455 réponses à ce sujet

[Transgirlgamer]

There's only one thing wrong with the indoctrination theory as far as I can see.Only one option lets you move on from the current 'endings'. In the other two Shepard is indoctrinated.

My thoughts on the endings are in the thread http://social.biowar...32962/1#9933418 it's based off the indoctrination theory but doesn't include the option of only having one way to move forwards.  It's not completely thought through, true, I haven't had time or even finished the game yet.  But it makes sense to me so far.  I'm also perfectly willing to adapt my theory to any new information I get.

Modifié par Transgirlgamer, 15 mars 2012 - 07:40 .

[Baine10]

Well, if you look at Mass Effect 3 as a very normal game like all the games out there, by trail and practice the ending is the ending and that's that. This can "prove" that whatever theory about the ending is false, and that all is sucky and fine as it is. Nothing will and can be changed.

But Mass Effect 3 isn't a normal game. It's a groundbreaker. You can consider it in a genre of it's own. A Story-Telling Causal Action game. That's why you cannot disprove anything, that why you can hope.

[CommanderWilliams]

Valentia X wrote...

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.

Okay. That is fair. But it doesn't disprove the Indoc theory. It may very well be the first piece of evidence in your favor. But seriously, that ends on an even worse note than what we got.

[Aigik]

Kayjin23 wrote...

 You can't logically disprove a negative. It's called unfair burden. You're committing an argumentum ad ignorantiam or an argument that uses the lack of evidence to the contrary as a claim it's right. Just because something can't be proven false doesn't mean it's true.
Please at least skim this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

omg this isn't your stupid psych class, just answer the question for fun, like a normal person...

[Raiil]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

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. 

Pretty sure I haven't proven anything more than you have. Shepard shows up for one flash of a second in one potential outcome. For all you know, Shepard is dead and is about to head to the bar to meet Garrus. It also has no bearing on the final, final scene of Old Star Dude talking to Little Star Dude.

Once again, I am not categorically denying the Indoctrination Theory or the fact that evidence for it as a potential explaination exists. What I am saying is that you have no canonical proof that your theory has become a fact and that lack of evidence to disprove you does not equal evidence in your favour. I can't 'disprove' that the weird ghostly figures in the dreams aren't signs of indoctrination. But neither can you prove that they aren't simply designs in a common symptom of sleep deprivation.

[Aigik]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

There's only one thing wrong with the indoctrination theory as far as I can see.Only one option lets you move on from the current 'endings'. In the other two Shepard is dead.

Well, in the indoctrination theory, we see this as proof FOR it, not against it.  The idea is that him rejecting the reapers by choosing the destroy option breaks the indoctrination attempt, hence, he wakes up.  If the end scene was a hallucination, then he's not dead, but he's indoctrinated.

[CommanderWilliams]

[quote]Transgirlgamer wrote...

There's only one thing wrong with the indoctrination theory as far as I can see.Only one option lets you move on from the current 'endings'. In the other two Shepard is dead.[/quote

Not really. Assuming it was in his head, it is unlikely the decision would truly kill him. Though he might die becuase he lost his will. All his choice really means is that he succumbs to the indotrination which would make for much more interesting finales than Shepard died. Though he may still die when all is said and done. Possibly killed by his own squad when they realize he is now under Reaper control.

[Transgirlgamer]

Aigik wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

There's only one thing wrong with the indoctrination theory as far as I can see.Only one option lets you move on from the current 'endings'. In the other two Shepard is dead.

Well, in the indoctrination theory, we see this as proof FOR it, not against it.  The idea is that him rejecting the reapers by choosing the destroy option breaks the indoctrination attempt, hence, he wakes up.  If the end scene was a hallucination, then he's not dead, but he's indoctrinated.

I've corrected my earlier post.  I should have said indoctrinated rather than dead.

[Aigik]

balance5050 wrote...

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

It says that by rejecting the reapers attempt to turn him, he broke their indoctrination attempt and woke up back in London, since he never left London.

[matchboxmatt]

Valentia X wrote...

Prove the indoctrination theory. And by prove, I mean give me Casey Hudson saying 'Yup, that's it.'


I'm not saying it's not possible, or that there isn't good evidence for it. But I am getting tired of people using it as if it's iron-clad and written in stone when it is honest to goodness not. I happen to think the ending is BioWare trying to shock us with awe and instead we ended up with ****ty writing.

If it was written in stone or made too obvious, it'd lose its effect. The goal of the ending is to indoctrinate the player, and if the process was transparent, then we wouldn't be discussing or reflecting on it nearly as much as we are right now.

The only issue I can really find against it is that if you don't achieve a high enough score, then the decision will be made for you. However, in those cases, Earth is typically destroyed - but why make the distinction of its survival or not?

It could be that the thematic idea of hope (symbolized by the Crucible, which no one knows what does, but at a time of desperation people must blindly follow) wanes when you have a lower EMS. Just like the suicide mission in ME2, you know how prepared you are when walking into the final mission. With lesser preperation comes lesser hope. The god-child even responds, if you have a low EMS, "you don't need hope" as opposed to "you have more hope than you know". He even goes further to question "why are you here" as opposed to "wake up" when you first arrive.

That distinction, the significance of the dreams, the reaper groan in the intro when Anderson tells you to snap out of it, the lack of attention anyone pays to the child when leaving Earth, the human writing on the Citadel, the infinite ammo god-pistol, the slow motion after the reaper beam, the god-child discouraging the Distroy option, Anderson being associated with the Renegade option, and the breath when Shepard wakes up after choosing Destroy in the complete ending all seem to suggest that the final scene is the pinnacle of the struggle with indoctrination. Even the conflict between TIM and Anderson seem to suggest a battle of wills and conviction of morals.

[Aigik]

Transgirlgamer wrote...

Aigik wrote...

Transgirlgamer wrote...

There's only one thing wrong with the indoctrination theory as far as I can see.Only one option lets you move on from the current 'endings'. In the other two Shepard is dead.

Well, in the indoctrination theory, we see this as proof FOR it, not against it.  The idea is that him rejecting the reapers by choosing the destroy option breaks the indoctrination attempt, hence, he wakes up.  If the end scene was a hallucination, then he's not dead, but he's indoctrinated.

I've corrected my earlier post.  I should have said indoctrinated rather than dead.

Well then, I don't see it as the first time Mass Effect has allowed the player to get a horrible ending based on the player's decisions.  In ME2 Shepard could die in the suicide mission.

But anyway, I don't see that as disproof of the indoctrination theory.  It just makes me wonder how Bioware is going to handle it for players that chose those options in ME4/DLC/however they continue the story.

[CommanderWilliams]

Valentia X wrote...

CommanderWilliams wrote...

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. 

Pretty sure I haven't proven anything more than you have. Shepard shows up for one flash of a second in one potential outcome. For all you know, Shepard is dead and is about to head to the bar to meet Garrus. It also has no bearing on the final, final scene of Old Star Dude talking to Little Star Dude.

Once again, I am not categorically denying the Indoctrination Theory or the fact that evidence for it as a potential explaination exists. What I am saying is that you have no canonical proof that your theory has become a fact and that lack of evidence to disprove you does not equal evidence in your favour. I can't 'disprove' that the weird ghostly figures in the dreams aren't signs of indoctrination. But neither can you prove that they aren't simply designs in a common symptom of sleep deprivation.

Okay, you've convinced me of something I already knew. It's possible it wasn't a dream and Bioware just screwed up. I wasn't asking for you to prove to me canocal evidence that undeniably proves you are right becuase clearly neither of us can do so. I am simply asking for evidence that challenges the Indoctrination theory, which you provided. 

[Mashleylol]

I can't disprove it cos I didn't write the game but either way the ending is awful... on one hand you have an insanely overblown and abysmal ending with no relation or closure to previous events, and on the other you've got a secret ending disguised as an actual one.And the execution of the indoctrination, if that is true, is way too subtle. The series has never been subtle, nor has the entire genre of media it's come from. I think indoctrination theory is people clutching at straws to convince themselves that their favorite series didn't just get an awful ending.

[Raiil]

matchboxmatt wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Prove the indoctrination theory. And by prove, I mean give me Casey Hudson saying 'Yup, that's it.'


I'm not saying it's not possible, or that there isn't good evidence for it. But I am getting tired of people using it as if it's iron-clad and written in stone when it is honest to goodness not. I happen to think the ending is BioWare trying to shock us with awe and instead we ended up with ****ty writing.

If it was written in stone or made too obvious, it'd lose its effect. The goal of the ending is to indoctrinate the player, and if the process was transparent, then we wouldn't be discussing or reflecting on it nearly as much as we are right now.

The only issue I can really find against it is that if you don't achieve a high enough score, then the decision will be made for you. However, in those cases, Earth is typically destroyed - but why make the distinction of its survival or not?

It could be that the thematic idea of hope (symbolized by the Crucible, which no one knows what does, but at a time of desperation people must blindly follow) wanes when you have a lower EMS. Just like the suicide mission in ME2, you know how prepared you are when walking into the final mission. With lesser preperation comes lesser hope. The god-child even responds, if you have a low EMS, "you don't need hope" as opposed to "you have more hope than you know". He even goes further to question "why are you here" as opposed to "wake up" when you first arrive.

That distinction, the significance of the dreams, the reaper groan in the intro when Anderson tells you to snap out of it, the lack of attention anyone pays to the child when leaving Earth, the human writing on the Citadel, the infinite ammo god-pistol, the slow motion after the reaper beam, the god-child discouraging the Distroy option, Anderson being associated with the Renegade option, and the breath when Shepard wakes up after choosing Destroy in the complete ending all seem to suggest that the final scene is the pinnacle of the struggle with indoctrination. Even the conflict between TIM and Anderson seem to suggest a battle of wills and conviction of morals.

Suggest? Yes. Prove? No.


I have no issues with the Indoc Theory, regardless of whether I believe it or not. I do have an issue with it being presented as fact and people demanding proof that it's not real and refusing to accept that, as with all theories, the burden of proof is on them. There's a reason why prosecution has the burden of proof, not the defence.

[Piarath]

Why should I WANT to disprove you, OP? I WANT to believe. I WANT it to be true. Because I DO NOT WANT THE GAME TO END THIS WAY. I would love for this theory to pan out someway and for us to actually be given a climactic conclusion.

But that doesn't mean I'm going to be happy with what BioWare did. I was promised the game would be released on March 6th. The game was supposedly finished even before that- my download for it finished the day BEFORE. You're telling me I should get off the BioWare bashing bandwagon when I was denied the full product for which I already paid?

When they come out and SAY it's the case, I'll consider it. If they give a damn good reason why, I'll probably at least be quiet. If the extra DLC is free and DAMN FREAKING GOOD, I'll go back to my usual defense of BioWare. Not before.

No matter how much 'evidence' you stack up for your theory.

Modifié par Piarath, 15 mars 2012 - 07:49 .

[Beast919]

Not going to quote JasonTan's post because it itself was a huge set of quotes, but while those points are interesting and valid, they are not evidence to support it not being an Indoc-guided vision.

They are simply saying, in a whole bunch of words, that if Indoc is the case Bioware did a horrible job of telling the story. That's not really up for debate. I think regardless of what is happening here, Bioware's delivery was absolutely awful.

What I'm interested in, is some *game* detail that works against the Indoc theory.

And Valentia, this - "God Child beamed Shepard down. or Shepard was blasted through the Citadel and into the beam." - is so much worse than the ending we already have I don't even know where to begin with it. And again, EVEN IF that *absurd* series of events happens, why would we care? What would we do with a Shepard who had played god and destroyed all of galatic civilization. The destruction of the relay near Earth would have probably killed everyone, or at least set that part of the Galaxy into such turmoil that extinction is only a matter of time. How can we *truly* have Mass Effect without Relays? I see no reason to that, at all.

[Aigik]

Mashleylol wrote...

I can't disprove it cos I didn't write the game but either way the ending is awful... on one hand you have an insanely overblown and abysmal ending with no relation or closure to previous events, and on the other you've got a secret ending disguised as an actual one.And the execution of the indoctrination, if that is true, is way too subtle. The series has never been subtle, nor has the entire genre of media it's come from. I think indoctrination theory is people clutching at straws to convince themselves that their favorite series didn't just get an awful ending.

Of course it's suppoed to be subtle.  That's how Saren was convinced that he had to help the Reapers, and didn't realize what was happening to him until it was too late.  That's how The Illusive Man, one of the most brilliant thinkers in the galaxy, was fooled.

[EvilMind]

Since when does the indoctrination allows person to make some sumbolic choice in his semi-dream, that will lead to complete indoc process or its failure? Where you got that data from?

[Xaijin]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

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.

Welp it's awesome then that your entire premise is based on pretty much nothing but that you wish it to be real.

The lead writer said there is no indoctrination. The lead writer said the galaxy is blowed up. He should know, as he is the lead writer. Casey Hudson reiterated this on a giantbomb podcast, and since he's the guy who can tell the lead write what, in fact, to write.... shrug* There is no indoctrination, and the fact you haven't even bothered to predicate your statement by playing official content which rather handily disproves said theory is not helping your case.

Modifié par Xaijin, 15 mars 2012 - 07:50 .

[CommanderWilliams]

Just putting this out here for the Bioware guy that actually reads all this. You've got two options. You figure out what they are and why one is clearly superior.

[Raiil]

CommanderWilliams wrote...


Okay, you've convinced me of something I already knew. It's possible it wasn't a dream and Bioware just screwed up. I wasn't asking for you to prove to me canocal evidence that undeniably proves you are right becuase clearly neither of us can do so. I am simply asking for evidence that challenges the Indoctrination theory, which you provided. 

You're asking all of us who don't believe in it to bring you proof to disprove yours. You want my theory? If it's not crap writing, it's PTSD. Shepard shows plenty of the classical signs.


Sleep deprivation, a common enough symptom in soldiers and talked about with Garrus when he tries to shoo you off to bed, can bring in the introduction of shadow people, a common side effect of both troubled dreams and just generally not being able to sleep.


PTSD causes you to relieve a traumatic moment. The boy doing can be considered one. 


Irritability and anger. Shepard displays this in spades during a session with Joker. 


Aggression? Come on, that's Shepard in this game. 


So, in theory: Shepard is suffering from extreme PTSD, causing nightmare episodes with dream distortions, reliving a traumatic event, exhibiting irritability and anger. It has a high rate of occurance in wartime soldiers.


Now. Prove me wrong. 

[CommanderWilliams]

Xaijin wrote...

CommanderWilliams wrote...

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.

Welp it's awesome then that your entire premise is based on pretty much nothing but that you wish it to be real.

The lead writer said there is no indoctrination. The lead writer said the galaxy is blowed up. He should know, as he is the lead writer. Casey Hudson reiterated this on a giantbomb podcast, and since he's the guy who can tell the lead write what, in fact, to write.... shrug* There is no indoctrination, and the fact you haven't even bothered to predicate your statement by playing official content which rather handily disproves said theory is not helping your case.

Link to this statement, please, thank you.

Well since I haven't played Overlord (though I am vaguely aware of what happens) it would nice if you told me that disproves my theory rather than simply tell me my error. I believe I can sum that up with "Citation needed."

[FabricatedWookie]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

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.

The apparent reality gets the higher probability of being real. That is the point. As it has already been said, anybody can say things are not what they seem. The evidence must be conclusive to reject the apparent reality. The evidence for indoctrination theory isn't conclusive. Legion spoke about a being that made and controlled the reapers due to his interaction with the reaper code on the geth dreadnought. EDI could have made her own decision to jump the ship, not joker. Slow motion was used when shooting eva who went down incredibly easy for her supposed value, and slow motion isn't necessarily indicative of a dream state. There are plenty of counter arguments. The point is, the evidence being presented as a category is not enough proof to reject the assumption of the apparent reality. I did not shoot myself in the foot. I understand the endings could be a dream, but I also understand the use of likelihoods and ordering possibilities.

[Beast919]

Valentia X wrote...

CommanderWilliams wrote...


Okay, you've convinced me of something I already knew. It's possible it wasn't a dream and Bioware just screwed up. I wasn't asking for you to prove to me canocal evidence that undeniably proves you are right becuase clearly neither of us can do so. I am simply asking for evidence that challenges the Indoctrination theory, which you provided. 

You're asking all of us who don't believe in it to bring you proof to disprove yours. You want my theory? If it's not crap writing, it's PTSD. Shepard shows plenty of the classical signs.


Sleep deprivation, a common enough symptom in soldiers and talked about with Garrus when he tries to shoo you off to bed, can bring in the introduction of shadow people, a common side effect of both troubled dreams and just generally not being able to sleep.


PTSD causes you to relieve a traumatic moment. The boy doing can be considered one. 


Irritability and anger. Shepard displays this in spades during a session with Joker. 


Aggression? Come on, that's Shepard in this game. 


So, in theory: Shepard is suffering from extreme PTSD, causing nightmare episodes with dream distortions, reliving a traumatic event, exhibiting irritability and anger. It has a high rate of occurance in wartime soldiers.


Now. Prove me wrong. 

What exactly are you saying here - that when he gets laser-blasted he goes into a PTSD coma sequence? Or he's actually awake, doing things, but seeing them in a crazy way.  Or......he's still on the normandy having one hell of a nightmare?

[Raiil]

Beast919 wrote...



And Valentia, this - "God Child beamed Shepard down. or Shepard was blasted through the Citadel and into the beam." - is so much worse than the ending we already have I don't even know where to begin with it. And again, EVEN IF that *absurd* series of events happens, why would we care? What would we do with a Shepard who had played god and destroyed all of galatic civilization. The destruction of the relay near Earth would have probably killed everyone, or at least set that part of the Galaxy into such turmoil that extinction is only a matter of time. How can we *truly* have Mass Effect without Relays? I see no reason to that, at all.

And I've said repeatedly that what we have here is, in my opinion, a bunch of ****ty writing. How is that going to steer me towards indoctrination? I accept that people at BioWare may, from time to time, write horribly. That doesn't compel me towards trying to figure out a way around it.

'It was bad' is no way equals 'that can't be it'. I could be right, I could be wrong, but sometimes, bad writing is bad writing.