281 réponses à ce sujet

[jules_vern18]

The main reason that the indoctrination theory is untrue is because Bioware hasn't made any reference to it. In what has quickly become a press disaster that is hurting both sales and the company image, Casey Hudson, Mac Walters, or Chris Priestly would have alluded to the fact that there was "more to the ending that meets the eye" in order to mitigate the horrible PR and fan outrage.

With even Fox and CNN covering the debacle, Bioware would have mentioned the indoctrination ending by now if it was true. They haven't; it's not.

What I wonder about is whether or not the indoctrination cultists will be able to accept this as fact once Bioware releases a more specific statement, or even when DLC is announced. What will it take to put this theory to rest, if anything?

[Candidate 88766]

The other big problem with the theory is that Shepard 'waking' up in the best ending pretty much disproves it. You can clearly see he isn't in the same place as when he was shot at by Harbinger. He's surrounded by massive piles of rubble instead of the pretty flat ground in front of the Conduit, and the blue glow of the Conduit is gone. This leads to only a few outcomes:

-Shepard is somewhere else in London. Doesn't make sense, as the theory relies on him having been unconscious all that time, and if he had been moved by his team they wouldn't have just abandoned him on top of a pile of rubble. This just doesn't make sense, and so can't be the reason.

-The rubble has somehow appeared in front of the Conduit, but the Reapers have turned it off - hence the lack of blue glow. This means that even if Shepard wakes up, he has no way of getting inside the Citadel to open the arms. This means he fails, and seeing as the theory states that every other choice leads to failure this can't be true - Bioware isn't going to make every choice lead to failure automatically.

-Shepard is still indoctrinated, and is imagining waking up in some part of London. This can't be true for the same reason -Bioware wouldn't make every ending one where Shepard fails.

The scene of Shepard waking up - generally used as evidence of the theory - actually does more to disprove it.

Plus there's common sense - the Bioware team that has worked on this series for over 7 years isn't going to release the conclusion to the series' story without its proper ending. This is one of the most highly rated series of all time, arguably Bioware's greatest success, and the one of the most anticipated games of the year. Its the conclusion to a story that thousands of fans have become heavily invested in. They simply would not end ME3 just before the end of the story. It just doesn't make sense.

[Jaze55]

Saku39 wrote...

I just can't believe how out to lunch some of you deniers are. Anderson looks RIGHT AT YOU and says "They're controlling YOU!". Not at TIM, at YOU, the player.

Does anyone who denies this theory have some kind of explanation of why the Destroy/4k EMS ending happens? Can someone explain why that's there? Because that, plus the Codex, plus the dreams, plus the foreshadowing, plus the Kid, plus the phantasmagoric, non-sensical Citadel walk through your memories, plus the everyone-dies ending, plus resurrected squad mates, all the BW tweets, just on and on, and on. You know what makes NO sense?

The idea that we saw the complete ending.

LOL NO HE DOESN'T he looks at TIM. 

Wow you people will twist anything

LOOK - 
 



Watch 12:05 .. Anderson say "They're controlling" looking at Shep then "YOU" and he looks DIRECTLY AT TIM.

HAHAHAHA so much delusion and truth warping going on in this thread.


Edit - In case you can't grasp what this means. He is looking at Shep because he has no control over his body. However when he looks at TIM and says YOU he breaks control for a second and is able to turn his head.  DERP ok so that is out the window, or let me guess, that video was edited by Reapers to indoctrinate us into believing the Indoc Theory is not true. Right, RIGHT????!!!!!!

Modifié par MassEffected555, 18 mars 2012 - 06:07 .

[Deflagratio]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

So according to this Theory the indoctrination started when Shep was hit by the beam?

Severe indoctrination begins here, yes.

But was he already indoctrinated before the beam?

Some people suggest that Harbinger had been attempting to indoctrinate Shepard since the very beginning of Mass Effect 3 (Representing the Child, which nobody but Shepard seems to react to as a means to draw sympathy), but given the stakes, Harbinger has to forego a slower indoctrination attempt, for an "Assuming Direct Control" attempt. If you watch Harbinger just before Shepard gets hit by the Laser, and just as he flies away after, Harbinger's four "Eyes" are illuminated similar to when he was controlling the Collector, specifically the Collector General. That kind of vicious Indoctrination is extremely fast, but severly debilitates the victim.

[Candidate 88766]

Capeo wrote...

Its called parsimony. If one ending was real and the other two were fake they would not have the same epilogue. If one ending was real and the others fake they wouldn't have the same title screen telling you you beat the Reapers. 

An excellent point. 

[Xerkysz]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

So according to this Theory the indoctrination started when Shep was hit by the beam?

Severe indoctrination begins here, yes.

But was he already indoctrinated before the beam?

Harbinger has been trying since your first encounter in ME2, little by little he was getting to you "Nightmares of the Star Child .

He couldn't actually get you though, that's where knocking you unconcious comes in, he pretty much gets to take your brain to his rape dungeon.
Which is where you waking up and heading for the beam comes in.

[dreman9999]

jules_vern18 wrote...

The main reason that the indoctrination theory is untrue is because Bioware hasn't made any reference to it. In what has quickly become a press disaster that is hurting both sales and the company image, Casey Hudson, Mac Walters, or Chris Priestly would have alluded to the fact that there was "more to the ending that meets the eye" in order to mitigate the horrible PR and fan outrage.

With even Fox and CNN covering the debacle, Bioware would have mentioned the indoctrination ending by now if it was true. They haven't; it's not.

What I wonder about is whether or not the indoctrination cultists will be able to accept this as fact once Bioware releases a more specific statement, or even when DLC is announced. What will it take to put this theory to rest, if anything?

They haven't made a reference to it because they are not ready to tell anyone about it. 

[Xerkysz]

If you would like me to make a video on the theory, with gameplay indicating where things happen, inbox me on here, it won't be done straight away because it's 4:11am here, will be done within 24hrs though.

[Gordulan]

Saku39 wrote...

I just can't believe how out to lunch some of you deniers are. Anderson looks RIGHT AT YOU and says "They're controlling YOU!". Not at TIM, at YOU, the player.

Does anyone who denies this theory have some kind of explanation of why the Destroy/4k EMS ending happens? Can someone explain why that's there? Because that, plus the Codex, plus the dreams, plus the foreshadowing, plus the Kid, plus the phantasmagoric, non-sensical Citadel walk through your memories, plus the everyone-dies ending, plus resurrected squad mates, all the BW tweets, just on and on, and on. You know what makes NO sense?

The idea that we saw the complete ending.

Heh, yeah, your point is completely valid there. Anderson doesn't look at Tim or Shep, he looks directly at the player in that scene, the second time I watched the final mission I actually paid attention looking out for whatever it may be that could affirm that the possibility of the indoc theory to be true, it's one of the things that creeped me out somewhat. (I thought "What'chu lookin' at me for? Stop it!")

[sAxMoNkI]

FirstBlood XL wrote...

This was the original poster's point lol, he was pointing out the problems with accepting the ending as is. He even says at the start "lets look at the endings at face value" (or words to that effect). I think you are both arguing the same point
 EDIT: " Let's look at the holes in the 'what you see is what you get' ending:" <--- direct quote

Exactly.  Thank you, saxmonki. 

Xerkysz is clearly a superior intellect.  His ability to comprehend simple logic astounds.

Glad I could help, no need to snipe though, he just made an honest mistake and if you read up a bit he did apologise

Modifié par sAxMoNkI, 18 mars 2012 - 06:15 .

[Jaze55]

Claym0re wrote...

NightAntilli wrote... Ok. So in short, the indoctrination theory is a way for players to pretend that the ending never happened?

Pretty much this.

OK then they all need to STFU and stop trying to convince everyone else that it's the only thing that makes sense. 

[Xerkysz]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Glad I could help, no need to snipe though, he just made an honest mistake and if you read up a bit he did apologise

^ This, and through inbox. xP

[FirstBlood XL]

nevermind.... forum won't let me copy paste the correct post for some damn reason. 

Modifié par FirstBlood XL, 18 mars 2012 - 06:19 .

[Candidate 88766]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Claym0re wrote...

NightAntilli wrote... Ok. So in short, the indoctrination theory is a way for players to pretend that the ending never happened?

Pretty much this.

OK then they all need to STFU and stop trying to convince everyone else that it's the only thing that makes sense. 

No need to be rude about it.

The theory is clearly wrong - Bioware isn't going to end the conclusion to their most critically and commercially successful franchise on a cliffhanger specifically designed to trick and confuse the player.

However, it does have some compelling evidence and given how bad the real endings are, I won't begrudge people using their imaginations to 'fix' them.

[jules_vern18]

Xerkysz wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Wait a minute, he's pointed out some inconsistencies and is asking for an explanation from a counter-theory and the best you've got is that he is an idiot?
On what grounds?
Why isn't he allowed to post here?

In terms of suspending disbelief having Shepard unconciosuly in London and imagining these events is every bit as plausible as him surviving re-entry to earth, through a vacuum, in an unsealed partially destroyed set of armour, after a cataclysmic explosion and still be breathing let alone not a charred hunk of carbon?

1. * Squad running with your Shep to the beam completely disappears... Only to magically reappear aboard the Normandy. 
This is the beginning of indoctrination, Harbinger starts here, as you're unconcious, on earth.

* Shep
gets hit by Harb's beam... gets up.  Barely able to walk from his
injuries, half dead... His armor (shields as well, I would imagine) are
decimated.  Maruader Shields
jumps out of nowhere and puts a space-bullet in you.  You still manage
to take out Maurader Shields and continue your mission, even though you
were basically walking-dead BEFORE being shot. 
Dreaming.

*
Anderson says he went into the beam right behind you... when he was
nowhere to be seen behind you.  Then he happens to have teleported
closer to the control panel, very convienent.  Dreaming.

* Illusive Man magically appears behind Shephard in the 'control room'.  Dreaming.

* Starkid
AI.  LOL.  You don't introduce a 'magical higher power' in the last few
moments of a story.  That's the worst form of Dues Ex Machina (not the
lame video games).... This is the part where Harbinger is trying his hardest to stop you from destroying them. So you're dreaming.

* The
fact the Starkid AI is the Reaper King, Shephard's sworn enemy over the
course of the trilogy... and that Shephard just accepts every word it
speaks as truth, Star kid:wizard: is actually Harbinger. 
Lets use an example, shall we?  You're a WWII soldier and you're about
to wipe out the entire **** army, when Hitler himself magically appears.
 He tells you, "You know, all this
genocide and horrible mudering of innocents... it's all just a way to
save humanity.  What you really need to do is....." would you listen to him, or put a bullet in his head?

* Joker
is fleeing before Shephard makes his 'choice' and sets off whatever
color beam of energy.   Even though he'd follow you into hell, and even
though you basically had to rip him out of his seat in the opening of
ME2...  And oh yeah, he managed to save your squad in the meantime, but
nobody mentions that Shephard is nowhere to be found.  Key indication of you dreaming.

* Assuming
you get the 'best ending' (the only one with special footage only shown
with extra high EMS)... Shephard still draws breath after FALLING OFF
AN EXPLODING CITADEL, THRU EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE, AND TO THE GROUND.  All
with his armor already melted/destroyed and with a [color=rgb(51, 102, 255)">Marauder Shields bullet in him as a bonus. ]You never left Earth. You were knocked unconcious.[/color]

1. Shep never left earth.
2. Indoctrination.

Fixed. <3

1. * Squad running with your Shep to the beam completely disappears... Only to magically reappear aboard the Normandy. 
This is the beginning of Bad Writing.  Harbinger appears here, tacked on to the end because the writers didn't have time to fully implement him.

* Shep
Is nearly hit by Harb's beam.  You take a hit from Maurader Shields just as you have taken a million hits before.
Attempt to build dramatic tension.

*
Anderson says that he went into the beam right behind you but wound up in a different location.  He beats you to the control panel, entering the room from an unseen entrance.  Just like countless other characters have done during cutscenes throughout the ME trilogy.  Editing.

* Illusive Man magically appears behind Shephard in the 'control room'.  Just like countless other characters have done during cutscenes throughout the ME trilogy.  Editing.

* Starkid
AI.  LOL.  You don't introduce a 'magical higher power' in the last few
moments of a story.  That's the worst form of Dues Ex Machina (not the
lame
video games).... and is indicative of bad writing and a rushed ending.  Just because something doesn't make sense doesn't make it a dream.  Also, the Deus Ex video games are widely recognized as being excellent.

* The
fact the Starkid AI is the Reaper King, Shephard's sworn enemy over the
course of the trilogy... and that Shephard just accepts every word it.  Bad writing.  This is what fans are so upset about.

The star kid appears at the end, and it is ridiculous that Shep trusts him.  Again, just because something is unexplained does not mean that it was a dream.  Imagine if you approached real life with that kind of logic.  Wait, there's a traffic jam but no accident or construction zone...I must be dreaming!

* Joker
is fleeing before Shephard makes his 'choice' and sets off whatever
color beam of energy.   Even though he'd follow you into hell, and even
though you basically had to rip him out of his seat in the opening of
ME2...  And oh yeah, he managed to save your squad in the meantime, but
nobody mentions that Shephard is nowhere to be found.  Key indication of a poorly constructed ending.  The writers were, again, attempting to build dramatic tension as you watched your crew barely excaping the blast.  Not explaining how they got there is a failure on their part.

* Assuming
you get the 'best ending' (the only one with special footage only shown
with extra high EMS)... Shephard still draws breath in the ruins of the Citadel, which makes sense as this is the only ending where he doesn't seem to disolve on a molecular level.  There are no indications whatsoever that point to him being on earth.  In fact, considering that this was the "secret" ending, wouldn't it have ended with a more obvious allusion to the indoctrination theory if it were true?  Developers have been vague about their endings before, but never that vague.

Fixed.

[Xerkysz]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Claym0re wrote...

NightAntilli wrote... Ok. So in short, the indoctrination theory is a way for players to pretend that the ending never happened?

Pretty much this.

OK then they all need to STFU and stop trying to convince everyone else that it's the only thing that makes sense. 

Wrong there. It's what actually happens, I'm trying to provide enough evidence towards it to formulate an understandable and not so giant wall of text that details where we are coming from, unfortunately the link in my sig is the best I'm able to do at the moment.

[vrumpt]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

One hole? There are several holes. The theory isn't even remotely true. It's the product of disgruntled fans looking for a rational reason for the state or the ending. Only it doesn't make sense. A lot of it is far fetched assumption.

-Polite

There cetainly are not, and it certainly is not.  It its the only thing that makes sense regarding the entire ending at all. Failure to acknowledge this just proves you are willing to not read into it at all and are using your initial assumptions as a misguided weapon.  

[Jaze55]

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Claym0re wrote...

NightAntilli wrote... Ok. So in short, the indoctrination theory is a way for players to pretend that the ending never happened?

Pretty much this.

OK then they all need to STFU and stop trying to convince everyone else that it's the only thing that makes sense. 

Wrong there. It's what actually happens, I'm trying to provide enough evidence towards it to formulate an understandable and not so giant wall of text that details where we are coming from, unfortunately the link in my sig is the best I'm able to do at the moment.

OK so you are convinced, beyone a doubt, that Bioware intentionaly gave us a bad ending, just to sell or give us a new ending later. And you are 100% convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Indoctrination Theory is a fact and we will all find this out at a later date?

[FirstBlood XL]

Forget it... this forum's tech is circa 1992.  Can't even cut-paste and retain any semblance of format from the same freakin' forum.

Modifié par FirstBlood XL, 18 mars 2012 - 06:24 .

[FirstBlood XL]

Can someone who is against the Indoc Theory please explain this?  *quoted below*

FirstBlood XL wrote...

Okay... let's pretend the indoc theory has some holes.  Let's look at the holes in the 'what you see is what you get' ending:

* Squad running with your Shep to the beam completely disappears... Only to magically reappear aboard the Normandy.  This is poor/lazy writing.  Or a failed retcon of earlier drafts, which is still poor/lazy writing.

* Shep gets hit by Harb's beam... gets up.  Barely able to walk from his injuries, half dead... His armor (shields as well, I would imagine) are decimated.  Maruader Shields jumps out of nowhere and puts a space-bullet in you.  You still manage to take out Maurader Shields and continue your mission, even though you were basically walking-dead BEFORE being shot.  Poor/Lazy writing.

* Anderson says he went into the beam right behind you... when he was nowhere to be seen behind you.  Then he happens to have teleported closer to the control panel, very convienent.  Poor/lazy writing.

* Illusive Man magically appears behind Shephard in the 'control room'.  More poor/lazy writing.

* Starkid AI.  LOL.  You don't introduce a 'magical higher power' in the last few moments of a story.  That's the worst form of Dues Ex Machina (not the lame video games).... which again, is poor/lazy writing TO THE EXTREME.

* The fact the Starkid AI is the Reaper King, Shephard's sworn enemy over the course of the trilogy... and that Shephard just accepts every word it speaks as truth, is poor/lazy writing.  Lets use an example, shall we?  You're a WWII soldier and you're about to wipe out the entire **** army, when Hitler himself magically appears.  He tells you, "You know, all this genocide and horrible mudering of innocents... it's all just a way to save humanity.  What you really need to do is....." would you listen to him, or put a bullet in his head?

* Joker is fleeing before Shephard makes his 'choice' and sets off whatever color beam of energy.   Even though he'd follow you into hell, and even though you basically had to rip him out of his seat in the opening of ME2...  And oh yeah, he managed to save your squad in the meantime, but nobody mentions that Shephard is nowhere to be found.  Poor/lazy writing.

* Assuming you get the 'best ending' (the only one with special footage only shown with extra high EMS)... Shephard still draws breath after FALLING OFF AN EXPLODING CITADEL, THRU EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE, AND TO THE GROUND.  All with his armor already melted/destroyed and with a Marauder Shields bullet in him as a bonus.  Yep, you guessed it.  Poor/lazy writing.

Now which 'theory' has more plot holes?

[jules_vern18]

dreman9999 wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

The main reason that the indoctrination theory is untrue is because Bioware hasn't made any reference to it. In what has quickly become a press disaster that is hurting both sales and the company image, Casey Hudson, Mac Walters, or Chris Priestly would have alluded to the fact that there was "more to the ending that meets the eye" in order to mitigate the horrible PR and fan outrage.

With even Fox and CNN covering the debacle, Bioware would have mentioned the indoctrination ending by now if it was true. They haven't; it's not.

What I wonder about is whether or not the indoctrination cultists will be able to accept this as fact once Bioware releases a more specific statement, or even when DLC is announced. What will it take to put this theory to rest, if anything?

They haven't made a reference to it because they are not ready to tell anyone about it. 

Why?  Why would they wait?  They would put their stock price in danger, have the market flooded with used copies of their game, sit through a 2 star rating on Amazon, have sales decrease, take criticism both from their core fans and the gaming community at large, and risk future sales just so they can hold of the reveal of their hidden ending?  For what?

It's fine if you want to adopt the indoctrination theory as an attempt to reconcile the nonsensical parts of the ending into something that provides closure or clarity for you.  But to assert that Bioware had this planned all along and they have simply chosen not to reveal it despite this whole debacle is borderline crazytown.

[Jaze55]

Also did you look at the video I posted showing Shepard looks at TIM when he says "they are controlling you?"

Here it is again so that part of you theory is gone.

MassEffected555 wrote...

Saku39 wrote...

I just can't believe how out to lunch some of you deniers are. Anderson looks RIGHT AT YOU and says "They're controlling YOU!". Not at TIM, at YOU, the player.

Does anyone who denies this theory have some kind of explanation of why the Destroy/4k EMS ending happens? Can someone explain why that's there? Because that, plus the Codex, plus the dreams, plus the foreshadowing, plus the Kid, plus the phantasmagoric, non-sensical Citadel walk through your memories, plus the everyone-dies ending, plus resurrected squad mates, all the BW tweets, just on and on, and on. You know what makes NO sense?

The idea that we saw the complete ending.

LOL NO HE DOESN'T he looks at TIM.

Wow you people will twist anything

LOOK -




Watch 12:05 .. Anderson say "They're controlling" looking at Shep then "YOU" and he looks DIRECTLY AT TIM.

HAHAHAHA so much delusion and truth warping going on in this thread.


Edit - In case you can't grasp what this means. He is looking at Shep because he has no control over his body. However when he looks at TIM and says YOU he breaks control for a second and is able to turn his head. DERP ok so that is out the window, or let me guess, that video was edited by Reapers to indoctrinate us into believing the Indoc Theory is not true. Right, RIGHT????!!!!!!

[Capeo]

vrumpt wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

One hole? There are several holes. The theory isn't even remotely true. It's the product of disgruntled fans looking for a rational reason for the state or the ending. Only it doesn't make sense. A lot of it is far fetched assumption.

-Polite

There cetainly are not, and it certainly is not.  It its the only thing that makes sense regarding the entire ending at all. Failure to acknowledge this just proves you are willing to not read into it at all and are using your initial assumptions as a misguided weapon.  

No. It makes no sense at all. Not even in the sense of lore. And it certainly makes no sense in light of objective evidence. Objective evidence is the script, Final Hours, dev comments, devs saying they're willing to change the ending (something they'd never do if there was a "real" ending waiting in the wings), the firestorm that BW is in that they could end in two seconds if there was another ending, and most of all what the game outright tells you. 

[sAxMoNkI]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Xerkysz wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Wait a minute, he's pointed out some inconsistencies and is asking for an explanation from a counter-theory and the best you've got is that he is an idiot?
On what grounds?
Why isn't he allowed to post here?

In terms of suspending disbelief having Shepard unconciosuly in London and imagining these events is every bit as plausible as him surviving re-entry to earth, through a vacuum, in an unsealed partially destroyed set of armour, after a cataclysmic explosion and still be breathing let alone not a charred hunk of carbon?

*snip*

* Assuming
you get the 'best ending' (the only one with special footage only shown
with extra high EMS)... Shephard
still draws breath in the ruins of the Citadel, which makes sense as
this is the only ending where he doesn't seem to disolve on a molecular
level. There are no indications whatsoever that point to him being
on earth.  In fact, considering that this was the "secret" ending,
wouldn't it have ended with a more obvious allusion to the
indoctrination theory if it were true?  Developers have been vague about
their endings before, but never that vague.

Fixed.

One question, where would the concrete rubble he is lying in have come from as the area where he is speaking to the catalyst is metal. Also in the ending you see the citadel fall apart. Not an attack on your post just curious for your thoughts.

Modifié par sAxMoNkI, 18 mars 2012 - 06:33 .