455 réponses à ce sujet

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

I think it's basically at a point where believing the endings are real or believing in indoctrination are both fine, but it's not OK to say it's obviously indoctrination or that you should believe it or you're ignorant.

[the red boon]

Another case of denial. You need to realize bioware did not deliver and by accepting this theory you accept their terrible endings. If you want to hold your nose and claim **** tastes like cake go ahead.

Modifié par the red boon, 15 mars 2012 - 07:17 .

[Zolt51]

The indoctrination theory is a form of solipsism, and so it's not something you can disprove.
It's like saying: prove that reality is real.

If people want to believe it they will, regardless of anything you say.

I won't believe it not because of any fact or deduction, but simply because it is much less fulfilling to me than the ending we actually got. In fact it's pretty much the least fulfilling of all possible theories.

[CommanderWilliams]

FabricatedWookie wrote...

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.

Well heres the thing. In order for your first sentence to make sense, it assumes that the events at the end actually DID happen for real. Nothing proves that, and again everything we have seems to disprove it. Also you shot yourself in the foot. You make the assumption that the endings were actually what happened, then you explain the error in the Indoc theory. By assuming it wasn't an indoctrination.

If it was a dream, which you are trying to disprove, Shepards choice would have no impact on the Reapers. Its like Inception what we just did here, and possibly we both just got confused.

[Pericles Redstorm]

 If you think about it through the indoctranation theory, if you picked anything other then the Destroy ending the Reapers won (maybe?) and game is over right there, but maybe the Destroy ending lets us (sorry no other way to put this) Finish the Fight.

all just speculation, and what I'm telling myself to make it through another playthrough with another charecter lol.

[Dreogan]

Beast919 wrote...

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.

And that is why so many people are furious about the endings. Bad storytelling, breach of writer-reader contract, no catharsis. There's no reason to give them credit after so baldly throwing us that abomination. If they continue the ending by hooking into the indoctrination theory that's fine, but as things stand indoctrination doesn't improve the state of the ending-- it simply handwaves the absurdity of the god-child and Shepard's conversation with them.

Modifié par Dreogan, 15 mars 2012 - 07:18 .

[Beast919]

PKchu wrote...

I think it's basically at a point where believing the endings are real or believing in indoctrination are both fine, but it's not OK to say it's obviously indoctrination or that you should believe it or you're ignorant.

My point, and I'm guessing (by the way it was worded) the OP's point, is not to say without fail that its Indoc.  Its to bring the challenge to those saying it isn't Indoc to point to something and say "This is why I believe it isn't."

The majority of science starts as looking at a situation, and making theories, and then *trying* to find some way to disprove them.  Even if you find you can't disprove them, the act alone can supply information.

I think its horrifying to think they had  this all planned from the start.  But I also think its more horrifying to think its simply as bad as it could be.  But the more I think about it, the more things point *towards* Indoc, not away.  If you have something that points away from it, please, bring it up.

[Raiil]

Beast919 wrote...

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.

Hey, I'm the one whose theory begins and ends at 'BioWare tried to be deep and meaningful but it just ended with ****ty writing'. I even said there there is evidence and I'm not saying the theory is wrong. What I'm saying is that everything people keep trying to bring up as proof is, at best, leading to an inconclusive theory. Your proof is not gravity, it's not the key that opens the door, it's not anything but pieces of information viewed in a certain light.


It is, at this time, not provable. I could just as easily say God Child decided to test Shepard, and that's why the walls opened and the elevator boss brought him to the Citadel Secret Place, and you have not one shred of evidence that can conclusively prove that I'm wrong. You have evidence to create a theory that opposes mine, and then all we have is two different theories, neither of which can be proved or disproved. That's it. That's all. We both have teapots flying in the heavens, and there's nothing that either of us can do about it.

[RagingCeltik]

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.

No.  Killing him/her would martyr Shepard to the cause, rallying the rest of them to fight to the end.    Indoctrinating Shepard, turning the galaxy's greatest champion against them, *that* would demoralize them.

[matchboxmatt]

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.

Remember the derelict reaper? Indoctrination happens through exposure. It's a passive experience, not an active one.

[balance5050]

Last scene, Shepard wakes up, what does that say?

[sorentoft]

I don't have to disprove it. It is up to you to prove this theory correct. So far it remains a theory.

[Beast919]

Dreogan wrote...

And that is why so many people are furious about the endings. Bad storytelling, breach of writer-reader contract, no catharsis. There's no reason to give them credit after so baldly throwing us that abomination. If they continue the ending by hooking into the indoctrination theory that's fine, but as things stand indoctrination doesn't improve the state of the ending-- it simply handwaves the absurdity of the god-child and Shepard's conversation with them.

Well thats whats interesting to me.  *If* this was all intentional from the start, i.e. they planned from the beginning to mold the story around this notion of Shepard wrestling with indoctrination, I think its *incredibly* creative to force it on the player in a way that fools even them.  I think their delivery is off, especially due to factors like staggered releases forcing them to not show their hand as soon as we may want, but I think the concept is intriguing.

If it wasn't intended, then yes, making the best out of a bad situation and "falling into" the indoc theorey is a weak move by them, and doesn't excuse how bad what they wrote is.

But my opinion still stands, if the sequence following being hit by a laser is truly Shepard wrestling against Indoc, it was pretty damn creative.  It won't be a *complete* notion until the followup, which I'd bet is coming, but its a damned creative notion.

[CommanderWilliams]

Beast919 wrote...

PKchu wrote...

I think it's basically at a point where believing the endings are real or believing in indoctrination are both fine, but it's not OK to say it's obviously indoctrination or that you should believe it or you're ignorant.

My point, and I'm guessing (by the way it was worded) the OP's point, is not to say without fail that its Indoc.  Its to bring the challenge to those saying it isn't Indoc to point to something and say "This is why I believe it isn't."

The majority of science starts as looking at a situation, and making theories, and then *trying* to find some way to disprove them.  Even if you find you can't disprove them, the act alone can supply information.

I think its horrifying to think they had  this all planned from the start.  But I also think its more horrifying to think its simply as bad as it could be.  But the more I think about it, the more things point *towards* Indoc, not away.  If you have something that points away from it, please, bring it up.

Thank you. What I was trying to do even more than anything was put faith in Bioware. This is another case of evidence that can't proven correct or incorrect, but the fact that 99% of the game was amazing and the last 1% wasn't doesn't make that sense. 

It just upsets me when I see people trying to crush hope. People who believe Bioware wanted to pin us agaisnt the wall and-well...

Maybe I'm wrong to trust that, and I'm an idiot. But even if they didn't plan it from the start they would be the bigger idiot to not lie, put out the Indoc theory was right ending and say they planned from the start.

[Statulos]

sorentoft wrote...

I don't have to disprove it. It is up to you to prove this theory correct. So far it remains a theory.

Exactly, that´s how theories work: it´s not up to me to demonstrate that something unconfirmed is right or wrong. We work with the data we have, and that data is the ending.

Indoctrination is not confirmed, therefore, it is up to its supporters to prove it, not me disproving something that is simply a matter of faith.

[balance5050]

matchboxmatt wrote...

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.

Remember the derelict reaper? Indoctrination happens through exposure. It's a passive experience, not an active one.

Yes, right before the last scene, at the Alliance camp where you can talk to your team mates, a lot of them mention that they're worried about Shep, or that he looks tired, worn down, thing VERY uncharacteristic of Shepard. He would have to be in a weakened state for the indoctrination to take hold.

[Raiil]

balance5050 wrote...

Last scene, Shepard wakes up, what does that say?

That you chose a different ending, because my Shepard flash fried.



And that's about it.

[Beast919]

Statulos wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

I don't have to disprove it. It is up to you to prove this theory correct. So far it remains a theory.

Exactly, that´s how theories work: it´s not up to me to demonstrate that something unconfirmed is right or wrong. We work with the data we have, and that data is the ending.

Indoctrination is not confirmed, therefore, it is up to its supporters to prove it, not me disproving something that is simply a matter of faith.

There's no need to be an ass about it.  If you have a reason you think supports the current endings as being truth, bring it up.  Don't just say "well you guys did some work thinking about this but uh....no."  No one can currently prove it one way or the other (outside of Bioware).  The point of this thread is to say "We think its Indoc - show us something that works against that."

[CommanderWilliams]

So far no one has provided me evidence that the theory is wrong. They simply state that they don't need to because I can't prove it right. I'm not trying to prove it right, I'm honestly looking for evidence that points toward my theory being wrong. I haven't seen any.

[Raiil]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

So far no one has provided me evidence that the theory is wrong. They simply state that they don't need to because I can't prove it right. I'm not trying to prove it right, I'm honestly looking for evidence that points toward my theory being wrong. I haven't seen any.

You've provided no evidence that your theory is canon, just evidence for a potential outcome. And the burden of proof is on you, not us.

[Arios1570]

The nail in the coffin is the "Shepard Survives" scene. It's impossible for him to survive the destruction of the Citidel, if not from the explosion then from the fact that it could no longer keep up a containment field to hold the atmosphere in. Therefore, s/he is on Earth.

[Beast919]

Arios1570 wrote...

The nail in the coffin is the "Shepard Survives" scene. It's impossible for him to survive the destruction of the Citidel, if not from the explosion then from the fact that it could no longer keep up a containment field to hold the atmosphere in. Therefore, s/he is on Earth.

This, IMO, is the thing I have yet to see anyone try and explain otherwise.  Even from a business perspective.  Just...why?  Why would they show this?  What *possible* purpose does it have?  If someone can answer that without leaning towards indoc, please, be my guest.

[CommanderWilliams]

Valentia X wrote...

CommanderWilliams wrote...

So far no one has provided me evidence that the theory is wrong. They simply state that they don't need to because I can't prove it right. I'm not trying to prove it right, I'm honestly looking for evidence that points toward my theory being wrong. I haven't seen any.

You've provided no evidence that your theory is canon, just evidence for a potential outcome. And the burden of proof is on you, not us.

You prove my point. Thousand of pages exist with evidence in my favor. See Arios1570's post  for the best example. The only way that scene is not daming is if it isn't Shepard. Why would they put in a scene of some random N7 soldier? You simply deflect and fail to present anything in your favor. 

Thank you Beast919

Modifié par CommanderWilliams, 15 mars 2012 - 07:35 .

[Raiil]

Beast919 wrote...

Arios1570 wrote...

The nail in the coffin is the "Shepard Survives" scene. It's impossible for him to survive the destruction of the Citidel, if not from the explosion then from the fact that it could no longer keep up a containment field to hold the atmosphere in. Therefore, s/he is on Earth.

This, IMO, is the thing I have yet to see anyone try and explain otherwise.  Even from a business perspective.  Just...why?  Why would they show this?  What *possible* purpose does it have?  If someone can answer that without leaning towards indoc, please, be my guest.

God Child beamed Shepard down. or Shepard was blasted through the Citadel and into the beam.

[JasonTan87]

JasonTan87 wrote...

krystalevenstar wrote...

It was easy to say that they might have just missed these things and since this makes so much sense they'd go with it in the beginning, but there is just too many things that fit now. If all the people in this thread have come up with this conclusion from what we've discovered, do you really think that after X amount of years of development, no one on the ME team noticed these things?

THIS IS DELIBERATE.

And it's brilliant.

It will go down not only as one of the greatest game series in history, but the greatest reveal for the ending of that series.

Mass Effect could never go out on a whimper, it's going to go out on an earthshattering bang. Just like it should.

Keep in mind; with such an ending without a closure, it is very easy to see what we each want to see. It's very easy to read into the narrative and find things that are not there. Hope, combined with emotional desperation, makes a most persuasive force. (This reminds me of TIM's own falling)

I myself am wary of giving the writers too much credit; especially in instances where there is the possibility of me deluding myself into making a masterpiece out of someone's sloppy work. Traditionally, Mass Effect followed fairly conventional soap-opera conventions. Unlike the Matrix, which sought to question reality from the onset, we do not have this meta-narrative coming from the last two games. Making the last 20 minutes of Mass Effect 3 into a post-modern meta narrative that is an 'indoctrination' of the player; while entirely plausable, is unlikely.

The thing is, we can't tell if this is deliberate just yet. I'm most willing to buy into this theory, but I can't help but ask myself:

If this was really true, why hold the 'real ending' back? Why not just release it with the rest of the game, and be credited for the stroke of genious? Why risk the fan backlash? Why look sloppy when you can look good right off?

Why troll us, their fans?

You know, they could have just told us in a press release, with a sly smile, that it's not over yet. Then they wouldn't have any of this PR firestorm on their hands.

Even if it was true, the current state that ME3 was released in (supposedly a complete game out of the box) is also paramount to bad writing. The narrative, as it is now, it violates the reader-writer contract by not offering the real ending to provide closure to the story. Even if there was an overarching meta-narrative embedded within, the writing must be consistant and clear enough for us to reach that conclusion without having a 'panel' to 'interpret' the ending for us. Mass Effect 3 has neither.

The very fact that the 'panel' has to 'interpret' their vision to us shows how the narrative has failed to communicate the different levels of the narrative.

In addition; the whole crucible sequence itself could have been handled more adequately. Hallucination is not an excuse for sloppy writing. The writing for the crucible onwards; while brillant if this theory holds true; still feels sloppy and rushed. Imagine how much more convincing if they had a fluent narrative without the gigantic plot holes, and the Normandy had a proper reason for running away with your crew all on it. It also end with Normandy getting knocked out of FTL, but not show the crew coming out of the Normandy on some random planet.

The fact that the ending feels rushed worries me; because such meta-narrative twists require a high level of finesse to pull off.

What worries me the most is that people are losing their objectivity, calling what what may very well be a rushed conclusion 'a stroke of genius'. We must never forget that Bioware is telling us a story, and the very fact that we are unable to see the structure of the meta-narrative clearly (if it even exists) shows an inability to communicate their artistic vision properly through the medium.

So here's to all of us: Keep hoping, keep objective, keep playing.

JasonTan87 wrote...

humes spork wrote...

JasonTan87 wrote...

Traditionally, Mass Effect followed fairly conventional soap-opera conventions. Unlike the Matrix, which sought to question reality from the onset, we do not have this meta-narrative coming from the last two games. Making the last 20 minutes of Mass Effect 3 into a post-modern meta narrative that is an 'indoctrination' of the player; while entirely plausable, is unlikely.

Mass Effect has always been a metanarrative -- that is to say, it's always been a game about science fiction as much as it has been science fiction itself. The first game was a paean to 80s sci-fi, and the second a paean to 90s sci-fi. Right down to level and art design and music, each game was absolutely permeated with the influence of science fiction of that era. By extension, ME3 is a paean to 00s sci-fi and if nothing else 00s science fiction has been absolutely rife with postmodern influence.

I agree with you calling Mass Effect a paean to science fiction. I am not entirely convinced that each game is a paean to the eras you have stated. That being said, it might be because of my lack of exposure to science fiction outside the more popular works.

The problem I have with this post-modern influence is that Mass Effect is first and foremost a narrative driven by player choice (or the illusion thereof). The player finds his/her voice through the narrative, the narrative resonates with the player because it is a reflection of his/her inner desires. The problem arises when Mass Effect 3 disrupts this relationship by very abruptly bringing in the full weight of the meta-narrative to bear directly on the player narrative in the last 20 minutes of Mass Effect 3. The player narrative breaks down, the player feels disempowered, disorientated and confused.

You can argue that the central crux of this Hallucination theory is to create this sense of disempowerment, disorientation and confusion so as to mimic the effects of indoctrination. That makes sense. What does not make sense is why this meta-narrative is not made more apparent through the entire third installment, where viewers are given time to grasp at what is going on.

This can be done quite easily through repeated breaching of the player narrative by the meta narrative at increasing intervals and intensity. We don't really see that happening -- even the dream scenes do not provide us enough foothold to establish the meta-narrative breach of the player-narrative. The ending thus comes as a complete surprise to the player who finds his player-narrative crushed by the weight of this supposed meta-narrative hallucination theory (if it even exists). Because the player at this point is competely unaware of the meta-narrative, he is unable to transcend the player narrative to obtain the closure found within the meta-narrative (which is to resist the indoctrination in the optimal case). He is left astounded, perplexed and angry that he had been cheated out of his emotional capital.

In the end, it is the responsibility of the writing to draw out the meta-narrative aspects that this hallucination theory is founded on in the concluding moments of the game. The inability of the players (us) to determine beyond doubt the existance of such a theory, let alone find the closure within (if it even exists) is proof that the writers are not able to convey their artistic vision through the medium.

TL;DR: Even if the Hallucination theory is true, it could have been better supported by the narrative so that it could be actualized in gameplay experience, allowing us to derive the closure within the meta-narrative space.