455 réponses à ce sujet

[CommanderWilliams]

MisterNugNug wrote...

CommanderWilliams wrote...

Its true. That makes sense, but remember this. Harbinger made a really big deal out of keeping Shepard alive i ME2. He was even responsible for recovering Shepard's body (explained in Shadow Broker)

Why? I have no idea but hopefully it is explained the DLC. (Possibly to Harvest him) As a side note, having control of who is effectively the most important person in the galaxy could prove helpful to Harbinger since he isn't going to kill EVERYONE.

Also I don't think people would just lay down and die if Shepard were to fall. Morale would drop yes, but not so extremely.

Its actually agravating and I don't know if Bioware understands this.  IF the Indoctrination theory is true, WHY; end the game at that point?  If you're trying to do something edgy, GREAT.  I'm all for that.  But WHY end the game at THAT point?  

You know what they could have done?  Kept the endings the same EXCEPT change the destroy ending.  If players chose the destroy ending, Shepard snaps out of the Indoctrination process and wakes up just like the post-credit cutscene.  THEN the game continues on.  To me that scenario works.  But to end the trilogy under these circumstances, that I cannot fathom.  Fans are now left in limbo, because we don't have "True" endings to our stories.  And I've stated this before and I'll state this again, we have FANS that have personal stories three games in the making.  We all want a conclusive end.  That's it.

I don't mind if Sheppard dies.  I'm cool with that.  I've already seen Mordin and Thane die right in front of me, the stakes are high, as a player I know some characters aren't going to make it through this alive.  And that's the great thing.

I'm not defending the way they handeled it. But the fact is this is how they handeled it. We don't know why, but I am assuming it was a personal (if not foolish) choice and they purposefully added all these little clues to help us build this theory before they come out and say "Good job guys, thanks for waiting and we're sorry we pissed you all off so here is the real ending plus some extra **** for free".

If its free they have done no real harm.
If it isn't, THEN they sold us an unfinished game.

[RxP4IN]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

Fair enough, I see your point. Trying to disprove Religion is just as hard as proving it. But with that said, this isn't a religious debate where neither side has significant evidence. I believe everything point toward the theory being true. I'm asking for anything that points toward it being untrue. And I still don't see any.

While I support the theory and wish it was infallible (and there definately is more evidence for than against), I have some problems with it.

1) Normandy escape/Mass relays---is this part of the indoc/hallucination? If so, why?

2) If you have a low EMS, there is only the option of "destroy," why? If this is what the reapers don't want...why only give that option? The explanations I've seen for this don't satisfy me.

3) Why would Bioware ship a game without the "real" ending?--future implications do not look good.

That's all I can think of for now.

[Raiil]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

Fair enough, I see your point. Trying to disprove Religion is just as hard as proving it. But with that said, this isn't a religious debate where neither side has significant evidence. I believe everything point toward the theory being true. I'm asking for anything that points toward it being untrue. And I still don't see any.

I think you missed the point. It's not about a religious argument.


The inability to give you anything that disproves the Indoc theory does not equal evidence that the theory is correct. As per the Russel's Teapot: 

 Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. 

As I said, I'm not saying the theory is wrong or that you don't have some evidence. But all evidence you have is circumstantial and not damning. We can't not prove it, but you, in turn, can't prove that it's true either. Posit it all you want, but you can't essentially label it canon with what you have right now. The only thing that can label it such is WOG, which you don't have.

[dragonage200200]

Well, if we say the theory is true, Bioware could release a free DLC/patch to the game that continues it.

[hex23]

MisterNugNug wrote...

Great, okay so why wasn't that question answered for me in the endings?  Why am I sitting here arguing about a theory to a potential ending to a story instead of arguing about the ACTUAL ending to the story?

I don't know. All I know is indoctrination theory, no matter how unlikely it seems, makes a lot more sense than the ending we're presented.

[Bendok]

 I sorta discounted the whole theory until I just saw this....

Assuming its not fabricated....

Edit: nvm apparently fake.

 www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/yukachu/19327036728/1/tumblr_m0wni8dyMf1qh1uxx

Modifié par Bendok, 15 mars 2012 - 07:01 .

[Dreogan]

It isn't necessary to disprove it. It's made irrelevant by the simple fact that if it is true, then the game was still shipped without a valid conclusion.

[Greed1914]

MisterNugNug wrote...

Why Indoctrinate Shepard? If he/she is lying on the ground, why not kill Shepard? One individual has amassed the galaxy's alien races together; united them to confront you. Killing him/her would destroy morale and resolve amongst the races.

Perhaps because the human that thwarted them twice was considered an extremely valuable asset.  Harbinger wanted to capture Shepard alive after all.  And was actively trying to acquire his body in the comics that take place right before his resurrection. 

[RxP4IN]

Bendok wrote...

 I sorta discounted the whole theory until I just saw this....

Assuming its not fabricated....

 www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/yukachu/19327036728/1/tumblr_m0wni8dyMf1qh1uxx

It is fabricated. Sorry.

[Xaijin]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

 Please. Attempt to do so. I was on the "F*ck you Bioware banwagon" for awhile, but once I started looking at the evidence, there are simply too many coincendes and little things to say they did not plan this.

I will not list everything here, there are hudreds of pages of people explaining and justifying the ending. If you can find anything about the indoctrination theory that flat out disproves it I want to hear it. With that said looking at some of the evidence for the theory, some of IS taken too far. My example, people believe the oily black stuff during the chat with the illusive man proves it is an indoctrination. Not really, TIM flat out tells you he is controlling you, so in that small instance you are indoctrinated, but not the entire time.

Its a small thing that can be taken several ways but in no way disproves or even hurts the theory. The sooner people realize we solved the puzzle the sooner all the flames will die down. Besides, even if they didn't plan it, they would complete idiots to tell us they didn't or not make a proper ending proving the theory right.

1. Walters said on camera the galaxy was left a "desolated wasteland" before the game was launched when asked about aftermarket content.

There have been two tweets by staff in a position to comment authoritatively today confirming that.

2. There is no theory. The theory is fanboy fabrication based on a principle that was defenestrated by the main character in Overlord and Arrival to begin with and nothing else. The main characters Mary Sue powers of evil villain obviation have remained rather constant throughout the series, and the final installment is no exception.

Modifié par Xaijin, 15 mars 2012 - 07:02 .

[CommanderWilliams]

I wasn't trying to create an unwinnable situation here. I'm really just stacking up the evidence we have. Although it seems I've backed myself into a corner here. Your right the lack of evidence disproving it doesn't mean it is truth. But it damn sure says something.

Also I want to stress that if the DLC is free, which is what I expect, then they really haven't cheated anyone (except those without internet) because its free. Also-and this is crazy-but suppose the endings are hidden on the disk(s). Whose to say it can't be accessed without Internet?

[MisterNugNug]

CommanderWilliams wrote...
I'm not defending the way they handeled it. But the fact is this is how they handeled it. We don't know why, but I am assuming it was a personal (if not foolish) choice and they purposefully added all these little clues to help us build this theory before they come out and say "Good job guys, thanks for waiting and we're sorry we pissed you all off so here is the real ending plus some extra **** for free".

If its free they have done no real harm.
If it isn't, THEN they sold us an unfinished game.

I know you're not defending the way they handled it.  You're a fan just like me.  And it sucks that instead of arguing about the merits of how we chose to end our stories; we're forced to argue theories.  Honestly if they delayed the game, I would have been cool with that because ultimately, we the fans get a better product.  If they needed more time to create content, we're all for that.  

I want someone to document this whole ordeal; because its a great case study for how not to handle the last act of a trilogy.  It would make a great academic article on Gamasutra or something.

[Beast919]

Dilandau3000 wrote...

The god-child is the son of The Illusive Man. Disprove it.

There not being evidence to the contrary doesn't mean it's true. And all the evidence in favour is circumstantial at best. Essentially, because the ending is so vague it's nearly impossible to prove or disprove anything about it.

The point of this thread is simply to point out that while there's a *host* of things wrong with the endings that can all be used *for* the Indoc Theorey, I can name only 1-2 possible things that work *against* it.  

The main thing would be "why not just murder Shepard's face while he's bleeding on the ground?".  My personal counter to this argument is....HARBY HAD THE FREAKING OPTION TO DO THAT IN THE CURRENT ENDING.  Why would he just up & leave?  Harby leaving makes *ZERO* sense in any circumstance *other* than it being a vision of some sort that is not reality.

Imagine, if you will, a Star Wars Episode IV where Vader shoots out one of Luke's engines and forces a temporary landing.  Seeing he has effectively crippled Luke's ship, Vader is like "Alright bros I'm out, peace!" and leaves Luke for dead.  Thats about the same level of logic as Harby leaving is currently.  The objective was a known quantity, Harby *knew* he needed to defend it (he leaves FROM ORBIT to come defend it), why oh why would he abandon it WHILE SHEPARD IS ALIVE?!

Sure, you cannot conclusive say one way or the other currently, but the evidence for the current ending being a false reality (i.e. Indoctrination-related vision) is getting to be overwhelming, both from a storyline-perspective, and a business-perspective.

They "tease" their customer base with the Shepard breathing ending.  What could they *POSSIBLY* release post-current-ending where it mattered one iota that Shepard was alive.  What are you gonna do, build a mudbrick house in the remains of London before you get MURDERED by the fleet of hungry aliens chillin in the skies?  With the ending as it is, why should I *care* that Shepard takes a breath.

Give me one good reason Indoc Theorey is not the most *likely* truth about the current ending.  You don't have to disprove Indoc, but just give one good reason why it isn't likely.

Modifié par Beast919, 15 mars 2012 - 07:10 .

[Lankist]

Just don't get your hopes up, dudes.

There is no way to prove a negative. If the idea isn't fact, there isn't going to be evidence to its contrary (the same way the classic "teapot in orbit of Mars" cannot be directly disproven.)

Modifié par Lankist, 15 mars 2012 - 07:06 .

[hex23]

Dreogan wrote...

It isn't necessary to disprove it. It's made irrelevant by the simple fact that if it is true, then the game was still shipped without a valid conclusion.

The ending we're presented isn't a valid conclusion either, and makes even less sense than indoctrination.

[charon45]

MisterNugNug wrote...

Why Indoctrinate Shepard? If he/she is lying on the ground, why not kill Shepard? One individual has amassed the galaxy's alien races together; united them to confront you. Killing him/her would destroy morale and resolve amongst the races.

I don't buy into indoctrination theory because I don't think Bioware would go that route without a more obvious reveal, but I think it was implied that Harbringer wanted Sheppard alive if possible in ME2. 

[Raiil]

The evidence isn't 'overwhelming'. There are a lot of bits and pieces that vaguely fit together and can be seen a certain way, but until you know for certain (like no one helping the kid in- is it indoctrination? Or is it artistic licence to pose the situation in a specific way to pull on our heartstrings?) it's all circumstantial and can be used in several different ways.

[Maria Caliban]

Please stop using the word 'prove' or its derivatives when talking literary interpretation.

[CommanderWilliams]

Xaijin wrote...

CommanderWilliams wrote...

 Please. Attempt to do so. I was on the "F*ck you Bioware banwagon" for awhile, but once I started looking at the evidence, there are simply too many coincendes and little things to say they did not plan this.

I will not list everything here, there are hudreds of pages of people explaining and justifying the ending. If you can find anything about the indoctrination theory that flat out disproves it I want to hear it. With that said looking at some of the evidence for the theory, some of IS taken too far. My example, people believe the oily black stuff during the chat with the illusive man proves it is an indoctrination. Not really, TIM flat out tells you he is controlling you, so in that small instance you are indoctrinated, but not the entire time.

Its a small thing that can be taken several ways but in no way disproves or even hurts the theory. The sooner people realize we solved the puzzle the sooner all the flames will die down. Besides, even if they didn't plan it, they would complete idiots to tell us they didn't or not make a proper ending proving the theory right.

1. Walters said on camera the galaxy was left a "desolated wasteland" before the game was launched when asked about aftermarket content.

There have been two tweets by staff in a position to comment authoritatively today confirming that.

2. There is no theory. The theory is fanboy fabrication based on a principle that was defenestrated by the main character in Overlord and Arrival to begin with and nothing else. The main characters Mary Sue powers of evil villain obviation have remained rather constant throughout the series, and the final installment is no exception.

Lolwhat? None of the current endings leave the galaxy anywhere near desolated. Not having technology in the Destroy ending hardly destroys the galaxy. Although I don't think I entirely understand what you are saying.

You really lost me on 2. Maybe I'm stupid but what principle did they establish (I never played Overlord, heard it sucked) and I'm fairly confident that whatever it may be is not what is based off it. Its based off the fact that what we got made no goddamn sense and the 20 clip included after the Destroy ending (and only that ending) points toward it being some sort of dream.

[FabricatedWookie]

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.

You have to reject the endings given to accept an ending you think makes more sense. I am not talking about the actual continuity presented, because that could well be a product of developer error. I am talking about the fact the endings are your information. There is not significant evidence that indoc theory is true, because it has it's own conflicts. Including meta-game consequences such as why the indotrination wasn't revealed. What do the reapers have to gain by shepard controlling them? Why would they raise the platform to their own destruction? Indoc theory introduces more speculation and uncertainty into the world. As a possibility it is secondary to the endings and their apparent reality. It doesn't necessitate that they be rejected out right, but on the totem pole of possibilities they are behind that everything we saw happened.

[mereck7980]

This entire subject is, as Mordin Solus would say, supposition. You are making assumptions based on the poor quality of the endings. It seems like all the proponents of this theory are grasping at any straw that makes sense of the bewildering mess that are the three possible endings.

We can't disprove your theory, but neither can you prove it. You can present all the "evidence" you want, but nothing short of one of the devs confirming your opinion would make it fact.

[Dreogan]

hex23 wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

It isn't necessary to disprove it. It's made irrelevant by the simple fact that if it is true, then the game was still shipped without a valid conclusion.

The ending we're presented isn't a valid conclusion either, and makes even less sense than indoctrination.

 

*still* shipped without a valid conclusion. Emphasis added for those that missed it the first time. 

BOTH conclusions end up with the mathematical equivalent of 4=7. This just not fit, it does not work, it isn't possible for this to conclude this arc. 
Indoctrination does little to improve our understanding of the game, does not provide closure, and does not serve any meaningful purpose at this time. If the endings are expanded, then indoctrination may become relevant-- but until then there's no point in "belief" or not.

Even if indoctrination "solves" the problem with the asinine storytelling past the elevator, it still does not provide us with a meaningful result.

Modifié par Dreogan, 15 mars 2012 - 07:13 .

[Kayjin23]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

Fair enough, I see your point. Trying to disprove Religion is just as hard as proving it. But with that said, this isn't a religious debate where neither side has significant evidence. I believe everything point toward the theory being true. I'm asking for anything that points toward it being untrue. And I still don't see any.

Again, you can't prove a negative. Christians and atheists argue all the time that they have significant evidence for their side bieing right. It's an unfair burden to ask someone to prove a negative. I don't have the ability to know Bioware's intentions so anything I say to the contrary can be handwaved by "it was their intention".  However anything you can say falls under the same problem of trying to know their intentions. We can't know Bioware's intentions and so everything is based entirely on assumptions and moments in the game that it's entirely possible are coincidences.

You're asking me to do something that (to the best of my knowledge at least) isn't allowed in a court of law because it is again an "unfair burden" on the one pleading against it. I can't prove there isn't a teapot in outer space orbiting the Earth because there are no FACTS either way. Just as there are currently no FACTS proving or disproving the Indoctrination Theory, if there were there wouldn't be debate over it.

Also, just want to add that I hate the current endings and would probably even accept the Indoctrination Theory if that's what Bioware goes with. I appreciate your being civil and pretty open-minded about this. Let's hope they have good news for us in the coming weeks.

[MisterNugNug]

Greed1914 wrote...
Perhaps because the human that thwarted them twice was considered an extremely valuable asset.  Harbinger wanted to capture Shepard alive after all.  And was actively trying to acquire his body in the comics that take place right before his resurrection. 

The question is why?  Why would he be a valuable asset for the Reapers?  Why wouldn't killing him serve as a huge loss and blow to the resistance?  

Is it because Shepard touched the beacon in ME1?  He can see and sense things like a Prothean?  If that's the case, wouldn't Javik be more important, he's actually Prothean. 

[Beast919]

Valentia X wrote...

The evidence isn't 'overwhelming'. There are a lot of bits and pieces that vaguely fit together and can be seen a certain way, but until you know for certain (like no one helping the kid in- is it indoctrination? Or is it artistic licence to pose the situation in a specific way to pull on our heartstrings?) it's all circumstantial and can be used in several different ways.

So..the fact that your gun is magically full of neverending bullets, you completely ignore the loss of your squadmates (as does Anderson), the Reapers have *ZERO* defenses inside the Citadel other than an unarmed TIM (who they don't support whatsoever), the Reapers do *ZERO* to try and stop the Crucible as it approaches the unarmed and undefended Citadel, and *ZERO* to the Citadel after you open the arms and start chatting with god-child.  Don't forget the very walls of the Citadel bending to you & Anderson's will, inexplicably.

Yeah, I'm sure that quick list of things off the top of my head all have reasonable explanations.  If thats "artistic license" then the bar for creativity has plummeted.