455 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

The 3 choices are a test by Harbinger. Shep is alive whatever the choice you make. The choices will most likely have consequences when the release the endgame dlc. Yes I know you only see Shepard alive in the Destroy(red) ending. But I likened this to an Easter egg for choosing what you set out to do ever since the start. Consider Halo 3's ending. If you play on legendary difficulty, you see a scene after the credits. This scene is totally canonical. But the stipulation of seeing it is playing on the hardest difficulty. The stipulation for the "waking up" scene in ME3 is that you do what you set out to do and choose to destroy the Reapers. I believe he's alive either way, you just get the Easter egg for staying the course. Everything I said is just my opinion and what I gathered from everything. But one thing I do consider to be fact is that Shep is alive and wakes up from being unconcious. Whether that's indoctrination or a dream we'll have to wait and see...either way he was knocked out by Harbingers beam

[Raiil]

Beast919 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...


Nothing of the sort. I think what happened is that BioWare tried to get metaphysical and deep on us, and gave us a half-baked ending. I don't think that there's anything underneath. I don't think we got anymore than we saw. I was trying to make a point where I can find alternate evidence, in this case about his weird dream sequences that so many people try to use and proof, and offer a plausible, alternate scenario.  I can't prove Indoc wrong, but you can't prove PTSD wrong, either. Neither of us has conclusive proof.

The reason I was asking for clarification is this. 

If you're saying that *simply* the dream sequences are PTSD related, and the ending is in fact "truth" as it is presented,  I can accept the PTSD explanation for the dreams, but not for the horde of rediculously weird things that happen post-laser.  Whereas with Indoc, it explains not only the dream sequences, but *also* the horde of weird things post-laser.  Thus, it gets the most logical vote.

Also, while on this line of thought, going back to the purpose of storytelling - obviously the kid was meant to be a central theme.  At first I thought it was some kind of PTSD, that Shepard was wrestling with the guilt of not being able to save everyone.  But it goes *nowhere*, just like so many other plot devices in the game (Thanks to the current ending).  They were SCREAMING symbolism when you see yourself & the kid burn in your final dream - but why? Why oh why?  What does this symbolize?  What is the *point*?

You don't have to accept anything. That's your preogative. I don't have to accept anything. That's mine.


You state that the Indoc theory explains everything. I disagree. I believe it provides one possible explanation, and as theories go, I do find it to be the most thought out. I simply don't agree with enough of the points to, well, agree with it.

Kid and you burning in a fire? All your hopes, dreams, and wishes burning to a crisp because of the Reapers. That child can just as easily be- and kids are often used as such- a symbol of innocence and hope. To see it flee into the darkness and then burnt alive is powerful imagery without it being Harby. The Catalysyt takes it form, and we are forced to confront the fact that our innocence and hope is gone- or at least not what we thought it to be.

Weird shadow people? Dead people. Everyone who died in the initial attack. They are nameless, formless, faceless, because for symbolic purposes, all you really need is el kiddo.


Hyper beamed with Anderson? Just as easily something like a mass relay, wherein where you end up is subject to change.


The walls are moving? The Keepers need to get around, logically there must be ways for them to get inside the walls. 


TIM being there, and the Reapers allowing it? God Child flat out says they're controlling him. He's doing what they want at that point. Why would they make him go away?


Elevator? I play WoW, I view all elevators as final bosses.  Damn you SSC.


Choosing what flavour of kool-aid to drink? The God Child is a retarded AI who is unable to think past their programming parameters, and apparently their logic processor was made by Gateway. BioWare wants to shock us with awe, so they turn Shepard into a wet noodle and force you to choose your flavour of apocalypse. There's the ****ty writing I keep talking about it.

[MisterNugNug]

Cherie Bombe wrote...


Killing Shep may destroy morale, but imagine what Shep could acomplish if he/she was on their side?

At this point in the conflict, what use does Shepard serve?  The armies have been amassed.  All parties are going "All-In", its time to reveal the cards.  I have a hard time buying into the idea that if Shepard becomes Indoctrinated, that he/she could manage to persuade the resistance, to simply lay down their arms and surrender.  The Aliens races wouldn't accept that because ultimately the Reapers don't want to subjugate or rule.  They want to destroy life.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Esquin wrote...

If the indoctrination theory is correct then that means bioware sold us an unfinished game.

This isn't intended as proof of it being wrong. Just proof that ethically it was the wrong choice for a company to make.

Unless the real ending is given out for free.

[Beast919]

MisterNugNug wrote...

Beast919 wrote...

It wouldn't have to be nearly that obvious.  They were trusting Shepard to somehow work the Crucible.  No one knows what its supposed to do.  All Indoc-Shep would have to do is sabotage the bejesus out of it and oh look, no hope for the Galaxy.

How could Shepard sabotage the Crucible?  Isn't all of this taking place in his mind, we're talking about the Indoctrination process correct?

The question was why they would even attempt it.  And that's my answer.  If you become indoctrainted, you stand up, everyone is all "OH BOY SHEPARD, OUR HERO!", and Indoc-Shepard is givin free reign to get to the Crucible and sabotage it.  That event would be taking place after what we've currently seen, just like whatever was "supposed" to be the good ending would if you chose the destroy option and resisted indoc.

[MisterNugNug]

Beast919 wrote...

The question was why they would even attempt it.  And that's my answer.  If you become indoctrainted, you stand up, everyone is all "OH BOY SHEPARD, OUR HERO!", and Indoc-Shepard is givin free reign to get to the Crucible and sabotage it.  That event would be taking place after what we've currently seen, just like whatever was "supposed" to be the good ending would if you chose the destroy option and resisted indoc.

Great, we're on the same page.  Now why did the game end THERE?  

[Raiil]

CommanderWilliams wrote...





So essentially the entire game was just a dream. Alright, still worse than what we got, but I see your point. You are not trying to prove your theory is better, just that it works based on what we are given. I accept that. Anything is possible, and it does challenge the Indoc theory (obviously).

But to be honest. Shepard seems more chill in this game than the other two. I haven't finished my Renegade run yet, but based on what I've seen Shepard is alot less of a dick as a Renegade, though he/she can be more evil (Mordin).

Also, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this. Shepards entire life has been pretty traumatic. Hell of a time to set in.

That's... not what I'm saying at all, and I'm starting to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse. The PTSD example is to show that there is a reasonable alternative to Indoc Theory, not that everything is a dream and Shepard accidentally licked Thane and is on a drelling trip. The weird nightmares people keep pointing out can just as easily be trauma-induced, no indoctrination needed.

Modifié par Valentia X, 15 mars 2012 - 08:13 .

[CommanderWilliams]

 Too many people to qoute.

@MisterNugNug

Excellent point. My defense. He thought Shepard was dead or again-wanted to harvest him. Seriously though, only Shepard could survive that **** so maybe Harbinger just assumed he was dead. It's not like he's getting assaulting by an entire galaxy.

Also, looking at your recent post. Are you trying to prove the indoctrination theory is not true, or simply that it doesn't make sense? They are different.

@RegularX

I like your idea here. My defense, at that point who is to say i the Reapers even exist. Prove to me that they do.

@ Fighting Cowboy

If the Crucible actually works like that then maybe it wasn't possible for Harbinger to hide it. Instead he simply tried to convince Shepard not to go that path. I'll be honest, it worked on me. After uniting the Quarians and Geth I would damned if I kill the Geth. I prefer the Geth to the Qurians.

[Gbentley]

Why are ppl not looking at the evidence for or against? Start there. State sine facts.

Anyone else notice in the codex subject for indoctrination it mentions hallucinations of "ghostly" presences? 

If I remember correctly... Doesn't Shepard see a "ghostly" presence at the end? Hmmm.

[Actinguy1]

If it hasn't been mentioned, try this: At the end, Buzz Aldrin tells the kid that "someday" maybe they can go into space. To me, that means that the Mass Effect Relays are all destroyed, along with other forms of space travel, by the time that scene takes place.

Unless we are suggesting that this scene is also part of the indoctrination, which just seems ridiculously elaborate.

[FabricatedWookie]

you want to go meta? mid indoctrination hallucination, you are subjected to a graphic indicator of being subjected to indoctrination by the Illusive man, and when you shoot him it goes away, how weird is that?

[Gbentley]

Gbentley wrote...

Why are ppl not looking at the evidence for or against? Start there. State sine facts.

Anyone else notice in the codex subject for indoctrination it mentions hallucinations of "ghostly" presences? 

If I remember correctly... Doesn't Shepard see a "ghostly" presence at the end? Hmmm.

Also wanted to add that the codex says it leaves the victims highly susceptible to it's suggestions.... Sounds like the Shepard we saw.

[FiGhTiNCoWBoY]

Beast919 wrote...
Nothing is gained by giving someone 3 choices that all serve your interests if you're trying to brainwash them.  You still don't know how they'd react when given the opportunity to pick a choice that doesn't serve you.  The purpose of the destroy choice is to show it to Shepard, rub it in his face as a "Only a bad, bad renegade baddie would pick this evil option" and then show him the "good options" that, just by chance, both serve the Reapers.  If they convince him to turn his back on the anti-reaper option, he is essentially brainwashed.  They never "forced" his hand, he willingly did it.

Ok, lets make an assumption that the destroy option was Harbinger's way of incorporating what free will Shepard still had left into this imaginary indoctrination world.  

If Shepard was indoctrinated, but not imagining the events, destroying the conduit would remove the indoctrination due to Harbinger and all reapers dying.  If this were true, why would we have seen the same garbage we saw with all the other endings? (i.e. relays exploding, Normandy crashing, etc)  If the events happening were actual but Shepard was indoctrinated at the time, it'd be impossible for indoctrination to cause him to imagine said events, as it would have ended before we saw the events occurring.  

Assuming on the other hand that Shepard is indoctrinated and Harbinger is making him imagine the events that unfold, we're back to the point of why the hell would Harbinger give Shepard an exit route?  In the event that the destroy option did represent what was left of Shepard's free will or in your example them attempting to have Shepard make a reaper choice as his own decision, at this point of climax in the struggle between Reapers and the rest of the galaxy, it would be safe to say that if Harbinger failed to achieve full indoctriantion of Shepard in this instance, he would have killed him following the failed indoctrination. 

Modifié par FiGhTiNCoWBoY, 15 mars 2012 - 08:19 .

[RegularX]

Beast919 wrote...

RegularX wrote...

I'm upping the ante.

Disprove that the entire game wasn't one long indoctrination hallucination.

GO.

There's nothing to be gained by this, it would *truly* invalidate the entire experience.  I'd put money on you trolling, but meh, might as well try & explain that.

The main reason the Indoc Theory (i.e. post-laser nonsense) is so reasonable is it fits both story-telling criteria *and* the majority of business model criteria.  The one thing I will never, ever, understand about it (if it does end up being true) is why they delivered it sooooooooooo poorly.  But hey, any press is good press I guess....

Trolling?  No - although, I get where you might get that.  But no, I'm not trying ****** everyone off.

This is just logic.

The OP wants me to disprove the ending isn't some hallucination.  You can't.  You can't because there's nothing about indoctrination so well defined that you can really either prove it or disprove it.  You take a moment of time in the game and say "OK, everything from this point on is just a dream."

OK, so we could say ... after the last weird kid dream (we know that's a dream, right ... right?) - disprove that Shepard actually wakes up.

Well, you can't.  And every hack writer in Hollywood knows this, and we've all seen this "twist" ending a hundred times over.

You could likewise say - the entire series is actually just some guy trapped in a tanning bed with some advanced VR strapped to his eye sockets.

But that's a whole other game.

Look, if BioWare had really defined indoctrination in some strict way - I could get all of this attention on trying to figure it out.  But they didn't.  They left it intentionally vague so that at any point they could be like "OMG, that ambassador was totally a traitor because of some field the Reapers spit out".

Which, you know - was kinda fine.  But I think they overplayed it, heavily, in ME3 and I think it dovetails into people's reactions about how poorly the ending was written.

You can't disprove the ending was a hallucination any more than you can prove the whole game was one.  If you find it entertaining, fine, but imo it's entertaining in the same way as wondering if we ever went to the moon.

Look - this was the ending BioWare intended.  It's not a damn Dallas ending in the hopes of an epilogue they ran out of money to produce.  It was shabbily written and even more shabbily shot.  But there's no way in hell that they meant the ending to be "just a dream".

That so many players are spending this much energy proving that it is - I don't mean that as a slight to them.  It's not a slight to them.  It's just evidence of a) the mass effect relay size plot holes they left behind and how poorly structured the whole indoctrination plot device was from the beginning.

But back to my point.  If you can prove that 95% of the game was not a dream/hallucination/whatnot, but the last bits of it are ... then you disprove everything I just wrote.

But you can't.  

But if you have fun doing so - please.  People having fun is good.

[MisterNugNug]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

@MisterNugNug

Excellent point. My defense. He thought Shepard was dead or again-wanted to harvest him. Seriously though, only Shepard could survive that **** so maybe Harbinger just assumed he was dead. It's not like he's getting assaulting by an entire galaxy.

Also, looking at your recent post. Are you trying to prove the indoctrination theory is not true, or simply that it doesn't make sense? They are different.

I'm incredulous I guess.  Because if I fully accepted the Indoctrination theory like some players, I actually wouldn't be happy.  I'd be livid.  Because at this point, we're left hanging.  All of us, if the theory is true; we simply don't have endings to our stories.  

[RegularX]

FabricatedWookie wrote...

RegularX wrote...

I'm upping the ante.

Disprove that the entire game wasn't one long indoctrination hallucination.

GO.

They let me kill udina? Strengthened my will for a hundred years!

You didn't kill Udina.  Udina was never on the Citadel.  That was all just part of the fever pitch to insure that you thought you still had the free will that you really did not have.

Udina is actually watching the Cubs win the World Series right now.

[CommanderWilliams]

@ Valentins X (I felt the need to end that ever increasingly long quote)

I swear to you I am trying to get your point. Are you sure you read my post correctly? I admitted that your theory is "a reasonable alternative". But you said that everything was a result of PTSD at that it starts when he leaves Earth. If that is the case then is that caused the three choices? Or are you saying its completely irrelevant to the ending and only affects the journey, not the conclusion (which actually did happen).

[FabricatedWookie]

It also says that indoctrination manifests as alien voices inside the mind.Do you remember when alien voices were being pushed into shepard's mind? When he had his confrontation with the illusive man. I thought it was a clear graphical and audio symbol that he was being subjected to an aggressive type of indoctrination as directed by TIM. TIM dies, indoctrination forces end, and things move on.

Modifié par FabricatedWookie, 15 mars 2012 - 08:24 .

[Beast919]

Valentia X wrote...

You don't have to accept anything. That's your preogative. I don't have to accept anything. That's mine.


You state that the Indoc theory explains everything. I disagree. I believe it provides one possible explanation, and as theories go, I do find it to be the most thought out. I simply don't agree with enough of the points to, well, agree with it.

Kid and you burning in a fire? All your hopes, dreams, and wishes burning to a crisp because of the Reapers. That child can just as easily be- and kids are often used as such- a symbol of innocence and hope. To see it flee into the darkness and then burnt alive is powerful imagery without it being Harby. The Catalysyt takes it form, and we are forced to confront the fact that our innocence and hope is gone- or at least not what we thought it to be.

Obviously what you say about the child can make sense (regarding the dreams) - but why?  We already know Shep is haunted, we already know he has trouble dealing with leaving Earth - Why does he only add himself to the fire in the last dream?  Why are there two Shepards at all?  Why does the Catalyst take its form?  Why doesn't Shepard question it taking its form?  

Weird shadow people? Dead people. Everyone who died in the initial attack. They are nameless, formless, faceless, because for symbolic purposes, all you really need is el kiddo.

Again, obviously Shepard is dealing with all the people he lost.  I thought these scenes were excellent, regardless of their intent, but if there's one thing about storytelling (especially modern storytelling), its that you never show something without a purpose.  Those scenes cost money.  The dream arc needed a finale - the child & shepard burning together was not a finale, it was an escalation.


Hyper beamed with Anderson? Just as easily something like a mass relay, wherein where you end up is subject to change.

I somewhat bought that possibility, but not the fact that A) Anderson made it to the beam at all, or Neither you nor Anderson said anything over the radio *prior* to entering the beam, despite the obvious desperation of your forces, and C) Anderson didn't say a goddamned thing about your squad, and neither did you.

The walls are moving? The Keepers need to get around, logically there must be ways for them to get inside the walls. 

Sure, they move, but only at the Keepers' whim.  They don't just move for the sake of moving.  And plus, why on Earth was that place constructed that way?  A hallway leading to a bridge leading to a control panel on another bridge? Really?  All in a straight line?  ....Where they dumped corspes? Really?


TIM being there, and the Reapers allowing it? God Child flat out says they're controlling him. He's doing what they want at that point. Why would they make him go away?

If the reapers are controlling TIM, and they just SHOT SHEPARD IN THE FACE WITH A SPACE LASER, why do they not control TIM to actually DO SOMETHING.  ME1 is not far enough away to forgot Saren and how he became super-freaky angry robo-Saren after shooting himself in the mouth.
Elevator? I play WoW, I view all elevators as final bosses.  Damn you SSC.

lol.  But truthfully, Marauder Shields was not an adequate boss battle.

Choosing what flavour of kool-aid to drink? The God Child is a retarded AI who is unable to think past their programming parameters, and apparently their logic processor was made by Gateway. BioWare wants to shock us with awe, so they turn Shepard into a wet noodle and force you to choose your flavour of apocalypse. There's the ****ty writing I keep talking about it.

A retarded AI who was seemingly willing to decide on a solution that involved mass-genocide every 50k years, but because an organic made it to the elevator boss that plan no longer worked (WTF?!) so its in Shepard's hands now?  Come on.  Seriously.  Come on.  No one is that stupid to think thats a strong enough plot device.

[EvilMind]

Gbentley wrote...

Why are ppl not looking at the evidence for or against? Start there. State sine facts.

Anyone else notice in the codex subject for indoctrination it mentions hallucinations of "ghostly" presences? 

If I remember correctly... Doesn't Shepard see a "ghostly" presence at the end? Hmmm.

Codex also mentions that indoctrination process takes weeks, months and even years, but I guess harby laser can do it instantly. Also it says that ind. process is caused by prolonged exposure, which triggers set of symptoms many of which Shepard didn't have.

We are looking at all evidence we got, but still there is not enough proof that it was indoctrination. Seriously this is so atheist vs religious debate, very similar

Modifié par EvilMind, 15 mars 2012 - 08:23 .

[FabricatedWookie]

RegularX wrote...

FabricatedWookie wrote...

RegularX wrote...

I'm upping the ante.

Disprove that the entire game wasn't one long indoctrination hallucination.

GO.

They let me kill udina? Strengthened my will for a hundred years!

You didn't kill Udina.  Udina was never on the Citadel.  That was all just part of the fever pitch to insure that you thought you still had the free will that you really did not have.

Udina is actually watching the Cubs win the World Series right now.

[CommanderWilliams]

FiGhTiNCoWBoY wrote...

Beast919 wrote...
Nothing is gained by giving someone 3 choices that all serve your interests if you're trying to brainwash them.  You still don't know how they'd react when given the opportunity to pick a choice that doesn't serve you.  The purpose of the destroy choice is to show it to Shepard, rub it in his face as a "Only a bad, bad renegade baddie would pick this evil option" and then show him the "good options" that, just by chance, both serve the Reapers.  If they convince him to turn his back on the anti-reaper option, he is essentially brainwashed.  They never "forced" his hand, he willingly did it.

Ok, lets make an assumption that the destroy option was Harbinger's way of incorporating what free will Shepard still had left into this imaginary indoctrination world.  

If Shepard was indoctrinated, but not imagining the events, destroying the conduit would remove the indoctrination due to Harbinger and all reapers dying.  If this were true, why would we have seen the same garbage we saw with all the other endings? (i.e. relays exploding, Normandy crashing, etc)  If the events happening were actual but Shepard was indoctrinated at the time, it'd be impossible for indoctrination to cause him to imagine said events, as it would have ended before we saw the events occurring.  

Assuming on the other hand that Shepard is indoctrinated and Harbinger is making him imagine the events that unfold, we're back to the point of why the hell would Harbinger give Shepard an exit route?  In the event that the destroy option did represent what was left of Shepard's free will or in your example them attempting to have Shepard make a reaper choice as his own decision, at this point of climax in the struggle between Reapers and the rest of the galaxy, it would be safe to say that if Harbinger failed to achieve full indoctriantion of Shepard in this instance, he would have killed him following the failed indoctrination. 

You assume Harbinger actually laid out 3 choices for Shepard. Harbinger wanted Option A to occur (full indoctrination), but becuase of Shepards strong will his mind, not Harbinger, presented the way out. It's like Inception.

[MisterNugNug]

CommanderWilliams wrote...

@ Valentins X (I felt the need to end that ever increasingly long quote)

I swear to you I am trying to get your point. Are you sure you read my post correctly? I admitted that your theory is "a reasonable alternative". But you said that everything was a result of PTSD at that it starts when he leaves Earth. If that is the case then is that caused the three choices? Or are you saying its completely irrelevant to the ending and only affects the journey, not the conclusion (which actually did happen).

He/She isn't saying that it IS PTSD, but that it COULD be.  Because its a far more simpler explanation.

[zr0iq]

Disprove it?
Benezia described the indoctrination process as slow. The prothean VI did not recognize Shepard as being indoctrinated on Thessia.

Done.
Though this could be the fight against Indoctrination that Shepard wins. But who knows. Mabye he has just the choice because he has reaper-upgraded implants from Lazarus... this would still be silly.

[RegularX]

RegularX wrote...

FabricatedWookie wrote...

RegularX wrote...

I'm upping the ante.

Disprove that the entire game wasn't one long indoctrination hallucination.

GO.

They let me kill udina? Strengthened my will for a hundred years!

You didn't kill Udina.  Udina was never on the Citadel.  That was all just part of the fever pitch to insure that you thought you still had the free will that you really did not have.

Udina is actually watching the Cubs win the World Series right now.

PS - I'll stop that line of reasoning since it actually just killing fun.