune is stupid and reckless.

When you then compare what happens in ME3 to the codex, there are facts, not enough for a theory, but it is substantial enough for discussion.

Modifié par Deltateam Elcor, 14 mars 2012 - 09:02 .

[Leafs43]

Deltateam Elcor wrote...

I officially sanction IGNORING Nefelius, please do not reply to his comments, he speaks with little integrity.

Nefelius is just thick.

He disregards evidence presented to him and falls back on his predetermined thoughts.

[Kyrick]

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.

Nope.  I would have agreed with you a while back, when I was still enraged that Bioware would pull such a travesty.  I am not really worried about endings coming anymore.  They'll come, I'm sure.  As you look around at the various pieces of logic and evidence that people are piling up, it's becoming more and more clear that Bioware is going to be releasing something.  That the 'endings' are not acutal endings at all, but placeholders, if you will, put there for some unknown reason.

While I'm not certain that Bioware will ever tell anybody the reason whey they've done this, and that even if they do if people will accept it (I don't believe that they will.  I think Bioware has truly and permanently harmed their name pulling this non-communicative bull), I'm certain that more is to come.

The only possible reason I could imagine now that these endings would actually be the real ones is if somebody literally walked through their offices and beat them all about the head with a bat, damaging their brains enough so that they are essentially vegetables in terms of story and game design.  I don't really see that as a reasonable happening, so I'll choose to go with the 'more yet to come' now that I've calmed down and thought about it for a while.

[Baelyn]

Nefelius wrote...


How is the statement "Lack of facts" and "The only fact we have is VI says you are not indoc-ed, there are simply no other" is childish and not enough evidence to dismiss the theory?

You should tell that to Javik and all the other Protheans that were totally surprised when a mass amount of their high ranking officials turned on them due to being indoctrinated without anyone knowing. So, sorry, this VI is not the ultimate authority on who is indoctrinated and who is not.

Modifié par Baelyn, 14 mars 2012 - 09:05 .

[Smiley556]

Astarmos wrote...

No body will read threads with hundreds of pages because some of the statements were disproved or proven but after 50 pages they are coming back like "mass relay explosion kills all". It is not connected with the indoctrination theory however it proves that some statements will return no matter how hard people will try to disprove it

If you cant be bothered looking for an answere, I'm no longer gonna be bothered answering you if you repeat the question.

[Astarmos]

to Smiley and indoctrination theory believers please discuss this:

Astarmos wrote...

MustacheManatee :
-Upon awakening after Harbingers beam hits, everything is out of focus and Shepards head is ringing(this is actually important as I will point out later). Everything moves in slow motion and nobody is around. The movement is similar to your dream sequences. It is my theory that the dream sequences are evidence of the ongoing battle in Shepards mind to fight off the indoctrination that was initiated by the beacon in the first MAss Effect.
-During this sequence, you walk towards the beam with a pistol that has UNLIMITED ammo. Also aiming at husks that attack is very slow and diffucult. Ever tried to aim or throw something in a stressful dream? It feels just like this! It also feels as if you are floating, and you can not move the camera down to see your feet.
- Upon entering the Citadel, Anderson contacts you, saying that he followed you to the Citadel, even though there was NO ONE AROUND. Very suspicious. Shepard mentions that it doesn't look like the Citadel, and Anderson confirms that it looks like Shepards description of the Collector base. This is also an important piece of evidence.

You are almost dead. I don't know if you were ever drunk, but getting hit hard (really hard) results in disorientation and you really don't know what is happening. It is natural to make ammo infinite because it isn't just a gameplay. It is part of a scene - the final scene. Anderson could just enter the beam without you - he didn't have time to just stand by your body and think "o well, are you alright?" and meanwhile harbinger says "oh he is propably dead, oh well" and they have a happy converastion about the reapers and so on. Shepard doesn't know every single corridor of the citadel. You think that this kind of control room would be on the center of a hall? Catalyst resides in the Citadel. It is not citadel itself so the "citadel control unit" doesn't have to be the same interface

Modifié par Astarmos, 14 mars 2012 - 09:04 .

[Nefelius]

Leafs43 wrote...

Deltateam Elcor wrote...

I officially sanction IGNORING Nefelius, please do not reply to his comments, he speaks with little integrity.

Nefelius is just thick.

He disregards evidence presented to him and falls back on his predetermined thoughts.

Mate it's difficult to be constructive  when you are ignored due to blindness.

Twisting events and behind-the-scenes-assumptions are not facts. Existence of the VI ingame is undeinable fact.
You can base a theory based on your assumptions, but you can't state that it it undeniably true, due to the lack of ingame FACTS (which is the existance of the VI)

[Nefelius]

Baelyn wrote...

Nefelius wrote...


How is the statement "Lack of facts" and "The only fact we have is VI says you are not indoc-ed, there are simply no other" is childish and not enough evidence to dismiss the theory?

You should tell that to Javik and all the other Protheans that were totally surprised when a mass amount of their high ranking officials turned on them due to being indoctrinated without anyone knowing. So, sorry, this VI is not the ultimate authority on who is indoctrinated and who is not.

Yes, he is not authority, but he is THE ONLY INGAME FACT THAT WE HAVE. And he clearly states when you kill Leng "Indoctrinated ones are gone"

Modifié par Nefelius, 14 mars 2012 - 09:07 .

[Newnation]

Naarad wrote...

Smiley556 wrote...

Yet we never see one presented. 

Because you expect facts against something that was made up. It's like presenting facts against God's existence. You can't, same way you can't prove he exists. The game, what happens, at no point even hints at Shepard being indoctrinated. 

My fact is three games and their respective plots. 

Your facts are based on behind-the-scenes assumptions. Intepretations of sentences and twisting events of the game to present them from a different perspective based on your idea. 

I'm pretty much with you. I saw nothing in the dreams or endings that could support the indoctrination theory or the fact that the whole thing about him entering the citedal is a dream or hallucination.

[Naarad]

Deltateam Elcor wrote...

We know for a fact that contact with reaper artifacts is dangerous, shepard has come within literally a few feet of many of them, to say that he is somehow completely immune is stupid and reckless.

When you then compare what happens in ME3 to the codex, there are facts, not enough for a theory, but it is substantial enough for discussion.

And to that I wholeheartedly agree. You're right, there's something for a discussion. But I don't see enough material to actually go and say "Yeah, this is the true ending". Facts are something you can take at face value when presented to, not something that needs a 400+ pages manifesto to justify them.

[Astarmos]

Baelyn wrote...

Nefelius wrote...


How is the statement "Lack of facts" and "The only fact we have is VI says you are not indoc-ed, there are simply no other" is childish and not enough evidence to dismiss the theory?

You should tell that to Javik and all the other Protheans that were totally surprised when a mass amount of their high ranking officials turned on them due to being indoctrinated without anyone knowing. So, sorry, this VI is not the ultimate authority on who is indoctrinated and who is not.

The "indoctrination finding" software wasn't developed with an instant. In fact, protheans didn't know what they are facing at the beginning. They had probably myth like we (humans in me) have. They didn't know how it worked. Maybe some scientists like on ilos had some explanations but it doesn't mean everywhere were installed indoctrination finding protocols

[Urumashi]

Smiley556 wrote...

gmboy902 wrote...

 If you believe that the ending is a hallucination (not could be if BioWare decides to rectify their ending, but is as it stands), then you have to answer this:

Why would BioWare make a completely false ending? The only reason I can think of is paid DLC contributions, and I don't think (or at least, I hope) they aren't THAT greedy.

Any answers to that by anyone would be pure speculation, so I'm not going to answer that. I can think of some possible reason but nobody really knows untill that happens. What I can say is that the ending at face value fails at giving closure and living up to biowares promises aswell, so its not really a valid argument against hallucination theory.

Anyway, since things are being repeated over and over, I will refer you over to this thread http://social.biowar...5/index/9727423 
The questions I see arise here have been discussed Many times over the course of that thread alone. Please seek for answers before asking more questions, we dont want to be endlessly repeating ourselves.

Actually i'm gonna chime in here one last time, To add to smiley's statement, the DLC cannot legally have a price. Simply put, the game's definition as provided by the Origin market states that the game includes 16 possible endings (or something to that amount ), as is; the game only uses code to generate 8 possible endings as the string used to define an ending based on the destruction or retention of the collecter base at the end of mass effect two is left undefined and unused. As such, not only is Bioware obligated to release a DLC to make use of that variable that DLC would have to be free because by definition it is part of the origional product, the product you already paid 60 dollars for. It would literally be illegal for them to not make use of this variable, or to charge for something you already purchased and own the rights to.

[Lordalif]

 The Indroc theory makes more sense than the actual ending we were given. Infact I think it is indroctrination clearly nothing else fits the "perfect" ending

[Naarad]

Urumashi wrote...
 It would literally be illegal for them to not make use of this variable, or to charge for something you already purchased and own the rights to.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Not even the slightest. It's coding, not the Bible.

[Deltateam Elcor]

Astarmos wrote...

to Smiley and indoctrination theory believers please discuss this:

Astarmos wrote...

MustacheManatee :
-Upon awakening after Harbingers beam hits, everything is out of focus and Shepards head is ringing(this is actually important as I will point out later). Everything moves in slow motion and nobody is around. The movement is similar to your dream sequences. It is my theory that the dream sequences are evidence of the ongoing battle in Shepards mind to fight off the indoctrination that was initiated by the beacon in the first MAss Effect.
-During this sequence, you walk towards the beam with a pistol that has UNLIMITED ammo. Also aiming at husks that attack is very slow and diffucult. Ever tried to aim or throw something in a stressful dream? It feels just like this! It also feels as if you are floating, and you can not move the camera down to see your feet.
- Upon entering the Citadel, Anderson contacts you, saying that he followed you to the Citadel, even though there was NO ONE AROUND. Very suspicious. Shepard mentions that it doesn't look like the Citadel, and Anderson confirms that it looks like Shepards description of the Collector base. This is also an important piece of evidence.

You are almost dead. I don't know if you were ever drunk, but getting hit hard (really hard) results in disorientation and you really don't know what is happening. It is natural to make ammo infinite because it isn't just a gameplay. It is part of a scene - the final scene. Anderson could just enter the beam without you - he didn't have time to just stand by your body and think "o well, are you alright?" and meanwhile harbinger says "oh he is propably dead, oh well" and they have a happy converastion about the reapers and so on. Shepard doesn't know every single corridor of the citadel. You think that this kind of control room would be on the center of a hall? Catalyst resides in the Citadel. It is not citadel itself so the "citadel control unit" doesn't have to be the same interface

Quoting yourself is not the best idea.

You are also making your own assumptions here, the disorientation is perfectly fine, but the rest of it i cannot say anything about.

[Astarmos]

Urumashi wrote...

Smiley556 wrote...

gmboy902 wrote...

 If you believe that the ending is a hallucination (not could be if BioWare decides to rectify their ending, but is as it stands), then you have to answer this:

Why would BioWare make a completely false ending? The only reason I can think of is paid DLC contributions, and I don't think (or at least, I hope) they aren't THAT greedy.

Any answers to that by anyone would be pure speculation, so I'm not going to answer that. I can think of some possible reason but nobody really knows untill that happens. What I can say is that the ending at face value fails at giving closure and living up to biowares promises aswell, so its not really a valid argument against hallucination theory.

Anyway, since things are being repeated over and over, I will refer you over to this thread http://social.biowar...5/index/9727423 
The questions I see arise here have been discussed Many times over the course of that thread alone. Please seek for answers before asking more questions, we dont want to be endlessly repeating ourselves.

Actually i'm gonna chime in here one last time, To add to smiley's statement, the DLC cannot legally have a price. Simply put, the game's definition as provided by the Origin market states that the game includes 16 possible endings (or something to that amount ), as is; the game only uses code to generate 8 possible endings as the string used to define an ending based on the destruction or retention of the collecter base at the end of mass effect two is left undefined and unused. As such, not only is Bioware obligated to release a DLC to make use of that variable that DLC would have to be free because by definition it is part of the origional product, the product you already paid 60 dollars for. It would literally be illegal for them to not make use of this variable, or to charge for something you already purchased and own the rights to.

I depends on what you define by "different ending". In fact, somebody just could change the beard or hair of a character and say - it's a different ending. Of course this wouldn't be ok, but we can assume we have over 3 ending for sure. Yes, "humans vaporization" and their survival is essential.

[gmboy902]

Actually i'm gonna chime in here one last time, To add to smiley's statement, the DLC cannot legally have a price. Simply put, the game's definition as provided by the Origin market states that the game includes 16 possible endings (or something to that amount ), as is; the game only uses code to generate 8 possible endings as the string used to define an ending based on the destruction or retention of the collecter base at the end of mass effect two is left undefined and unused. As such, not only is Bioware obligated to release a DLC to make use of that variable that DLC would have to be free because by definition it is part of the origional product, the product you already paid 60 dollars for. It would literally be illegal for them to not make use of this variable, or to charge for something you already purchased and own the rights to.

Good luck taking that one to court.

Modifié par gmboy902, 14 mars 2012 - 09:13 .

[Smiley556]

Not sure why I'm still answering but I will try it one more time since this subject obviously bothers you very much. Please read it very carefully, and let it absorb into your mind, before repeating the exact same question again.

The reason the prothean VI doesnt not detect shepard as being indoctrinated, is because shepard, when in the presence of the prothean VI, is not indoctrinated. Its really this simple. This is it, nothing else.

Infact, Shepard is never indoctrinated if you pick the destroy choice at the end. It is attempted over the course of the game, and succeeds if you pick synthasis or control at the end. Only after making that choice, would shepard be indoctrinated.

[Peer of the Empire]

Rocktel wrote...
They saw a couple things in the walls. They didn't suddenly think they were doing something else. That's not how indoctrination works.

In all cases of indoctrination the victim wants to help the Reapers. Shepard didn't. Therefore his is not indoctrinated.

If we look at it as a meta game, Shephard indeed was considering helping the Reapers, and many players no doubt chose an ending that did help the Reapers.  Synthesis is simply Reaperization; Control ending is straight up indoctrination.  These players were swayed from the path of destroying the Reapers by the words of a Reaper

As for indoctrination itself, the Cerberus scientists were confusing their identities, their memories

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 14 mars 2012 - 09:17 .

[Astarmos]

Smiley556 wrote...

Not sure why I'm still answering but I will try it one more time since this subject obviously bothers you very much. Please read it very carefully, and let it absorb into your mind, before repeating the exact same question again.

The reason the prothean VI doesnt not detect shepard as being indoctrinated, is because shepard, when in the presence of the prothean VI, is not indoctrinated. Its really this simple. This is it, nothing else.

Infact, Shepard is never indoctrinated if you pick the destroy choice at the end. It is attempted over the course of the game, and succeeds if you pick synthasis or control at the end. Only after making that choice, would shepard be indoctrinated.

This is fine but could you discuss some other points of the indoctrination theory?

[Gruzmog]

What scares me a bit though as although the indoctrination theory might be true. Alot of its supporters just say it is true and we just don't get the ending if we don't agree.

You went looking for a pattern, you found one, but that does not mean you have proof its true. You just think you are correct, maybe you are, maybe not.

One could right a psychology thesis with all the data in these forums...

Modifié par Gruzmog, 14 mars 2012 - 09:17 .

[Astarmos]

Peer of the Empire wrote...

Rocktel wrote...
They saw a couple things in the walls. They didn't suddenly think they were doing something else. That's not how indoctrination works.

In all cases of indoctrination the victim wants to help the Reapers. Shepard didn't. Therefore his is not indoctrinated.

If we look at it as a meta game, Shephard indeed was considering helping the Reapers, and many players no doubt chose an ending that did help the Reapers.  Synthesis is simply Reaperization; Control ending is straight up indoctrination.  These players were swayed from the path of destroying the Reapers by the words of a Reaper

Synthesis ending isn't "reaperization. It is completely different then husks, indoctrination and so on. You do not modify existing life like normally reapers do - you are changing DNA itself and Joker and EDI seems like they are the same people. Also plants are changed(because of DNA change).

[Smiley556]

Astarmos wrote...

Smiley556 wrote...

Not sure why I'm still answering but I will try it one more time since this subject obviously bothers you very much. Please read it very carefully, and let it absorb into your mind, before repeating the exact same question again.

The reason the prothean VI doesnt not detect shepard as being indoctrinated, is because shepard, when in the presence of the prothean VI, is not indoctrinated. Its really this simple. This is it, nothing else.

Infact, Shepard is never indoctrinated if you pick the destroy choice at the end. It is attempted over the course of the game, and succeeds if you pick synthasis or control at the end. Only after making that choice, would shepard be indoctrinated.

This is fine but could you discuss some other points of the indoctrination theory?

Why would I? You seem content only choosing to discus a small part of the indoctrination theory. I'm not your pet that you can tell what to discuss with you or what not. I refer you to this thread http://social.biowar...5/index/9727423  since all that I will say to you will already have been posted there multiple times and I'm done repeating myself.

[Smiley556]

Gruzmog wrote...

What scares me a bit though as although the indoctrination theory might be true. Alot of its supporters just say it is true and we just don't get the ending if we don't agree.

You went looking for a pattern, you found one, but that does not mean you have proof its true. You just think you are correct, maybe you are, maybe not.

One could right a psychology thesis with all the data in these forums...

Please read the title of this thread and the original post. This thread was made by people who dont believethe theory and wanted to bash on it and say it is wrong. Not the other way around. We are here defending our point of view, not assaulting theirs.

Modifié par Smiley556, 14 mars 2012 - 09:21 .

[Astarmos]

Smiley556 wrote...

Astarmos wrote...

Smiley556 wrote...

Not sure why I'm still answering but I will try it one more time since this subject obviously bothers you very much. Please read it very carefully, and let it absorb into your mind, before repeating the exact same question again.

The reason the prothean VI doesnt not detect shepard as being indoctrinated, is because shepard, when in the presence of the prothean VI, is not indoctrinated. Its really this simple. This is it, nothing else.

Infact, Shepard is never indoctrinated if you pick the destroy choice at the end. It is attempted over the course of the game, and succeeds if you pick synthasis or control at the end. Only after making that choice, would shepard be indoctrinated.

This is fine but could you discuss some other points of the indoctrination theory?

Why would I? You seem content only choosing to discus a small part of the indoctrination theory. I'm not your pet that you can tell what to discuss with you or what not. I refer you to this thread http://social.biowar...5/index/9727423  since all that I will say to you will already have been posted there multiple times and I'm done repeating myself.

Lol and you think that this is a right thing to say? You think that
normal people will search through over 400 pages were most of the posts
are like "ending sucks, you are right"? I'm repeating myself, but i
think it actually does something. You can be right in this case, because
as I said before, no matter what explanation you provide, people will
quote or write the mass relays explosion problem. But do you think this
is a right solution? To say: "search for answer yourself"?