631 réponses à ce sujet

[Siven80]

Unfortunately i'm being swayed by the indoctrination theory.

The big problem with that, to me, is that the game has no real ending and if bioware come out with a paid DLC of the real ending.........well thats just a big **** you to us consumers.

[Candidate 88766]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
What makes more sense if the theory is true:

-Showing Shepard waking up on the same patch of Earth as before, bathed in a blue glow from the Conduit so its clear he's in the same spot

-Showing Shepard waking up somewhere entirely different in London

If Bioware was trying to hint that this theory is true, its blatantly obvious they'd go for the first option.

they are assuming their audience is mature and smart enough to get it as is in its vague way.

guess they were wrong

guess they really did need the dragon age text slideshow to spell it all out

A smart player would realise that Shepard is waking up in a different place, which goes against the theory.

[stevesyanks17hotmail.com]

I don't get it Deventh...what is that image proving? That he is hallucinating his surroundings? Then why not wake up in those very same surroundings?

[Tiax Rules All]

hex23 wrote...

I believe in indoctrination theory but I will play Devil's advocate for a sec.

Let's say the end should be taken at face value. It 100% happened. This still doesn't explain Star Gazer...but let's roll with it all being real for a second.

The problem with that is, Bioware has been tweeting nonstop hinting that we don't have the full picture.

Look at this Chris Priestly tweet from today:

twitter.com/#!/BioEvilChris/status/179967731070799872

Jessica Merizan:
twitter.com/#!/JessicaMerizan/status/179808402011193344
twitter.com/#!/JessicaMerizan/status/179828285327409152

The official "Mass Effect" twitter from Bioware:
twitter.com/#!/masseffect/status/179686320568926209
twitter.com/#!/masseffect/status/179680647869243392
twitter.com/#!/masseffect/status/179681231766695936
twitter.com/#!/masseffect/status/179688066787704832
twitter.com/#!/masseffect/status/179682383304462338

This has been going on nonstop for the last 2 days. Some might say "oh, this is PR"....but you can't really. PR wouldn't get that specific about us not understanding what we've seen, yet.

I put all this in my OP in the Indoc theory thread here
http://social.biowar...5/index/9861052
thank you so much, this is awesome

[hex23]

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

This kills your thoughts on a new ending:

https://twitter.com/...973280311156737

No it doesn't. What was he supposed to say "yeah man totally! f*ck Bioware!".

Also if you're basing your whole argument off that 1 tweet you'd have to dismiss 10+ other tweets, one of them being from Chris, that support what I said.

[Smiley556]

Bigdoser wrote...

Deventh wrote...

You guys saw this?

Very interesting......

Pic on the left is a Mako, pic on right is definatly not a Mako. I dont see the point of this pic. I support indoc theory but this is just grasping at emergency induction ports.

[UnevenElefant5]

The thing with the indoctrination theory is that if they really wanted to make shepard choose the options they set out, they wouldn't have told him those options would destroy the relays. They would have tried to make the destroy ending seem really unappealing. As it stands, the destroy option was the MOST appealing (for me at least).

Actually since we're here, why didn't the Reaper just kill Shepard? Why take the chance that the indoctrination could fail?

Modifié par UnevenElefant5, 15 mars 2012 - 12:45 .

[stevesyanks17hotmail.com]

To lighten the mood.

I am also laughing that people are hoping we were purposefully given a fake ending and want to buy a new one, but that's a separate thing.

[savionen]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Firstly, you're still missing the fundamental point I'm making - why make the ending DLC at all?

You cannot possibly believe that Bioware would charge full price for a game they intentionally left unifinished just so they could make a little extra money later. Can you even imagine the backlash?

There is no reason at all to deliberatly not include the ending won the discs.

It would be like removing and then charging extra for the last chapter of a book, or the ending of a film.

The script being leaked seems like a decent answer.

Overall just comes down to your trust in Bioware I guess. Having a rather refined RPG that in the last 10 minutes turns terrible, negates the story in ME1 and ME2 and creates dozens of plot-holes, that has no resolution:

What's more plausible?

They failed terribly somehow in the last 10 minutes or they're planning on continuing the story?

[Tiax Rules All]

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

I don't get it Deventh...what is that image proving? That he is hallucinating his surroundings? Then why not wake up in those very same surroundings?

i guess my point is... its not important, you are getting hung up and an isignifacant detail. whos to say shep didnt get blown a few feet back into some rubble. you would have been "out" flying throught the air...

bah but im doing it, this doesnt need to be explained. 

the point this is detracting from is the hes on earth, still in london..  and he didnt get there by surviving explosion/space/re-entry/landing in london again

[stevesyanks17hotmail.com]

UnevenElefant5 wrote...

The thing with the indoctrination theory is that if they really wanted to make shepard choose the options they set out, they wouldn't have told him those options would destroy the relays. They would have tried to make the destroy ending seem really unappealing. As it stands, the destroy option was the MOST appealing (for me at least).

Actually since we're here, why didn't the Reaper just kill Shepard? Why take the chance that the indoctrination could fail?

Because there are a bazillion holes with Indoc. theory, all way more glaring than in the game itself, but shhhh.

[stevesyanks17hotmail.com]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

I don't get it Deventh...what is that image proving? That he is hallucinating his surroundings? Then why not wake up in those very same surroundings?

i guess my point is... its not important, you are getting hung up and an isignifacant detail. whos to say shep didnt get blown a few feet back into some rubble. you would have been "out" flying throught the air...

bah but im doing it, this doesnt need to be explained. 

the point this is detracting from is the hes on earth, still in london..  and he didnt get there by surviving explosion/space/re-entry/landing in london again

There is no rubble anywhere near the beam, where he was. Also, rubble okay, I can live with that. There's no beam anywhere near him afterwards, which means it's a different spot.

[Candidate 88766]

Deventh wrote...

You guys saw this?

I understand what the top pair of images is attempting to show, but the bottom pair is just about the loosest connection I've ever seen.

There are circles next to each other - it must be Shepard imagining a Mako. 

[savionen]

UnevenElefant5 wrote...

The thing with the indoctrination theory is that if they really wanted to make shepard choose the options they set out, they wouldn't have told him those options would destroy the relays. They would have tried to make the destroy ending seem really unappealing. As it stands, the destroy option was the MOST appealing (for me at least).

Actually since we're here, why didn't the Reaper just kill Shepard? Why take the chance that the indoctrination could fail?

Overall the Red option seems to be the least appealing for most people, since you also kill the Geth, EDI, and potentially a ton of other technology at the same time. It's the most guaranteed option to send everyone back to the stone-age.

Harbinger wants to indoctrinate Shepard, regarldess of ME3. That was always his intention in ME2. Harbinger can take memories, thoughts, etc. Shepard would give great insight into humanity, which may or may not require Shepard to be alive.

[UnevenElefant5]

Yeah, I mean the indoctrination theory has some good points, but as someone said just above me, a lot of it seems to be "grasping at emergency induction ports"
E: this is at the guy 2 posts above me

Modifié par UnevenElefant5, 15 mars 2012 - 12:49 .

[Zyrious]

Not only does it not make sense for the stargazer scene to exist, as stated, why not just kill shepard? If he's twitching and foaming at the mouth, why not drag him off to the vats or shoot him in the head? Or hell, shoot another giant beam of death since indoc theory states harbinger is messing with his mind and thus staring him down, guns included. Which means even if you wake up, bam harbinger finishes the job.


"Harbinger wants to indoctrinate Shepard, regarldess of ME3. That was always his intention in ME2. Harbinger can take memories, thoughts, etc. Shepard would give great insight into humanity, which may or may not require Shepard to be alive."

Actually no, according to Drew harbinger just wanted to dissect and vat shepard because of his unique abilities. They wanted to use his genetics to further their cause. Plus, they were more than happy to kill him first chance they got. Capturing him was a nice bonus. Indoctrination was never desired. Capturing or killing was always the intent.

Modifié par Zyrious, 15 mars 2012 - 12:51 .

[Tiax Rules All]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
What makes more sense if the theory is true:

-Showing Shepard waking up on the same patch of Earth as before, bathed in a blue glow from the Conduit so its clear he's in the same spot

-Showing Shepard waking up somewhere entirely different in London

If Bioware was trying to hint that this theory is true, its blatantly obvious they'd go for the first option.

they are assuming their audience is mature and smart enough to get it as is in its vague way.

guess they were wrong

guess they really did need the dragon age text slideshow to spell it all out

A smart player would realise that Shepard is waking up in a different place, which goes against the theory.

either you dont understand my theory or you not a smart person by your own standards. hes not in a different place. he in the same place. On earth in london, citadel never "physically" happend

[Deventh]

^^^I just reposted it. It seemed interesting enough with everything being so similar.

Modifié par Deventh, 15 mars 2012 - 12:50 .

[hex23]

UnevenElefant5 wrote...

The thing with the indoctrination theory is that if they really wanted to make shepard choose the options they set out, they wouldn't have told him those options would destroy the relays. They would have tried to make the destroy ending seem really unappealing. As it stands, the destroy option was the MOST appealing (for me at least).

Actually since we're here, why didn't the Reaper just kill Shepard? Why take the chance that the indoctrination could fail?

Uh....what?

Destroy is set up as the least appealing. Not only do you die, and wipe out all synthetic life, you also don't stop the war. The peace is brief. The other two choices are painted as completely ending the war of man vs Reapers.

As far as why they don't just kill Shep....no offense but did you play "ME2"? Harbinger makes it 100% clear the Reapers want your mind, and body....they want Shepard as a pawn. He makes references to this several times through out the game.

[Smiley556]

savionen wrote...

UnevenElefant5 wrote...

The thing with the indoctrination theory is that if they really wanted to make shepard choose the options they set out, they wouldn't have told him those options would destroy the relays. They would have tried to make the destroy ending seem really unappealing. As it stands, the destroy option was the MOST appealing (for me at least).

Actually since we're here, why didn't the Reaper just kill Shepard? Why take the chance that the indoctrination could fail?

Overall the Red option seems to be the least appealing for most people, since you also kill the Geth, EDI, and potentially a ton of other technology at the same time. It's the most guaranteed option to send everyone back to the stone-age.

Harbinger wants to indoctrinate Shepard, regarldess of ME3. That was always his intention in ME2. Harbinger can take memories, thoughts, etc. Shepard would give great insight into humanity, which may or may not require Shepard to be alive.

Plus as we have learned, the Protheans put up much less of a fight since they never united the galaxies forces. And it took over 100 years to wipe them out, requiring the use of indoctrinated sleeper agents. Shepard and the galaxy in this instance is putting up allot more recistance so the reapers are Definatly going to need those sleeper agents. Blowing up shepard there and then would not be some instant win for the reapers, they still have a whole galaxy to extreminate. Harbinger always wanted shepard indoctrinated, and he still has very good reason to want him indoctrinated.

[Candidate 88766]

savionen wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
Firstly, you're still missing the fundamental point I'm making - why make the ending DLC at all?

You cannot possibly believe that Bioware would charge full price for a game they intentionally left unifinished just so they could make a little extra money later. Can you even imagine the backlash?

There is no reason at all to deliberatly not include the ending won the discs.

It would be like removing and then charging extra for the last chapter of a book, or the ending of a film.

The script being leaked seems like a decent answer.

Overall just comes down to your trust in Bioware I guess. Having a rather refined RPG that in the last 10 minutes turns terrible, negates the story in ME1 and ME2 and creates dozens of plot-holes, that has no resolution:

What's more plausible?

They failed terribly somehow in the last 10 minutes or they're planning on continuing the story?

What shows more trust in Bioware:

-That they tried to go for a bleak ending suited to the atmopshere of war, but didn't manage to do so very well

-That they didn't bother to finished the endings in time so just released the game anyway

The whole idea that Bioware would release the game unfinished shows far less trust in them than simply assuming that out of 30 hours of generally fantastic writing they just couldn't get the endings right.

I trust that Bioware would release ME3 in complete form. Some of the people there have very clearly poured an awful lot into this game - and it generally shows - and I trust that they wouldn't ship it without its ending.

[UnevenElefant5]

savionen wrote...

UnevenElefant5 wrote...

The thing with the indoctrination theory is that if they really wanted to make shepard choose the options they set out, they wouldn't have told him those options would destroy the relays. They would have tried to make the destroy ending seem really unappealing. As it stands, the destroy option was the MOST appealing (for me at least).

Actually since we're here, why didn't the Reaper just kill Shepard? Why take the chance that the indoctrination could fail?

Overall the Red option seems to be the least appealing for most people, since you also kill the Geth, EDI, and potentially a ton of other technology at the same time. It's the most guaranteed option to send everyone back to the stone-age.

Harbinger wants to indoctrinate Shepard, regarldess of ME3. That was always his intention in ME2. Harbinger can take memories, thoughts, etc. Shepard would give great insight into humanity, which may or may not require Shepard to be alive.

Well the relays and the citadel are destroyed regardless of which option you choose. There's just the problem of EDI and the Geth. Even though I'm pro AI-rights (lol) on most issues, I still chose it because I figured that, like the Catalyst said, people would create AI's again anyway. The Quarians could recreate the Geth.

hex23 wrote...

UnevenElefant5 wrote...

The
thing with the indoctrination theory is that if they really wanted to
make shepard choose the options they set out, they wouldn't have told
him those options would destroy the relays. They would have tried to
make the destroy ending seem really unappealing. As it stands, the
destroy option was the MOST appealing (for me at least).

Actually
since we're here, why didn't the Reaper just kill Shepard? Why take the
chance that the indoctrination could fail?

Uh....what?

Destroy is set up as the least appealing. Not only do you die, and wipe out all synthetic life, you also don't stop the war. The peace is brief. The other two choices are painted as completely ending the war of man vs Reapers.

As
far as why they don't just kill Shep....no offense but did you play
"ME2"? Harbinger makes it 100% clear the Reapers want your mind, and
body....they want Shepard as a pawn. He makes references to this several
times through out the game.

You die regardless, Destroy is the only option with a possibility of living though. Also my reasoning about the synthetic life was that people would eventually recreate it. And what war? The Reapers die, so that war is over... If you mean the war between synthetics and organics, then destroying all synthetics would end the war, at least temporarily. And yeah I did play ME2, but it just seems like at this point, the Reapers are so close to victory that they don't need Shepard. Unless they really are sent to store organic life's forms in Reapers, in which it makes sense.

E: also what Zyrious said. Harbinger didn't have a problem killing Shep in ME2.

Modifié par UnevenElefant5, 15 mars 2012 - 12:56 .

[Rafe34]

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

Star Gazer ending and Shep "waking up" no where near the beam or where the laser was shot kills indoc. Sorry.

StarGazer makes no ****ing sense at all. It's very easy to explain him perfectly fine for Indoctrination theory. I, and several others have told you so several times during this thread. I would respectfully request you come up with a different argument instead of constantly beating a dead horse.

Answer to other question: Shep wakes up in the pile of rubble directly to the left of where Harby blasted him. It's rather patently obvious. 

I could just as easily say: Shep drawing breath after falling from the Citadel proves that it must be a dream because no human can survive that.

Modifié par Rafe34, 15 mars 2012 - 12:53 .

[Zyrious]

hex23 wrote...

UnevenElefant5 wrote...

The thing with the indoctrination theory is that if they really wanted to make shepard choose the options they set out, they wouldn't have told him those options would destroy the relays. They would have tried to make the destroy ending seem really unappealing. As it stands, the destroy option was the MOST appealing (for me at least).

Actually since we're here, why didn't the Reaper just kill Shepard? Why take the chance that the indoctrination could fail?

Uh....what?

Destroy is set up as the least appealing. Not only do you die, and wipe out all synthetic life, you also don't stop the war. The peace is brief. The other two choices are painted as completely ending the war of man vs Reapers.

As far as why they don't just kill Shep....no offense but did you play "ME2"? Harbinger makes it 100% clear the Reapers want your mind, and body....they want Shepard as a pawn. He makes references to this several times through out the game.

They killed you in ME 2 pretty much without hesitation. Capturing you is a bonus, not the primary goal. "Salvage the body if you can". They merely want your genetics, to study and then vat you, nothing more complicated by that, Drew Karpyshyn laid this out plain as day.

[Tiax Rules All]

Zyrious wrote...

Not only does it not make sense for the stargazer scene to exist, as stated, why not just kill shepard? If he's twitching and foaming at the mouth, why not drag him off to the vats or shoot him in the head? Or hell, shoot another giant beam of death since indoc theory states harbinger is messing with his mind and thus staring him down, guns included. Which means even if you wake up, bam harbinger finishes the job.

you are supposed to be expierinceing the world through sheps eyes and thoughts. so if shep is out hallucinating, then he and by extention we, dont know whats going on around him. nor would we have any knowledge of what happens after we "die"

but anything is possible in your subconscience. eve sheps dreams of total victory and happily ever after.

remember we were never promised a happy ending and plenty of movies end with the main character dying or in less then ideal terms. its not neceassarily wrong or mean. just the way they chose to end a mature game.