455 réponses à ce sujet

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

Can someone in this thread maybe help me understand something about the Indoctrination theory?

If it's all just a vision, a trick by Harbinger, why is the part about all the Mass Relays being blown up a part of that vision? As in, what does bringing that up accomplish? After all the Relays will be destroyed no matter what, so it's not like it factored into Shepard's decision making. The relays were toast regardless.

Thank you sir, freaking 12 pages in someone finally brings up a valid point instead of some worthless stubborn bad-writing line.

Honestly, I don't know why this would be included.  I don't know why it would be included in either scenario.  I also don't know why Shepard doesn't ask the kid about it, or ask what effect that will have.

The only avenue of thought I can think of is something regarding the relays being tools of the reapers (meant to lead civilization down the path they intended) - but I don't see how that relates to indoc whatsoever.

[Mcfly616]

We could also say you are in denial as well Naarad....time will remedy this problem

[Beast919]

Naarad wrote...

Beast919, you're in denial. And it's sad. You're raging towards people that are just pointing you to what we understand disproves your insane theory.

Yes, Shepard in the 20-second clip is spasming, coming back to life. If you don't want to see it it's just because you're in denial arguing that that is nonsensical, as opposed to your theory that has 3000 points on wild assumptions. Come on.

lol, if you call this rage..... anyhoo:devil:

Of course the ending clip is him coming back to life - but holy hell what purpose does this serve and how is it explained given the current knoweldge we have of that ending.

Simply explain that.  That's all.  Explain why they would bother to include it.  And why in such a small % of possible endings.

Modifié par Beast919, 15 mars 2012 - 11:04 .

[soundhole]

Beast919 wrote...

lol, this argument is so awful, and so funny at the same time cause you think you're fancy for pointing to some latin.

when a single theory explains *MULTIPLE* points of absurdity, all in one, and is countered by .... well, relatively nothing (there's the VI on Thessia but thats been dealt with previously in this same thread), it is not 'fanciful pleating'.

Its like you've never, ever, been through what detectives do every single time they approach a crime scene.  Do you not understand the definition of "clue"?  Do you not for one second think that someone (or some company) did something you weren't expecting?  Are you *that* pig-headed that you completely rule out any alternative simply "because"?

The teaser is out there for a reason.  On one hand, we have .... no reason at all, its nonsense, Shepard is SPASMING!.  On the other we have a theory that also explains quite a bit of the nonsense that is enraging this entire forum.  Hmm... Tough choice.

The only thing you focused on there was the Latin?  

The indoctrination hypothesis doesn't explain the ending any better than good ol' fashioned bad writing.  I'm not ruling out something simply "because".  I'm ruling it out because there is no solid evidence for it.  

Look, if it will stop you from crying, I'll tell you that it's possible that Shepard was indoctrinated.  What is not possible is that Bioware did a good enough job writing that into the story that we can deduce that from evidence.  You can assume it based on faith, or maybe you got it from some chicken bones.  But the most solid explanation is just bad writing.  You can find constellations in plot holes all you want, but it's just illusion.

What I wasn't expecting from Bioware was for them to ruing the entire series by so severely blundering their story telling.  That is true, even if your half-cocked indoctrination BS is what the writers had in mind - the writing was just too poor to carry the series out on the high note it deserved.

[Naarad]

Beast919 wrote...

Simply explain that.  That's all.  Explain why they would bother to include it.  And why in such a small % of possible endings.

He survives the explosion at the Citadel in a badly state, and reappears in London still alive. How? We don't get any hint on that. But, that, is the logical assumption. That's Occam's razor.

[soundhole]

Beast919 wrote...

Thank you sir, freaking 12 pages in someone finally brings up a valid point instead of some worthless stubborn bad-writing line.

Honestly, I don't know why this would be included.  I don't know why it would be included in either scenario.  I also don't know why Shepard doesn't ask the kid about it, or ask what effect that will have.

The only avenue of thought I can think of is something regarding the relays being tools of the reapers (meant to lead civilization down the path they intended) - but I don't see how that relates to indoc whatsoever.

A "good point"... that you answer with nonsensical conjecture?  Yeesh, you need to crack open a logic book.

[Mcfly616]

@111987: imo I believe what you choose does matter. But the consequences of your choice are not so immediate to what is shown on screen or before the end credits...you'll have to figure that out once the dlc comes. When it comes to going through all the trouble of showing everything getting blown up, I believe its part of the dream or indoctrination....as I said in an earlier post, I believe Harbinger is testing Sheps will. And another reason would be to put the player in Sheps shoes and fools them into thinking its over....classic Bioware twist....

[Beast919]

soundhole wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

lol, this argument is so awful, and so funny at the same time cause you think you're fancy for pointing to some latin.

when a single theory explains *MULTIPLE* points of absurdity, all in one, and is countered by .... well, relatively nothing (there's the VI on Thessia but thats been dealt with previously in this same thread), it is not 'fanciful pleating'.

Its like you've never, ever, been through what detectives do every single time they approach a crime scene.  Do you not understand the definition of "clue"?  Do you not for one second think that someone (or some company) did something you weren't expecting?  Are you *that* pig-headed that you completely rule out any alternative simply "because"?

The teaser is out there for a reason.  On one hand, we have .... no reason at all, its nonsense, Shepard is SPASMING!.  On the other we have a theory that also explains quite a bit of the nonsense that is enraging this entire forum.  Hmm... Tough choice.

The only thing you focused on there was the Latin?  

The indoctrination hypothesis doesn't explain the ending any better than good ol' fashioned bad writing.  I'm not ruling out something simply "because".  I'm ruling it out because there is no solid evidence for it.  

Look, if it will stop you from crying, I'll tell you that it's possible that Shepard was indoctrinated.  What is not possible is that Bioware did a good enough job writing that into the story that we can deduce that from evidence.  You can assume it based on faith, or maybe you got it from some chicken bones.  But the most solid explanation is just bad writing.  You can find constellations in plot holes all you want, but it's just illusion.

What I wasn't expecting from Bioware was for them to ruing the entire series by so severely blundering their story telling.  That is true, even if your half-cocked indoctrination BS is what the writers had in mind - the writing was just too poor to carry the series out on the high note it deserved.

Thought I was pretty clear that the indoc theory was so reasonable *because* it explained the things that can only otherwise (to my knowledge/imagination) be explained by bad writing.

And I think its incredible, absolutely, absolutely incredible, that you can't see the GIANT PLOT DEVICE OF THE CHILD staring you in the face as a possible way they intended to sell the indoc theory.  The entire game started with the child, ended with the child, and was throughout keeping him as a recurring image.  The only other possible purpose this child served was to show Shepard's trouble dealing with the reality of losing Earth, but in that case, WHY GOD WHY was the starchild in that form.  And why did Shepard not question it?  Surely they wouldn't do that ENTIRE plot device only to have the very crux of it not go explained?

I'm not questioning the option that its bad writing.  I find it shocking that you don't see the list of things Indoc is supported by, and fixes.

Modifié par Beast919, 15 mars 2012 - 11:21 .

[Beast919]

soundhole wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

Thank you sir, freaking 12 pages in someone finally brings up a valid point instead of some worthless stubborn bad-writing line.

Honestly, I don't know why this would be included.  I don't know why it would be included in either scenario.  I also don't know why Shepard doesn't ask the kid about it, or ask what effect that will have.

The only avenue of thought I can think of is something regarding the relays being tools of the reapers (meant to lead civilization down the path they intended) - but I don't see how that relates to indoc whatsoever.

A "good point"... that you answer with nonsensical conjecture?  Yeesh, you need to crack open a logic book.

Take a chill pill for serious bro.  The entire point of this thread was to come up with ideas to help show why Indoc doesn't work, and its been derailed the entire time by people playing the **** and just saying "its bad writing gtfo."

If you're so desperate to prove its just bad writing, come up with more examples like his.  That's all that was asked in the first place.

Modifié par Beast919, 15 mars 2012 - 11:13 .

[Mcfly616]

Just like the way they blatantly paint the Destroy option in Red. And the starkid even downplays that option. Like he's trying to make it seem like unattractive choice. The kid is Harbinger manifesting himself in an image that Shepard sympathizes with. Trying to FOOL him

[Beast919]

Naarad wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

Simply explain that.  That's all.  Explain why they would bother to include it.  And why in such a small % of possible endings.

He survives the explosion at the Citadel in a badly state, and reappears in London still alive. How? We don't get any hint on that. But, that, is the logical assumption. That's Occam's razor.

You have once again failed to answer an incredibly simplistic question.  I'm not asking what the scene is portraying.  It is obviously Shepard, being alive.  I'm asking *WHY*.  What could they *gain* from including that in the game.  How could they possibly follow it up with anything worth their time/effort.

[Naarad]

Mcfly616 wrote...

Just like the way they blatantly paint the Destroy option in Red. And the starkid even downplays that option. Like he's trying to make it seem like unattractive choice. The kid is Harbinger manifesting himself in an image that Shepard sympathizes with. Trying to FOOL him

Do you realize that this point, just this point, on itself. Is far more solid than the whole Indoctrination theory and it doesn't need it at all to give yourself credibility? And do you realize it's actually still in line with the ending?

[Beast919]

Naarad wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Just like the way they blatantly paint the Destroy option in Red. And the starkid even downplays that option. Like he's trying to make it seem like unattractive choice. The kid is Harbinger manifesting himself in an image that Shepard sympathizes with. Trying to FOOL him

Do you realize that this point, just this point, on itself. Is far more solid than the whole Indoctrination theory and it doesn't need it at all to give yourself credibility? And do you realize it's actually still in line with the ending?

.........what.  Do you even know what the indoc theory is?

[Naarad]

Beast919 wrote...
.........what.  Do you even know what the indoc theory is?

You're beyond the point of understanding and have entered already the point of blind defence of your theory. Sorry, but that's something I can't help you with. 

[Beast919]

Naarad wrote...

Beast919 wrote...
.........what.  Do you even know what the indoc theory is?

You're beyond the point of understanding and have entered already the point of blind defence of your theory. Sorry, but that's something I can't help you with. 

no no you're really confusing the bejesus out of me now.  You're completely against Indoc, but you're willing to believe the following....

All that leads up to the starchild is truth.  These things happened.

So Shepard is on top of the Citadel without a helmet, but thats k.  So he talks to the starchild.  Who is Harby.  But harby, knowing Shepard is on the verge of using the anti-reaper weapon, is like "You know what broseph, I'm gonna let you have the option of choosing to destroy all of us.  In fact, I'll go one step further.  In some playthroughs, I'm going to make sure that's the *only* option you have available.  Because, you know, as the lead Reaper, its my responsibility to ensure you have the choice of exterminating our race.  After I laser blasted you in the face, of course."

Modifié par Beast919, 15 mars 2012 - 11:32 .

[Lordalif]

But the indoctrination theory makes more sense than the actual ending we got. I can disprove the ending that says it really did happen because of joker escaping with the squad and the scene after harbringer makes 0 sense whatsoever

[111987]

Lordalif wrote...

But the indoctrination theory makes more sense than the actual ending we got. I can disprove the ending that says it really did happen because of joker escaping with the squad and the scene after harbringer makes 0 sense whatsoever

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but...

Joker escpaing with the squad isn't necesarrily a plot hole. I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but when Harbinger is blasting at you with his lasers, your squad mates don't follow you the whole way. they stop right before going down a small hill/ramp, right before you get blasted. I tried to send them down there with me but they wouldn't budge. So, this means they were never hit by the blast.

Thus, assuming Shepard died ("the entire force was decimated!"), they retreat back to a shuttle to get back to the Normandy, and try to reach the Citadel just by straight up flying there as that is their last hope (cause they don't know Shepard survived).

As the Normandy approaches the Crucible, it sees it start to power up. Joker, not knowing what's gonna happen, tries to escape the blast field. The Normandy thus crash lands on the strange planet.

[Naarad]

Beast919 wrote...
no no you're really confusing the bejesus out of me now.  You're completely against Indoc, but you're willing to believe the following....

All that leads up to the starchild is truth.  These things happened.

So Shepard is on top of the Citadel without a helmet, but thats k.  So he talks to the starchild.  Who is Harby.  But harby, knowing Shepard is on the verge of using the anti-reaper weapon, is like "You know what broseph, I'm gonna let you have the option of choosing to destroy all of us.  In fact, I'll go one step further.  In some playthroughs, I'm going to make that the *only* option you have available.  Because, you know, as the lead Reaper, its my responsibility to ensure you have the choice of exterminating our race.  After I laser blasted you in the face, of course."

Alright, I'll try to explain: 
-Forget about the lack of helmets, because we have no way of knowing if it's space magic and we're supposed to assume that there's some kind of atmosphere, or it's just so we can see the facial expressions, or whatever.
-The kid might be Harbinger, which would mean he's a reaper. But you don't need your indoctrination theory for this to work. That on itself is a valid point. The kid might be (and probably is) a Reaper. So he might be fooling Shepard so he doesn't go down the destruction path. The two other solutions are victories for Harbinger. But this also implies that Harbinger is one level above in the "chain of command" the Reapers have (if there's one).

So, you don't need anything about indoctrination for that to make sense.

[Beast919]

111987 wrote...

Lordalif wrote...

But the indoctrination theory makes more sense than the actual ending we got. I can disprove the ending that says it really did happen because of joker escaping with the squad and the scene after harbringer makes 0 sense whatsoever

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but...

Joker escpaing with the squad isn't necesarrily a plot hole. I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but when Harbinger is blasting at you with his lasers, your squad mates don't follow you the whole way. they stop right before going down a small hill/ramp, right before you get blasted. I tried to send them down there with me but they wouldn't budge. So, this means they were never hit by the blast.

Thus, assuming Shepard died ("the entire force was decimated!"), they retreat back to a shuttle to get back to the Normandy, and try to reach the Citadel just by straight up flying there as that is their last hope (cause they don't know Shepard survived).

As the Normandy approaches the Crucible, it sees it start to power up. Joker, not knowing what's gonna happen, tries to escape the blast field. The Normandy thus crash lands on the strange planet.

First of all the Citadel's arms were closed before you open them to allow the crucible in - thats the entire purpose of you being on the ground.

Second, in some playthroughs you see your squad's corspes  (I'm not sure what determines this, but there is video proof - some if it here - ) .

Third, the Citadel only powers up at the very end (when you make your decision - the relay for Earth is waaaaaaaaaay too far away for Joker to see the Citadel powering up and get anywhere near it in time to then have to outrun the explosion, and there's no *reason* for him to want to escape wanyways - the entire purpose of the mission, again, was to fire the crucible.

Fourth - assuming Joker didn't run, and the explosion from the relay extended as far as Earth, everyone and everything on Earth is screwed and there's no way Shepard could draw breath at the end.

[justie]

hex23 wrote...

FabricatedWookie wrote...

It takes more work to accept indoctrination theory than to reject it.

Uh....no. Indoctrination theory makes a hell of a lot more sense than Ghost Kid + Space Magic, no Mass Relays, no Citadel, no Synthetics, your crew stranded on another world, plus millions of aliens stuck on Earth with no resources to sustain them.

Also there's the problem of Shepard surviving the Citadel blowing up in space, but him being shown alive on Earth.

Once again as he stated. The Indoctrination theory only came about after the game had ended. It was many people trying to think of a more acceptable ending to the game they enjoyed.

Also how is it easier to prove the Indoctrination Theory? The VI on Thessia can dectect when people are indoctrinated. How come it never tells anyone that Shepard is Indoctrinated then?

If it was originally what bioware had planned the they did a pretty bad job of getting across because nobody even bothered to look at the idea until a couple of days after they had beaten the game.

Either way Bioware's execution of the ending was just awful.

Modifié par justie, 15 mars 2012 - 11:45 .

[Beast919]

Naarad wrote...

Beast919 wrote...
no no you're really confusing the bejesus out of me now.  You're completely against Indoc, but you're willing to believe the following....

All that leads up to the starchild is truth.  These things happened.

So Shepard is on top of the Citadel without a helmet, but thats k.  So he talks to the starchild.  Who is Harby.  But harby, knowing Shepard is on the verge of using the anti-reaper weapon, is like "You know what broseph, I'm gonna let you have the option of choosing to destroy all of us.  In fact, I'll go one step further.  In some playthroughs, I'm going to make that the *only* option you have available.  Because, you know, as the lead Reaper, its my responsibility to ensure you have the choice of exterminating our race.  After I laser blasted you in the face, of course."

Alright, I'll try to explain: 
-Forget about the lack of helmets, because we have no way of knowing if it's space magic and we're supposed to assume that there's some kind of atmosphere, or it's just so we can see the facial expressions, or whatever.
-The kid might be Harbinger, which would mean he's a reaper. But you don't need your indoctrination theory for this to work. That on itself is a valid point. The kid might be (and probably is) a Reaper. So he might be fooling Shepard so he doesn't go down the destruction path. The two other solutions are victories for Harbinger. But this also implies that Harbinger is one level above in the "chain of command" the Reapers have (if there's one).

So, you don't need anything about indoctrination for that to make sense.

How is Harbinger pulling Shepard up (from an unconcious state) to a platform, and then handing him a set of options (or again, in some playthroughs ONE OPTION) that includes and/or is limited to BLOWING UP HIS ENTIRE SPECIES a reasoanble point.  The fact that you're even considering this has lost you any chance of speaking logically.  The fact that you would consider this MORE plausible than Indoc is beyond absurd.

The key difference is, no matter what, that destruction option does NOT serve the reapers.  In this, unbelieveably stupid and nonsense theory of yours, that option ACTUALLY HAPPENS WHILE HARBY SITS AND WATCHES AFTER EXPLAINING IT TO YOU.

In Indoc Theory, that option is the only way you can resist the Indoc, IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN, and you wake up in the rubble of london (which, oh, by the way, they actually show happening).

[Mcfly616]

Naarad I think you misunderstood me. I actually do understand what you're saying this time around....however, that doesn't mean that it can't occur in a dream or while being indoctrinated. On first glance(face value) it is as you say it is. I even thought this on my first playthrough....they were even successful in fooling me....I accidently picked blue, because I was so caught up in the moment I must've missed what starkid said when describing the options....anyways, upon my second playthrough and my 3rd time doing the ending, started to pick up on everything, it just started making so much sense. The first thought in my head was "This is the Twist!".....the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of a Bioware game, is that there is going to be a twist at some point in their game. And most likely, the player will never see it coming....in ME3, it just took so damn long into the story to happen that by the time it happened I wasn't even thinking of it. And nobody, and I mean Nobody would have thought that they would end it right at the twist. But on another note....why does Starkid say "Wake Up"?! Hmmm

[Naarad]

Beast919 wrote...
How is Harbinger pulling Shepard up (from an unconcious state) to a platform, and then handing him a set of options (or again, in some playthroughs ONE OPTION) that includes and/or is limited to BLOWING UP HIS ENTIRE SPECIES a reasoanble point.  The fact that you're even considering this has lost you any chance of speaking logically.  The fact that you would consider this MORE plausible than Indoc is beyond absurd.

The key difference is, no matter what, that destruction option does NOT serve the reapers.  In this, unbelieveably stupid and nonsense theory of yours, that option ACTUALLY HAPPENS WHILE HARBY SITS AND WATCHES AFTER EXPLAINING IT TO YOU.

In Indoc Theory, that option is the only way you can resist the Indoc, IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN, and you wake up in the rubble of london (which, oh, by the way, they actually show happening).

Here we go again...

[Johnny_Cheung]

indoctrinating shepard could entirely turn the tide of war, but the demise of shepard only boost the morale of the resistance army.

moreover, i suspect that the ghost kid is the avatar of harby, which the modelling file implied,

http://i1115.photobu...31778596081.png

[Beast919]

justie wrote...

If it was originally what bioware had planned the they did a pretty bad job of getting across because nobody even bothered to look at the idea until a couple of days after they had beaten the game.

Either way Bioware's execution of the ending was just awful.

Personally, I think they wanted to fool the players into thinking they were dealing with reality.  If you beat someone over the head with a concept, they're bound to latch on to it and be cautious of tricksy dealings.  But if you subtly put hints in (Come on, the kid saying "You can't save me" screamed WTF at the time but due to the pacing, I quickly forgot it), and with reflection it came take some form, thats relatively creative.

I agree their execution is horrible - but I feel it is more to do with the followthrough, and less to do with the individual scenes portrayed (assuming there is a followthrough).  In other words, once everything is said and done, and they have the "full "ending that I feel is coming, it will be a cohesive, relatively creative idea.  Right now its dog**** no matter what way you look at it (speaking specifically to what is currently available, not theories).