455 réponses à ce sujet

[RegularX]

FabricatedWookie wrote...

:P

[AndromanceR]

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.

Killing Shepard would make quite the opposite effect of Galactic Alliance fighting even harder against the Reapers. Indoctrination is more preferable in this matter.

[shurryy]

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.

A strong enemy, can be a stronger friend... If you can't convince them, kill them.

- Villain Theory. 

[Beast919]

RegularX wrote...

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.

Said multiple times, I'm not looking for conclusive "oh boy with this there's no way we can be proven wrong!" type of info here.  What I'm looking for is a reasonable argument as to why it isn't Indoc, based on some kind of game-knowledge or even a business sense reason for doing what they did.

The only semi-compelling evidence I've seen to say it wasn't Indoc was the Thessia VI, but I'm not so sure about that, I feel it only detects people who are fully Indoc'd (i.e. it would detect it by examining brain waves or some such and reading them as such, in which case Shepard would still be a self-aware functinoing human at that point in the story).

[IanPolaris]

Beast919 wrote...

FiGhTiNCoWBoY wrote...

Assuming the indoctrination theory is true, there's 2 main instances in which people are suggesting indoctrination takes over:
1) When Shepard is blasted by Harbinger while making a dash for the beam
2) After he collapses at the terminal inside the citadel.

With both these instances in mind, lets fast forward a little bit to the pick your color scene. If indoctrination was indeed true, why would Harbinger present Shepard with a "destroy" option in the first place? You don't strive to take over someones mind and then while you're doing it say "Oh, and by the way just make a right turn here and you'll find the exit when you shoot this power conduit."

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.

Not only that but Harbinger (assuming the starkid is harbinger and I am inclinded to think this is likely) may not have a choice.  Harbinger may not have the ability to indoctrinate Shepard against his will (or at least not without completely destroying Shep's mind which may be considered counterproductive to the reapers).  That being so, the option to reject the indoctrination MUST be present and the subject must REJECT the opportunity to oppose (destroy) the reapers...which is why 'destroy' is painted in such a stark and unflattering way. 

This also might explain why you only get destroy with a very low EMS.  With a very low EMS, the Reapers probably figure they don't need shepard anymore and destroy his mind outright (which in Shep's mind means destroyind the earth and pretty much all life in the galaxy).  Just a guess on my part.

-Polaris

[MisterNugNug]

AndromanceR wrote...

Killing Shepard would make quite the opposite effect of Galactic Alliance fighting even harder against the Reapers. Indoctrination is more preferable in this matter.

How so?  They were already going to fight to the end.  This is the last battle.  Its the battle for all of galactic life.  How would Indoctrinating Shepard AT THIS POINT in the conflict change things?  

[SKiLLYWiLLY2]

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.

There's no proof Shepard is on on earth afterwards lol. And I wouldn't call it definitive proof he's alive either. It's a tease, nothing more. All you see is some rubble surrounding his torso. We know Bioware have cut corners a few times (who doesn't?) in this game so would it, for example, be too much to believe that for that little cutscene that most players won't see, they used an already modelled environment from the London level?

Also, who's to say ME3 is not about rallying the races of the galaxy to stop the reapers, AT ALL COSTS. Meaning sure, most of the known species are doomed but the reapers are no more, which is, ultimately, the main goal, even if such a big sacrifice was not at all evident in the previous two games.

Modifié par SKiLLYWiLLY2, 15 mars 2012 - 08:32 .

[EvilMind]

Indoctrination theory become a religion, those who disagree are atheists. This is exactly the same debate people are having on some religious forums

[Halberd96]

Maybe they wanted Shepard alive cause he is the Catalyst and the Reapers want something from the Catalyst or something...I dunno.

[PlumPaul93]

Other than Shepard showing no signs of indoctrination throughout the game, all endings still showing the stargazer stuff, and being required to play multiplayer to get the supposed indoctrination breaking ending, the main issue I have with this is: to believe in the indoctrination theory means you believe Bioware purposely gave you a bad, incredibly vague, plot hole filled ending on the basis that they'd release ending DLC at a later date. If you believe they wanted the ****storm that the ending has brought them, then you might believe the theory, I can't fathom why they'd do that so I just can't believe the theory.

[CommanderWilliams]

EvilMind wrote...

Indoctrination theory become a religion, those who disagree are atheists. This is exactly the same debate people are having on some religious forums

Except we have crediable evidence that makes sense, is consistent and is a very possible scenario.
The Bible, the Quran (sorry if I spelled it wrong) nor any religous book meet these requirements. Not trying to start a religous debate, I'm just an agnostic.

[Beast919]

SKiLLYWiLLY2 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.

There's no proof Shepard is on on earth afterwards lol. And I wouldn't call it definitive proof he's alive either. It's a tease, nothing more. All you see is some rubble surrounding his torso. We know Bioware have cut corners a few times (who doesn't?) in this game so would it, for example, be too much to believe that for that little cutscene that most players won't see, they used an already modelled environment from the London level?

its an entirely different type of modeling to make those pre-rendered cutscenes than the in-game graphics we had seen of london, so not sure where you're going with that, but more importantly, yes, it is a tease, but assuming the ending is 'canon', its a tease...of WHAT?  Where do things go from there?  The citadel explosion/rubble would fall to earth...and ruin it.  The entire galactic civilization is over (the majority of colonies/colonists would be stranded from supply lines on planets that couldn't fully support all their needs) and quite simply, there is no more MASS EFFECT.....so where does the series go from there?  What are they teasing?

[FlameAble_]

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

A thousand times this.

[Raiil]

 

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?  

False assumption: he's not adding himself to the fire, unless you're suggesting Shepard is a masochist lucid dreamer. Reasonable explaination: the end is coming soon and he knows the odds are stacked against him. He's watching innocence and himself die. As for the Catalyst, I will refer both to my ****ty Writing theory and the fact that it's visually jarring.

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. 

And? I'm not sure what that had to do with my statement, but in my defence, it's 04.30 here.

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. 

BioWare is obviously trying to paint you as tired, exhausted, etc. You're both bewildered. And they've already flat out said that with such a large group of writers, things like emotional response (where is my squad?!) was forgotten. Ask the Thanemancers if you need more proof of that.

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? 

Or at the Catalyst's whim. Honestly? Design choice and execution. Not everything has to be fraught with meaning. Sometimes it's just easier that way.

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.

Because they have allowed him to believe he has control over himself. They have been very subtly controlling him. 'Shoot the **** in the face', while it may have points for style, is about as subtle as a brick. There is also the point that they're concentrating on lasering the bejesus out of Earth, and are a) only paying marginal attention and focusing on blowing **** up in London.

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.

Did I mention my theory was ****ty Writing?


My belief is that BioWare was trying to end Shepard's story a) vaguely and in what they thought was a sweeping, gorgeous, metaphysical way. Instead it came out like The Matrix. It's bad, it's horrible, it's no good, and it's fundamentally stupid, but it's not the first time things have ended up this badly in any media, is it?


And on that note, I'm going to bed.

[IanPolaris]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Other than Shepard showing no signs of indoctrination throughout the game, all endings still showing the stargazer stuff, and being required to play multiplayer to get the supposed indoctrination breaking ending, the main issue I have with this is: to believe in the indoctrination theory means you believe Bioware purposely gave you a bad, incredibly vague, plot hole filled ending on the basis that they'd release ending DLC at a later date. If you believe they wanted the ****storm that the ending has brought them, then you might believe the theory, I can't fathom why they'd do that so I just can't believe the theory.

That's not strictly true.  The dreams and headaches are (per Rana the Asari scientiest in ME1) early signs of indoctrination, and we know that Shep was exposed at least with Object Rho.  As for the Prothean VI not detecting it, my guess is that Shep has RESISTED Indoctrination to that point to such an extent that the VI was not able to detect it.  However being knocked into a coma by Harby's laser would render Shep as vulnerable as he ever would be.  We also know (per Arrival/Object Rho) that Shep has a tremendous resistance to indoctrination...far more than almost any other organic including Matriarchs.

-Polaris

[Darjeer]

Well I can try to disprove at least few parts of the theory: those heaps of bodies near Conduit, those text on the walls at the end and that "Citadel had specific place just for these choices?".

Bodies

Theory is using those heaps of bodies near the Conduit as evidence to support indoctrination. I think there's really easy explanation for this. Wasn't the whole point of Conduit for reapers to transfer people from London to Citadel? I'm assuming that there might be heaps of bodies laying around if their operation was distrupted because of sudden ground attack.

Those sub-par textures would be explained by atmospheric reasons. I assume (and this is just me guessing)  that Bioware would have wanted to show the sheer scale of dead people and reapers' operation. Doing all those bodies with 3D-models of even with high-res textures would have been too much for consoles and lower end PC's.

Theory also mentions that some of those bodies are wearing same armor that looks familiar. First of all, I hardly think that Shepard's armor is unique. Everyone is the military is carrying some kind of armor, so I assume they have standard armor models. Secondly, why would Bioware make specific textures for these bodies if they can just use whatever low-res textures they have laying around. I mean those piles are there just to create sense of how many people really are dead, not to be marveled as techinal achievement.

Text on the walls and destroy / control -platforms

These two could be explained by the same thing.

Didn't Andersson say that the Citadel is changing itself? The original Citadel might not have had any english writing in it, but humans have been there for some time now. Those might be just some marking on the wall that Catalyst happened to use when creating the area for final confrontation. Heck, they might be even bits from some random human starship that was docked in the Citadel at the time.

This brings us to the "Why is there specific are for these choices to be made?". As I already said, the Citadel is changing. If this god-kid is able to move walls around at whim, then wouldn't he be able to construct this area for this sole purpose? Heck, we see him directly affecting the structure of Citadel after TIM-encounter. As Shepard collapses on the floor, I hardly think it's on top of elevator. The platform that starts to ascend is just random piece of floor.

Just my two cents.

Modifié par Darjeer, 15 mars 2012 - 08:36 .

[Beast919]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

Other than Shepard showing no signs of indoctrination throughout the game, all endings still showing the stargazer stuff, and being required to play multiplayer to get the supposed indoctrination breaking ending, the main issue I have with this is: to believe in the indoctrination theory means you believe Bioware purposely gave you a bad, incredibly vague, plot hole filled ending on the basis that they'd release ending DLC at a later date. If you believe they wanted the ****storm that the ending has brought them, then you might believe the theory, I can't fathom why they'd do that so I just can't believe the theory.

but you're willing to bet that the same people who put together such an incredibly high-quality trilogy dropped the ball in such an unbelieveable manner so readily?  That doesn't make much sense to me.  And the entire point of the Indoc theory is that Shepard *is* showing signs of it throughout ME3 (the kid being a figment of his indoc-imagination, representing the hopelessness of his efforts to save humanity, and the dream sequences being him experiencing all the people he's failed to save), and there's the ever-unexplained nature of his cerberus implants (with hints that they're designed from the reaper tech Cerby has been using ever since they discovered it).

Or you can simply believe no one who had an interest in ME played the ending and was confused by it before they gave it the stamp of approval.  I find that highly unlikely.

[Linus108]

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.

For the same reason's you just stated...why wouldn't they want to indoctrinate and even harvest Shepard. Would be a great assett. 

[RegularX]

Beast919 wrote...

RegularX wrote...

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.

Said multiple times, I'm not looking for conclusive "oh boy with this there's no way we can be proven wrong!" type of info here.  What I'm looking for is a reasonable argument as to why it isn't Indoc, based on some kind of game-knowledge or even a business sense reason for doing what they did.

The only semi-compelling evidence I've seen to say it wasn't Indoc was the Thessia VI, but I'm not so sure about that, I feel it only detects people who are fully Indoc'd (i.e. it would detect it by examining brain waves or some such and reading them as such, in which case Shepard would still be a self-aware functinoing human at that point in the story).

Ok, I'll play.

1. We know Shepard and Company were not indoctrinated at Thessia.

2. Shepard and company are not introduced to any major Repear technology between Thessia and the end of the game that they haven't already been.  And certainly in a much, much, much shorter time period.

3. Both Shepard and Anderson can clearly tell that TIM is indoctrinated (which at this point is the biggest DUH in the entire plot of the entire franchise.  Oh hey, Martin Sheen - what is that growing out of your neck? Is is it ... A LITTLE BIT OF HUSK???  But if Shepard was indoctrinated, TIM would appear as sympathetic, not antagonstic.

4. The Catalyst specifically says TIM was indoctrinated, Shepard was not.


All four of those points are reasonable, they are based on ingame knowledge and they are consistent with everything within the game narrative.

Any response of "yes .. but ... the X did Y which had a Reaper groan!" - and I return to my original premise.  

[MisterNugNug]

Linus108 wrote...
For the same reason's you just stated...why wouldn't they want to indoctrinate and even harvest Shepard. Would be a great assett. 

How would Shepard be a great asset at this point in the conflict?

[CommanderWilliams]

MisterNugNug wrote...

Linus108 wrote...
For the same reason's you just stated...why wouldn't they want to indoctrinate and even harvest Shepard. Would be a great assett. 

How would Shepard be a great asset at this point in the conflict?

Ima throw some wild **** out here, but it's possible they could make him immortal (or put him in statis) and use him to serve the purpose Saren, the Collectors and eventually TIM did in future cycles, since Shepard is clearly superior to all of them.

[Raiil]

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).

I read your post just fine. I'm not trying to 'disprove' your theory even. 


I used PTSD as a reasonable explaination for some of the symptoms that Shepard experiences in-game. You have given your theories and evidence on how it could be indoctrination, and I gave mine on how it could be PTSD. If it is absolutely necessary, I can probably also make it fit for terminal brain cancer, several allergic reactions,  Shepard suffocating after being spaced in ME2, or Shepard being high after licking Thane. 


The point is not PTSD > Indoc > Concussion > Illegal Drell Licking. The point is that I, and many others, can come up with reasonable explainations for in-game events that do not require Indoc Theory, and so please, for the love of God, stop trying to post it as fact or the only reasonable explaination. Most of us accept that Indoc Theory is popular. I have flat out said several times that it's reasonable and well thought-out. But it's theory on the level of 'sugar makes kids hyper' and not gravitational pull theory. 

[Beast919]

RegularX wrote...
Ok, I'll play.

1. We know Shepard and Company were not indoctrinated at Thessia.

2. Shepard and company are not introduced to any major Repear technology between Thessia and the end of the game that they haven't already been.  And certainly in a much, much, much shorter time period.

3. Both Shepard and Anderson can clearly tell that TIM is indoctrinated (which at this point is the biggest DUH in the entire plot of the entire franchise.  Oh hey, Martin Sheen - what is that growing out of your neck? Is is it ... A LITTLE BIT OF HUSK???  But if Shepard was indoctrinated, TIM would appear as sympathetic, not antagonstic.

4. The Catalyst specifically says TIM was indoctrinated, Shepard was not.


All four of those points are reasonable, they are based on ingame knowledge and they are consistent with everything within the game narrative.

Any response of "yes .. but ... the X did Y which had a Reaper groan!" - and I return to my original premise.  

1) My point with this is that the indoctrination is not *complete* by Thessia.  When you encounter Matriach Benezia on Noveria, she paints it quite exclusively as a black/white thing.  It takes a while to set in, but once its in, its done - she only avoided it at that point by "secluding a portion of her mind away" with magic space powers.  In Shepard's case, its still slowly taking root - it hasn't quite modified his thought patterns to the extent that the VI would detect it.

2) The point is not that Shepard becomes indoctrinated before London.  The point is that Harby is trying to finish the job at London.  Its already been stated that Adrenaline increases the process, and I believe it was also stated that being in a weakened state increases the process (could be wrong on that bit, but its not important) - Getting hit by a giant space laser while trying to save the galaxy would give me some adernaline, personally.  And being in the fragile state he's left in by the blast (in what we can imagine in some form of coma), Harby can kinda do whatever he pleases (and he's extremely close to Shepard at this point).

3 & 4) The theory is that Shepard is still not indoctrianted at this point - Harby is playing a scenario out in Shepard's mind to coerce him into making the following choices the star-child presents.  In this case, he wants Shepard to believe he's still fighting the reapers, still fighting their servants, still trying to do the right thing.  Once he makes that link between the right thing and either controlling the reapers or synergy, Harby has effectively made Shepard indoctrinated.

[Mcfly616]

What do all the nay sayers have to say about Shepard waking up at the end? Just curious...

[Beast919]

Valentia X wrote...

The point is not PTSD > Indoc > Concussion > Illegal Drell Licking. The point is that I, and many others, can come up with reasonable explainations for in-game events that do not require Indoc Theory, and so please, for the love of God, stop trying to post it as fact or the only reasonable explaination. Most of us accept that Indoc Theory is popular. I have flat out said several times that it's reasonable and well thought-out. But it's theory on the level of 'sugar makes kids hyper' and not gravitational pull theory. 

The majority of the reasons you post for the points I've brought up have boiled down to them having bad writing

This is referring to the post-laser sequence events, that is.  I still would have bought PTSD to explain the dreams, but post laser is just a mess with no logic to it (if not Indoc, from my opinion)