281 réponses à ce sujet

[Xerkysz]

MassEffected555 wrote...

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?

I was doing a bit of researching on this, and I came across something interesting.

The ending is a mess because the following was cut out (as late as Nov '11):
- Reapers indoctrinating and assuming control of Shepard during the TIM speech/battle

This was removed because even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

This part being cut out doesn't dismiss it and make it non-existent.

[Saile]

While I like the indoctrination theory... Saying that the destruction ending is the only good ending, doesn't sound like something Bioware would do to me. There has been some stuff establishing canons, but to say that one out of three endings is the right one... I don't know, I just don't think BW would do that.

[InfiniteDemise]

The real hole in this absurd theory is the real-world financial one.

You delusionists apparently believe that EA and Bioware would intentionally lose money and anger customers in order to...do what exactly? Laugh and point about how they fooled everyone?

[Jaze55]

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

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?

I was doing a bit of researching on this, and I came across something interesting.

The ending is a mess because the following was cut out (as late as Nov '11):
- Reapers indoctrinating and assuming control of Shepard during the TIM speech/battle

This was removed because even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

This part being cut out doesn't dismiss it and make it non-existent.

I already know that were thinking about it. I read the thing where they said they were trying to make a scene where we lost control of Shep from Indoc. but it was to hard to implement.

I also read that they planned on having Joker and the Normandy come down to fight Harrbringer, which would explain where Joker/Normandy were going and why they were in the relay. Sooooo if you are going to use a plan they had but didn't impletment into the game, then we also have to use the Joker/Normandy coming to fight Harrbringer as the reason to where Joker was going, so actually the ending we got makes perfect sense because of a few deleted scenes.


EDIT - I am putting this again because it gots lost on the last page and I want to make sure you see this and explain it to me. Sorry if you already saw but no one responded yet.

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????!!!!!!

 

Modifié par MassEffected555, 18 mars 2012 - 06:36 .

[Candidate 88766]

FirstBlood XL wrote...
-Snip-

Indoc has just as many flaws.

-Indoctrination isn't something you can 'break free' of through willpower, particularly if you've just been shot by a Reapers' laser.

-Indoctrination manifests itself through feelings of being watched to eventually hearing alien voices in your mind, which the codex says is pretty much the last stage. Not only is there no foreshadowing of this (dreams are just that - dreams. They don't indicate anything other than Shepard being haunted by the death of this one child), but the games and codex have never given any indication that indoctrination leads to full-blown hallucinations. 

-Indoctrination does not just happen instantly. It takes time. Given the lack of previous indications of it, it cannot just happen instantly because Harbinger is near.

-Bioware wouldn't end ME3 before the ME story is over. In all the indoc theory endings, the Reapers are yet to be defeated. Bioware isn't going to one of their most succesful series, one of the highest rated series of all time, without ending the story.

-Bioware wouldn't play the same cutscenes in both the 'success' ending and the 'failure' ending. Its just illogical.

-The 'true' ending of Shepard waking up disproves the theory. Shepard is clearly somewhere else when he wakes up - he is surrounded by large piles of rubble, whereas the land in front of the Conduit is pretty flat and scorched. Not to mentioned bathed in a blue glow. This means either the rubble has appeared from nowhere, in which case the Conduit has been turned off (Shepard fails in eveyr ending if this is the case, which Bioware wouldn't do) or Shepard is still indoctrinated (again, every ending leads to Shepard failing). If Shepard had been moved by any of his team, they wouldn't have just abandoned him on a pile of rubble, and if he had been captured by the enemy, again they wouldn't have just left him lying around on his own.

-The game outright tells you that, in what you just played and saw, that Shepard ended the Reaper threat. Not that he will go on to do so later, or that the next Cycle uses Liara's beacons, or that someone else enters the Citadel and ends the Reeaper threat, or that you will end the threat in DLC, but that in what you literally just played and saw, Shepard ended the Reaper threat. This is simply not the case if the indoc theory is true.

Does the theory have less plotholes than the real endings? Yes.

Does that make them right? No.

Both the real endings and this theory are full of holes in both logic and lore.

[sAxMoNkI]

Sailers wrote...

While I like the indoctrination theory... Saying that the destruction ending is the only good ending, doesn't sound like something Bioware would do to me. There has been some stuff establishing canons, but to say that one out of three endings is the right one... I don't know, I just don't think BW would do that.

But in terms of Indoc theory the destroy "ending" isnt the ending but a means of accessing the actual conclusion with end choices etc etc.

[Jaze55]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

The real hole in this absurd theory is the real-world financial one.

You delusionists apparently believe that EA and Bioware would intentionally lose money and anger customers in order to...do what exactly? Laugh and point about how they fooled everyone?

lol apparantly common sense is hard to come by these days.

[Fingertrip]

I love how you try to contradict a proof. It has to do with enough willpower to actually resist the indoctrination, and if you don't have enough, you're still going to fall for Indoctrination.

Counter-proof'd. Problem?

[Candidate 88766]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Sailers wrote...

While I like the indoctrination theory... Saying that the destruction ending is the only good ending, doesn't sound like something Bioware would do to me. There has been some stuff establishing canons, but to say that one out of three endings is the right one... I don't know, I just don't think BW would do that.

But in terms of Indoc theory the destroy "ending" isnt the ending but a means of accessing the actual conclusion with end choices etc etc.

Bioware releasing the concluding part to one their most successful franchises without its actual ending is just too muhc of a stretch to be believable.

[Xerkysz]

Sailers wrote...

While I like the indoctrination theory... Saying that the destruction ending is the only good ending, doesn't sound like something Bioware would do to me. There has been some stuff establishing canons, but to say that one out of three endings is the right one... I don't know, I just don't think BW would do that.

The reason I say it's the good ending is because you're doing the one thing you have set out to do since the beginning of ME1/2, destroy the reapers and bring peace to the Galaxy.

If you choose Control/Synth you're not destroying them.

There was a leaked rumor about a DLC coming up in April/May where they continued off the plot most people are trying to make sense of at this time. All 3 choices would let you continue, if you had the EMS to survive, but choosing control/synth would have a serious impact on the rest of the game. Take note this is a leaked rumor, whether you get to continue from all 3 choices or just destroy is a different story.

Modifié par Xerkysz, 18 mars 2012 - 06:39 .

[FirstBlood XL]

So far the best defense against Indoc Theory is that Bioware ended the game in a mess of sloppy/disgraceful writing/editing.

[Xerkysz]

FirstBlood XL wrote...

So far the best defense against Indoc Theory is that Bioware ended the game in a mess of sloppy/disgraceful writing/editing.

The best defense against it, and the best offense against the companies future, they would be stupid to do this.

[Capeo]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

The real hole in this absurd theory is the real-world financial one.

You delusionists apparently believe that EA and Bioware would intentionally lose money and anger customers in order to...do what exactly? Laugh and point about how they fooled everyone?

Thank you. On top of that they would have had to release an incomplete game to reviewers. What is the press supposed to recant their reviews and review it again when the "real" ending is released?  It's absurd. And it's financial suicide. 

[Candidate 88766]

FirstBlood XL wrote...

So far the best defense against Indoc Theory is that Bioware ended the game in a mess of sloppy/disgraceful writing/editing.

Whats more likely:

-Bioware ended ME3 badly.

-Bioware didn't end ME3 at all.

[jules_vern18]

sAxMoNkI wrote...

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.

I've heard this argument before, and I'm pretty sure that the rubble at the end of ME3 looks pretty similar to the rubble Shep comes out of at the end of ME1 - both on the Citadel.  Yes, it does sort of look like concrete - I'm guessing that room he was in was metal paneling over concrete or some other mineral substance.  Even in the future, it wouldn't be necessary or cost effective to build any structure purely out of metal. 

If you were on the international space station and looked at an interior wall to see a metal or plastic panel, would you assume that the entire station was made of metal or plastic through and through?

But even arguing about this is silly.  Even if the "concrete" rubble didn't make sense (and I think it can be justified quite easily), that doesn't mean that it absolutely had to be on earth.  It could be that Bioware art design was tasked with making rubble and decided to model concrete, which is almost always found in scenes of rubble.  They probably just didn't think about the fact that there isn't concrete on the citadel (which we have no proof of; there may be).

Almost every piece of "evidence" for the indoctrination theory can just as easily be chalked up to bad writing, sloppy art design, and a rushed finish to an otherwise great game.  All of the evidence put forward by the Cult of Indoctrination has been speculative, contingent upon assumptions, and distracting from our overall aim of pressing Bioware for alternate-ending DLC.  

I'm not saying it's not an interesting theory or that you shouldn't be able to craft whatever theory you need to make sense out of this horrible ending.  But to say that Bioware had it planned all along and just hasn't let us know despite our outrage just doesn't make any sense. 

Bioware did not design the Indoctrination ending - you guys did.  And that's fine.  It's just really going to suck when they open a dialogue on the ending and this theory gets more and more debunked/invalidated.

[CerealWar]

There's more in-game proof backing up Indoctrination Theory than out of game proof claiming that the ending is meant to be left as is. There also hasn't been any official statements that counters indoctrination theory, just cryptic messages left by staff, hinting at future content. The very nature of indoctrination theory also counters releases like "The Last Hour" app, since Indoctrination Theoryis based off of BW tricking us in the first place. That's probably why we're accused of wearing tinfoil hats D: No matter what's said, the conspiracy can't be laid to rest.

Modifié par CerealWar, 18 mars 2012 - 06:42 .

[pharsti]

The simplest hole in the theory is this: Its not true, youre just making stuff up, those were the endings, stop being in denial.

[Jaze55]

I like how my post with the video showing you how completely wrong you guys are about Anderson looking at Shepard and not TIM when Anderson says "They're controlling you" is being completely ignored. HERE IS IS AGAIN I want to hear the explanation on that one.

[quote]MassEffected555 wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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????!!!!!!

[/quote]

[/quote]

[Kanon777]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

The real hole in this absurd theory is the real-world financial one.

You delusionists apparently believe that EA and Bioware would intentionally lose money and anger customers in order to...do what exactly? Laugh and point about how they fooled everyone?

This, i used to believe in the theory but this reason alone is enough to dismiss it. At least we can ask Bioware to make an ending based on it...

[Xerkysz]

jules_vern18 wrote...


Bioware did not design the Indoctrination ending - you guys did.  And that's fine.  It's just really going to suck when they open a dialogue on the ending and this theory gets more and more debunked/invalidated.

From what I read,
The ending is a mess because the following was cut out (as late as Nov '11):
- Reapers indoctrinating and assuming control of Shepard during this speech/battle

This was removed because even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

BioWare did.

[Jaze55]

pharsti wrote...

The simplest hole in the theory is this: Its not true, youre just making stuff up, those were the endings, stop being in denial.

[eddieoctane]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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:

Candidate 88766 wrote...

-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.

1: Shep could have been knocked away when he was blasted by Harbinger. Grenades can knock enemies around, I would expect the blast from Harbinger's main gun to at least knock up some dust.
2: Lodon does have an undergound mass-transit system. Who's to say he didn't fall into a (plot)hole the Reaper attack opened up.
3: If position the camera between shep and the "magic reaper space elevator", you could looka t one or the other, but not both. There is nothing to indicate that that the elevator would still be in frame.

No theory, including "that's just how it is going to be, deal" makes perfect sense. Some don't work in-game. Some don't work in reality. Ignoring the business side of the debate is foolhardy. And once you factor that in, the indoctrination theory gains mroe credence.

[Candidate 88766]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

The real hole in this absurd theory is the real-world financial one.

You delusionists apparently believe that EA and Bioware would intentionally lose money and anger customers in order to...do what exactly? Laugh and point about how they fooled everyone?

This. 

There is simply no reason whatsover for Bioware to release ME3 without a proper ending.

The ME series is one of the most critically successful series of all time. It is one of Bioware's most succssful franchises, one with a massive and highly devoted fanbase.

They simply would not end ME3 before the end of the story. 

For all the (actually somewhat compelling) evidence for the theory, it simply cannot overcome this point. Common sense dictates that the theory must be wrong - Bioware wouldn't conclude ME3 before the conclusion of the ME story.

[NeitherNor]

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..

I'm still in the 'Bioware messed it up because they couldn't get the final scenes (the boss fight with TIM etc.) right and ran out of time'-camp, but leaving that aside for the moment as it's not really relevant here...:

I do have some questions about this theory, still. I'd appreciate to hear some thoughts.

• Is Shepard knocked out by the Reaper's beam, and, as a result, always physically in London during the ending sequence?
• Is the entire Citadel sequence, the conversation with 'Anderson' and 'TIM', a manifestation of Shepard's inner conflict as she struggles to maintain control of her mind (the first mind-battle with the Reapers)?
• Is the conversation with the Catalyst all in Shepard's mind as a last-ditch effort by the Reapers attempting to indoctrinate her with the express aim of making her give up (the second mind-battle with the Reapers)?

If the answer to those, or any of those, is yes, then:

• What difference does it make what Shepard decides? After all, it's one thing to make a choice, it's quite another to put it into effect. She is not near the Citadel. She is not near the Crucible. She is still in London, probably bleeding to death. Why would the Reapers bother with her? She failed: she is no longer a threat.
• If it does matter what she decides, how does that influence the Crucible? Who activates it? Can Shepard control the crucible from underneath a pile of rubble? Does the Catalyst do it because he lost a mental sparring match?
• Or is even the supposed activation of the Crucible a total fiction and is Shepard, all the way up to the Stargazer scene, just delirious and slowly bleeding out in the streets of London while the Reapers continue their Harvest?

I'm as annoyed by the complete weirdness of the ending, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how this theory would actually work.

Modifié par NeitherNor, 18 mars 2012 - 06:46 .

[Kanon777]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

The real hole in this absurd theory is the real-world financial one.

You delusionists apparently believe that EA and Bioware would intentionally lose money and anger customers in order to...do what exactly? Laugh and point about how they fooled everyone?

Im quoting this again because nothing else needs to be said. It dosent matter how much sense the theory makes, it dosent matter if it fixes the plotholes or if there are clues all over the game. The quote above is the only reason i need to dismiss the theory...