758 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaze55]

Rusty0918 wrote...

Bittersweet could mean that the galaxy is in horrible shape after defeating the Reapers. Heck, it's going to be trouble to rebuild. Earth is REALLY shot up after it.

Indoctrination makes sense. Space Magic doesn't.

If you look in the C:Program Files (x86)Origin GamesMass Effect 3BIOGameMovies, you'll see two files: End03_Shepard_Alive_Fem.bik and End03_Shepard_Alive_Male.bik. And the scene where you see him or her breathing in the rubble suggests an attempt at indoctrination.

Again, the clues strongly support the Indoc. Theory.

Go read all my posts that use in game laws and mechanics to prove the theory is wrong. Please read the entire thread before you jump in and make comments because people in here have given proof and logical examples why the theory is wrong. 

[Jaze55]

Grusome11 wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

I still haven't heard anything about what happens to Shepard after the Indoc?

So what happens after does he:

Go insane
Become no longer able to take care of himself
kill himself
have a freind kill him
gets locked in a psych ward
turn into a husk

because according to the games laws and mechanics these are the only possible outcomes.

SO, what one do we have to look forward to for our beloved Shepard?

He is not indoctrinated if you choose the destroy option. Otherwise he is indoctrinated. I don't know what happens after he is indoctrinated, they don't give us any info.

If he's not indoctrinated, then why is he hallucinating?

Indoctrination causes permanent changes to the subject's mind. This cannot be undone with willpower.

Go find in this thread, and I put it twice about when you start the game and the PSYCOLOGICAL PROFILE 

Its clearly explains Shep has PTSD right there, which is why he is having NIGHTMARES not Indoc dreams. 

edit- and you are right it IS permanant which makes this theory even more abysmal. 

HUSK Shepard in ME4

He could be seeing things due to their attempts to indoc him. Or they do indoc him and he is able to overcome it with willpower. Just because you or the codex or not one else has done it, doesn't me Shep cannot. Remember, Shep is the hero, he does things no one else can. Whether resisting the Reaper indoc is within his abilities, I don't know, but it is within the realm of what the wirters might do.

As for the dream kid, it could be PTSD or indoc, we don't know. The point is that it can be used to support the indoc theory, which is a theory, not a proven fact. Even if the dreams are PTSD, it doesn't mean Reapers are not trying to indoc Shep. Or perhaps they are using his PTSD to try and indoc him.

See how I did that?

Once again there is no 'attempt" they just do it. According to in game lore and mechanics.

[ArkkAngel007]

Aanlen wrote...

Captain Shakespeare wrote...

Let's clarify. No one is right, no one is wrong. Not yet, at least. This is a textbook case of Shrodinger's cat. Neither side has adequate proof to state with certainty that they are correct. So until an official statement is made, you're arguing a moot point.

This forever. I for one HOPE the indoc theory is right, because the ending is so bad that the only explanation in my mind is that it must be a dream. Even when it probably is just completely ASS writing.

Further support.  This just makes for good discussion, and could go either way or neither.  That's not our call, and nor is anyone specifically arguing the necessity of DLC for IT or otherwise, though it would be nice.  It's just different ways of looking at the ending, just like there are people out there who genuinely liked the ending or didn't care either way for them, and just like how many felt the whole game was an ending.  

No one should say either side is fact, and neither side should be trashing the other.  Discussion is great and healthy for the community.  But the hard liners who just want to stamp out anything that deviates from the village burning, or that push that everything is a-ok with how everything was done both in the game and business-wise, need to open their eyes a bit more and take in the entire situation and consider others' views beyond just reading to figure out how they can trash it.

[Mann42]

As late as November, the developers were considering at least one drastically different ending that was eventually scrapped. The sequence would have seen the player lose control of Commander Shepard, revealing that he or she had actually been indoctrinated by the Reapers. This ending was eventually cut for technical reasons, as the team was having a hard time making the gameplay mechanic work alongside dialogue choices.

Does anyone know what the original quote from the developers as found in the app was? I know it's paraphrased at http://www.gameranx....versial-ending/, but I don't have access to an iOS machine so I can't reference it.

The reason I ask is that the quote specifically mentions the 'gameplay mechanic' of indoctrination not working along dialogue. I'm a game designer by trade and this sounds more like they're talking about the specific mechanic of taking control away from the player as not working. Removing player control is commonly known among developers to be a difficult thing to implement because players generally resent not having control over their actions. It would have made the ending hate significantly worse.

But they didn't scrap it entirely, because there is a sequence where the Illusive Man magically 'forces' you to shoot Anderson, apparently through Reaper Indoctrination magic that he manages to use on you once and never again, despite the fact that control can only be taken from you if you are actually in the process of being indoctrinated. Nobody in the entire series, except for Morinth, has exhibited the ability to control another being unless the target was indoctrinated, or on their way to indoctrination. 

No, I think they decided that if they were going to indoctrinate you at the end, it couldn't be through a gameplay mechanic... it had to be through a narrative trick, which is exactly what the Indoctrination Theory represents.

You had to choose to be indoctrinated. The pinnacle of choice in a video game. 

Entirely through visuals and dialogue, Bioware manages to trick you into allowing the Reapers to live and indoctrinate yourself. That's not a gameplay mechanic, it's a brilliant execution of a narrative deception. 

Provided, of course, that it was intended. But for what it's worth, when I played through the ending, the first thing I thought when I met the Starchild was "You're a Reaper, no way am I going to trust a word that comes out of your mouth", followed by my enthusiastic rush to the Destroy ending. I only read of the Indoctrination Theory later, but it filled in all the holes and logic-gaps I saw while playing. 

The fact that the Destroy ending can result in Shepard living, despite the fact that all Synethics are supposedly destroyed, is all the proof I needed to know the Starchild was full of reaper crap. 

Modifié par nexworks, 19 mars 2012 - 07:38 .

[Jaze55]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Aanlen wrote...

Captain Shakespeare wrote...

Let's clarify. No one is right, no one is wrong. Not yet, at least. This is a textbook case of Shrodinger's cat. Neither side has adequate proof to state with certainty that they are correct. So until an official statement is made, you're arguing a moot point.

This forever. I for one HOPE the indoc theory is right, because the ending is so bad that the only explanation in my mind is that it must be a dream. Even when it probably is just completely ASS writing.

Further support.  This just makes for good discussion, and could go either way or neither.  That's not our call, and nor is anyone specifically arguing the necessity of DLC for IT or otherwise, though it would be nice.  It's just different ways of looking at the ending, just like there are people out there who genuinely liked the ending or didn't care either way for them, and just like how many felt the whole game was an ending.  

No one should say either side is fact, and neither side should be trashing the other.  Discussion is great and healthy for the community.  But the hard liners who just want to stamp out anything that deviates from the village burning, or that push that everything is a-ok with how everything was done both in the game and business-wise, need to open their eyes a bit more and take in the entire situation and consider others' views beyond just reading to figure out how they can trash it.

No breaking every single piece of lore about indoctrination to support some far fetched irrational theory is not ok. And I am discussing why. 

[Midnight Eternal]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Aanlen wrote...

Captain Shakespeare wrote...

Let's clarify. No one is right, no one is wrong. Not yet, at least. This is a textbook case of Shrodinger's cat. Neither side has adequate proof to state with certainty that they are correct. So until an official statement is made, you're arguing a moot point.

This forever. I for one HOPE the indoc theory is right, because the ending is so bad that the only explanation in my mind is that it must be a dream. Even when it probably is just completely ASS writing.

Further support.  This just makes for good discussion, and could go either way or neither.  That's not our call, and nor is anyone specifically arguing the necessity of DLC for IT or otherwise, though it would be nice.  It's just different ways of looking at the ending, just like there are people out there who genuinely liked the ending or didn't care either way for them, and just like how many felt the whole game was an ending.  

No one should say either side is fact, and neither side should be trashing the other.  Discussion is great and healthy for the community.  But the hard liners who just want to stamp out anything that deviates from the village burning, or that push that everything is a-ok with how everything was done both in the game and business-wise, need to open their eyes a bit more and take in the entire situation and consider others' views beyond just reading to figure out how they can trash it.

You sir, are one of the most rational humans I have never met.

[Jaze55]

nexworks wrote...

And as for complaints that the game's three endings don't provide enough variety? As late as November, the developers were considering at least one drastically different ending that was eventually scrapped. The sequence would have seen the player lose control of Commander Shepard, revealing that he or she had actually been indoctrinated by the Reapers. This ending was eventually cut for technical reasons, as the team was having a hard time making the gameplay mechanic work alongside dialogue choices.

Does anyone know what the original quote from the developers as found in the app was? I know it's paraphrased at http://www.gameranx....versial-ending/, but I don't have access to an iOS machine so I can't reference it.

The reason I ask is that the quote specifically mentions the 'gameplay mechanic' of indoctrination not working along dialogue. I'm a game designer by trade and this sounds more like they're talking about the specific mechanic of taking control away from the player as not working. Removing player control is commonly known among developers to be a difficult thing to implement because players generally resent not having control over their actions. It would have made the ending hate significantly worse.

But they didn't scrap it entirely, because there is a sequence where the Illusive Man magically 'forces' you to shoot Anderson, apparently through Reaper Indoctrination magic that he manages to use one you once and never again, despite the fact that control can only be taken from you if you are actually in the process of being indoctrinated.

No, I think they decided that if they were going to indoctrinate you at the end, it couldn't be through a gameplay mechanic... it had to be through a narrative trick, which is exactly what the Indoctrination Theory represents.

Entirely through visuals and dialogue, Bioware manages to trick you into allowing the Reapers to live and indoctrinate yourself. That's not a gameplay mechanic, it's a brilliant execution of a narrative deception. 

Provided, of course, that it was intended. But for what it's worth, when I played through the ending, the first thing I thought when I met the Starchild was "You're a Reaper, no way am I going to trust a word that comes out of your mouth", followed by my enthusiastic rush to the Destroy ending. I only read of the Indoctrination Theory later, but it filled in all the holes and logic-gaps I saw while playing. 

The fact that the Destroy ending can result in Shepard living, despite the fact that all Synethics are supposedly destroyed, is all the proof I needed to know the Starchild was full of reaper crap. 

And then the only possible outcomes for Shepard are

Turning into a Husk
Suicide
Brain dead vegi
Insane


According to in game lore and mechanics. Clearly states indoc effects are irreversable so thanks a lot for making an ending where Shepard turns into a Husk, as I am sure that's what everyone always wanted for Shepard.

And again, if Shepard is magically to defeat indoctrination, when no one in Mass Effects history has been able to do that then space magic is 100% valid.

Really all this theory supports is that space magic is OK since its fine to break all the laws in the final 10 minutes to allow Shep to be the only one in the history or ME to break completely free of Indoc. 

[SirCroft]

MassEffected555 wrote...

SirCroft wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

I still haven't heard anything about what happens to Shepard after the Indoc?

So what happens after does he:

Go insane
Become no longer able to take care of himself
kill himself
have a freind kill him
gets locked in a psych ward
turn into a husk

because according to the games laws and mechanics these are the only possible outcomes.

SO, what one do we have to look forward to for our beloved Shepard?

He is not indoctrinated if you choose the destroy option. Otherwise he is indoctrinated. I don't know what happens after he is indoctrinated, they don't give us any info.

If he's not indoctrinated, then why is he hallucinating?

Indoctrination causes permanent changes to the subject's mind. This cannot be undone with willpower.

As I said in another post, the codex is nto the final say. It represents what we know, not what is true. The writers can bend those "rules" to present further info.

This is not to say that IT is true. I think it is the most logical theory and fixes a lot of the plot holes, but you may be right. But you should at least acknowledge that there is enough wiggle room for the writers to exploit to support the theory that Sheppard is not indoc'd, they try to do it, it can fail, he might be special enough to reisist, or he may be able to go on after to defeat the Reapers.

Remember that BW has stated that they want a bittersweet ending. Could that ending be that he is indoc'd but can resist long enough to destroy the Reapers, then he blows his brains out?

I don't know, but I could write it so it seemed plausible.

ANSWER ME - WHY can they ONLY bend the rules for Shepard when it supports you theory but when they bend the rules with Space  magic its NOT ok.

AGAIN because you ONLY look at things in a way that support YOU. 

Well, I think tweaking how indoctrination works isn't as bad as negating a huge chunk of the trilogy and players' decisions through space magic.

No sorry its not "tweaking" it's completely breaking every mechanic they ever set up in the history of the game. 

What if the only part where Shepard is being indoctrinated is after being hit by Harbinger's beam? He certainly didn't stay there for enough time to become a mindless slave, he could still break free from it while Harbinger was attempting to control him for the first time.
I think the relation between his dreams and the scenario around him when he wakes up (The three that wasn't there, for instance) has more to do with how Shepard's mind is picturing the indoctrination like he was dreaming, not that his dreams were induced by indoctrination.

Modifié par SirCroft, 19 mars 2012 - 07:38 .

[Midnight Eternal]

MassEffected555 wrote...

nexworks wrote...

And as for complaints that the game's three endings don't provide enough variety? As late as November, the developers were considering at least one drastically different ending that was eventually scrapped. The sequence would have seen the player lose control of Commander Shepard, revealing that he or she had actually been indoctrinated by the Reapers. This ending was eventually cut for technical reasons, as the team was having a hard time making the gameplay mechanic work alongside dialogue choices.

Does anyone know what the original quote from the developers as found in the app was? I know it's paraphrased at http://www.gameranx....versial-ending/, but I don't have access to an iOS machine so I can't reference it.

The reason I ask is that the quote specifically mentions the 'gameplay mechanic' of indoctrination not working along dialogue. I'm a game designer by trade and this sounds more like they're talking about the specific mechanic of taking control away from the player as not working. Removing player control is commonly known among developers to be a difficult thing to implement because players generally resent not having control over their actions. It would have made the ending hate significantly worse.

But they didn't scrap it entirely, because there is a sequence where the Illusive Man magically 'forces' you to shoot Anderson, apparently through Reaper Indoctrination magic that he manages to use one you once and never again, despite the fact that control can only be taken from you if you are actually in the process of being indoctrinated.

No, I think they decided that if they were going to indoctrinate you at the end, it couldn't be through a gameplay mechanic... it had to be through a narrative trick, which is exactly what the Indoctrination Theory represents.

Entirely through visuals and dialogue, Bioware manages to trick you into allowing the Reapers to live and indoctrinate yourself. That's not a gameplay mechanic, it's a brilliant execution of a narrative deception. 

Provided, of course, that it was intended. But for what it's worth, when I played through the ending, the first thing I thought when I met the Starchild was "You're a Reaper, no way am I going to trust a word that comes out of your mouth", followed by my enthusiastic rush to the Destroy ending. I only read of the Indoctrination Theory later, but it filled in all the holes and logic-gaps I saw while playing. 

The fact that the Destroy ending can result in Shepard living, despite the fact that all Synethics are supposedly destroyed, is all the proof I needed to know the Starchild was full of reaper crap. 

And then the only possible outcomes for Shepard are

Turning into a Husk
Suicide
Brain dead vegi
Insane


According to in game lore and mechanics. Clearly states indoc effects are irreversable so thanks a lot for making an ending where Shepard turns into a Husk, as I am sure that's what everyone always wanted for Shepard.

And again, if Shepard is magically to defeat indoctrination, when no one in Mass Effects history has been able to do that then space magic is 100% valid.

Really all this theory supports is that space magic is OK since its fine to break all the laws in the final 10 minutes to allow Shep to be the only one in the history or ME to break completely free of Indoc. 

I'm so sorry you have to keep repeating yourself. I wouldnt say they need to read the entire thread but at least the past 3 or 4 pages before jumping in. You must be getting sick of reposting.

[Jaze55]

SirCroft wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

SirCroft wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

I still haven't heard anything about what happens to Shepard after the Indoc?

So what happens after does he:

Go insane
Become no longer able to take care of himself
kill himself
have a freind kill him
gets locked in a psych ward
turn into a husk

because according to the games laws and mechanics these are the only possible outcomes.

SO, what one do we have to look forward to for our beloved Shepard?

He is not indoctrinated if you choose the destroy option. Otherwise he is indoctrinated. I don't know what happens after he is indoctrinated, they don't give us any info.

If he's not indoctrinated, then why is he hallucinating?

Indoctrination causes permanent changes to the subject's mind. This cannot be undone with willpower.

As I said in another post, the codex is nto the final say. It represents what we know, not what is true. The writers can bend those "rules" to present further info.

This is not to say that IT is true. I think it is the most logical theory and fixes a lot of the plot holes, but you may be right. But you should at least acknowledge that there is enough wiggle room for the writers to exploit to support the theory that Sheppard is not indoc'd, they try to do it, it can fail, he might be special enough to reisist, or he may be able to go on after to defeat the Reapers.

Remember that BW has stated that they want a bittersweet ending. Could that ending be that he is indoc'd but can resist long enough to destroy the Reapers, then he blows his brains out?

I don't know, but I could write it so it seemed plausible.

ANSWER ME - WHY can they ONLY bend the rules for Shepard when it supports you theory but when they bend the rules with Space  magic its NOT ok.

AGAIN because you ONLY look at things in a way that support YOU. 

Well, I think tweaking how indoctrination works isn't as bad as negating a huge chunk of the trilogy and players' decisions through space magic.

No sorry its not "tweaking" it's completely breaking every mechanic they ever set up in the history of the game. 

What if the only part where Shepard is being indoctrinated is after being hit by Harbinger's beam? He certainly didn't stay there for enough time to become a mindless slave, he could still break free from it while Harbinger was attempting to control him for the first time.
I think the relation between his dreams and the scenario around him when he wakes up (The three that wasn't there, for instance) has more to do with how Shepard's mind is picturing the indoctrination like he was dreaming, not that his dreams were induced by indoctrination.

Everyone else in the history of Mass Effect was only able to break free for a few minutes to kill themselves and allowing Shepard to be the only one, ever, to be able to do that elevates him to a status above the starkid and all space magic combined. 

[j78]

 
Is Sheppard Organic or some kind of highbred in tims base the videos said he was brain dead . It posed the question is this the same man he was before or is he something else . Is this Sheppard or not Sheppard ,was a theme with LI going on all through the game . I think the Indoctrination thing was how they intended to go with the story but it got cut.    The sequence would have seen the player lose control of Commander Shepard, revealing that he or she had actually been indoctrinated by the Reapers. This ending was eventually cut for technical reasons, as the team was having a hard time making the gameplay mechanic work alongside dialogue choic

Modifié par j78, 19 mars 2012 - 07:43 .

[Malanek]

nexworks wrote...

As late as November, the developers were considering at least one drastically different ending that was eventually scrapped. The sequence would have seen the player lose control of Commander Shepard, revealing that he or she had actually been indoctrinated by the Reapers. This ending was eventually cut for technical reasons, as the team was having a hard time making the gameplay mechanic work alongside dialogue choices.

Does anyone know what the original quote from the developers as found in the app was? I know it's paraphrased at http://www.gameranx....versial-ending/, but I don't have access to an iOS machine so I can't reference it.

The reason I ask is that the quote specifically mentions the 'gameplay mechanic' of indoctrination not working along dialogue. I'm a game designer by trade and this sounds more like they're talking about the specific mechanic of taking control away from the player as not working. Removing player control is commonly known among developers to be a difficult thing to implement because players generally resent not having control over their actions. It would have made the ending hate significantly worse.

But they didn't scrap it entirely, because there is a sequence where the Illusive Man magically 'forces' you to shoot Anderson, apparently through Reaper Indoctrination magic that he manages to use on you once and never again, despite the fact that control can only be taken from you if you are actually in the process of being indoctrinated. Nobody in the entire series, except for Morinth, has exhibited the ability to control another being unless the target was indoctrinated, or on their way to indoctrination. 

No, I think they decided that if they were going to indoctrinate you at the end, it couldn't be through a gameplay mechanic... it had to be through a narrative trick, which is exactly what the Indoctrination Theory represents.

You had to choose to be indoctrinated. The pinnacle of choice in a video game. 

Entirely through visuals and dialogue, Bioware manages to trick you into allowing the Reapers to live and indoctrinate yourself. That's not a gameplay mechanic, it's a brilliant execution of a narrative deception. 

Provided, of course, that it was intended. But for what it's worth, when I played through the ending, the first thing I thought when I met the Starchild was "You're a Reaper, no way am I going to trust a word that comes out of your mouth", followed by my enthusiastic rush to the Destroy ending. I only read of the Indoctrination Theory later, but it filled in all the holes and logic-gaps I saw while playing. 

The fact that the Destroy ending can result in Shepard living, despite the fact that all Synethics are supposedly destroyed, is all the proof I needed to know the Starchild was full of reaper crap. 

Good post. That's more or less what I thought. They said they dropped the mechanic where the player lost control of Shepards movement, so yes doing it through the narative is much better implementation. But just listening to Bioware staff, I now get the impression they didn't actually make a decision. They left it so they could take it in whatever direction they wanted to.

Modifié par Malanek999, 19 mars 2012 - 07:45 .

[SirCroft]

MassEffected555 wrote...

SirCroft wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

SirCroft wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

I still haven't heard anything about what happens to Shepard after the Indoc?

So what happens after does he:

Go insane
Become no longer able to take care of himself
kill himself
have a freind kill him
gets locked in a psych ward
turn into a husk

because according to the games laws and mechanics these are the only possible outcomes.

SO, what one do we have to look forward to for our beloved Shepard?

He is not indoctrinated if you choose the destroy option. Otherwise he is indoctrinated. I don't know what happens after he is indoctrinated, they don't give us any info.

If he's not indoctrinated, then why is he hallucinating?

Indoctrination causes permanent changes to the subject's mind. This cannot be undone with willpower.

As I said in another post, the codex is nto the final say. It represents what we know, not what is true. The writers can bend those "rules" to present further info.

This is not to say that IT is true. I think it is the most logical theory and fixes a lot of the plot holes, but you may be right. But you should at least acknowledge that there is enough wiggle room for the writers to exploit to support the theory that Sheppard is not indoc'd, they try to do it, it can fail, he might be special enough to reisist, or he may be able to go on after to defeat the Reapers.

Remember that BW has stated that they want a bittersweet ending. Could that ending be that he is indoc'd but can resist long enough to destroy the Reapers, then he blows his brains out?

I don't know, but I could write it so it seemed plausible.

ANSWER ME - WHY can they ONLY bend the rules for Shepard when it supports you theory but when they bend the rules with Space  magic its NOT ok.

AGAIN because you ONLY look at things in a way that support YOU. 

Well, I think tweaking how indoctrination works isn't as bad as negating a huge chunk of the trilogy and players' decisions through space magic.

No sorry its not "tweaking" it's completely breaking every mechanic they ever set up in the history of the game. 

What if the only part where Shepard is being indoctrinated is after being hit by Harbinger's beam? He certainly didn't stay there for enough time to become a mindless slave, he could still break free from it while Harbinger was attempting to control him for the first time.
I think the relation between his dreams and the scenario around him when he wakes up (The three that wasn't there, for instance) has more to do with how Shepard's mind is picturing the indoctrination like he was dreaming, not that his dreams were induced by indoctrination.

Everyone else in the history of Mass Effect was only able to break free for a few minutes to kill themselves and allowing Shepard to be the only one, ever, to be able to do that elevates him to a status above the starkid and all space magic combined. 

If people usuall take a week to become fully indoctrinated, why would the same happen to Shepard in 20 minutes? Or even hours, if you're willing to consider how dreams usually work, it's still wouldn't be enough to turn Shepard into a mindless slave.
The cases your point out of people being able to break free for a few minutes to kill themselves are people that were indoctrinated for far more time than Shepard would have after being hit by Harbinger's beam.

[Jaze55]

j78 wrote...


 
Is Sheppard Organic or some kind of highbred in tims base the videos said he was brain dead . It posed the question is this the same man he was before or is he something else . Is this Sheppard or not Sheppard ,was a theme with LI going on all through the game . I think the Indoctrination thing was how they intended to go with the story but it got cut.    The sequence would have seen the player lose control of Commander Shepard, revealing that he or she had actually been indoctrinated by the Reapers. This ending was eventually cut for technical reasons, as the team was having a hard time making the gameplay mechanic work alongside dialogue choic

Yes it was cut, but again, according to in game laws and mechanics even the beginning stages of indoctrination, which are sublte, wouldn't have allowed Shepard to hinder the Reapers in any way.

"Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations.Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable, Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years.
Why would they have let him do anything then to hinder them?

[Hernok]

And the Protean? Or some biotics like the Asari, can see if you are adoctrinated or no!

[Jaze55]

SirCroft wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

SirCroft wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

SirCroft wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

I still haven't heard anything about what happens to Shepard after the Indoc?

So what happens after does he:

Go insane
Become no longer able to take care of himself
kill himself
have a freind kill him
gets locked in a psych ward
turn into a husk

because according to the games laws and mechanics these are the only possible outcomes.

SO, what one do we have to look forward to for our beloved Shepard?

He is not indoctrinated if you choose the destroy option. Otherwise he is indoctrinated. I don't know what happens after he is indoctrinated, they don't give us any info.

If he's not indoctrinated, then why is he hallucinating?

Indoctrination causes permanent changes to the subject's mind. This cannot be undone with willpower.

As I said in another post, the codex is nto the final say. It represents what we know, not what is true. The writers can bend those "rules" to present further info.

This is not to say that IT is true. I think it is the most logical theory and fixes a lot of the plot holes, but you may be right. But you should at least acknowledge that there is enough wiggle room for the writers to exploit to support the theory that Sheppard is not indoc'd, they try to do it, it can fail, he might be special enough to reisist, or he may be able to go on after to defeat the Reapers.

Remember that BW has stated that they want a bittersweet ending. Could that ending be that he is indoc'd but can resist long enough to destroy the Reapers, then he blows his brains out?

I don't know, but I could write it so it seemed plausible.

ANSWER ME - WHY can they ONLY bend the rules for Shepard when it supports you theory but when they bend the rules with Space  magic its NOT ok.

AGAIN because you ONLY look at things in a way that support YOU. 

Well, I think tweaking how indoctrination works isn't as bad as negating a huge chunk of the trilogy and players' decisions through space magic.

No sorry its not "tweaking" it's completely breaking every mechanic they ever set up in the history of the game. 

What if the only part where Shepard is being indoctrinated is after being hit by Harbinger's beam? He certainly didn't stay there for enough time to become a mindless slave, he could still break free from it while Harbinger was attempting to control him for the first time.
I think the relation between his dreams and the scenario around him when he wakes up (The three that wasn't there, for instance) has more to do with how Shepard's mind is picturing the indoctrination like he was dreaming, not that his dreams were induced by indoctrination.

Everyone else in the history of Mass Effect was only able to break free for a few minutes to kill themselves and allowing Shepard to be the only one, ever, to be able to do that elevates him to a status above the starkid and all space magic combined. 

If people usuall take a week to become fully indoctrinated, why would the same happen to Shepard in 20 minutes? Or even hours, if you're willing to consider how dreams usually work, it's still wouldn't be enough to turn Shepard into a mindless slave.
The cases your point out of people being able to break free for a few minutes to kill themselves are people that were indoctrinated for far more time than Shepard would have after being hit by Harbinger's beam.

Right he would  have been like Saren and Benezia thinking they were doing good but actually doing the Reapers will.

At no time does Shepard do anything to help the Reapers. 

[Tsantilas]

I made a post summarising most of the arguments against the Indoctrination Theory in this thread:

http://social.biowar.../index/10261799

Let me know if you think I missed something.

[ArkkAngel007]

MassEffected555 wrote...


Indoctrination is the same for Shepard as it is for every single other person in the history of Mass Effect that has ever been indoctrinated according the the games set laws and mechanics.

EDIT- No space magic is NOT ok. That's why we started the Take Back Mass Effect movement. The Indoc Theory crowd seems to think this crusade is to get the Indoc Theory put in or you wouldnt have threads titled. "Undeniable Proof Beyond A Shadow of a Doubt Shepard Is In Fact Indoctrinated And You Will Never Prove Us Wrong Because We Are Geniuses And The People Who Don't Get Its Are Peons"

Ok, stop right there.  First, I support the Take Back Mass Effect movement as far as their overall goals and their constructive pursuits are concerned.  The Indoc theorists and the RetakeME3 supporters are not separate.  That idea needs to be killed off, as it's what is causing most of the issues.  

Everyone has a different take in some way, big or small, on the game.  That doesn't mean the goals aren't the same.   Nor are those who kicked off the theory and have analyzed it, including myself, believe by all means we are correct beyond proof.  It's just our view on the events, that is all, and we have a number of supporting elements in the game to make it a valid possibility, even if past games didn't foreshadow it in a direct manner.  Just like many believe, based on DA2, or development promises, that BioWare writing took a nose-dive in the ending because the writers are horrible, despite the game they wrote up until that point was the best in series (arguably of course). 

The problem I see on here is that people just don't like other's ideas, and have to villify them.  IT people had kept to themselves for a long time while people harassed them in the one thread continuously.  Is it really that surprising that some of them came out to do the same?  And yet, they have to be apologetic and admit they are completely wrong?  It's hypocritical. 

That is why I don't have a RetakeME3 banner.  I know that I support the goals and the donation effort.  Yet, I can't comfortably affiliate myself with a group that seems it's ok to push their view on others while claiming foul to a different view.  I realize that isn't the whole group...I have a friendly relationship with many on there who aren't like that.  But there are too many who are, quite frankly, too driven by their hatred of BioWare that they have to bring it on fellow fans who, despite having different views, would support their movement.


As for the indoctrination established in the games, Saren's indoctrination was different than TIMs, and Benezia's was different than theirs.  Grayson had a unique case.  The crew on the derelict Reaper experienced things unheard of in ME1.  So no, it isn't the same across the board.  Who is to say there isn't more to what Reapers can do?  Again, this is a unique perspective, as Shepard isn't conscience.  That's the main point of the theory beyond explaining the plot holes, namely how Shepard lives.

Modifié par ArkkAngel007, 19 mars 2012 - 07:49 .

[Jaze55]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...


Indoctrination is the same for Shepard as it is for every single other person in the history of Mass Effect that has ever been indoctrinated according the the games set laws and mechanics.

EDIT- No space magic is NOT ok. That's why we started the Take Back Mass Effect movement. The Indoc Theory crowd seems to think this crusade is to get the Indoc Theory put in or you wouldnt have threads titled. "Undeniable Proof Beyond A Shadow of a Doubt Shepard Is In Fact Indoctrinated And You Will Never Prove Us Wrong Because We Are Geniuses And The People Who Don't Get Its Are Peons"

Ok, stop right there.  First, I support the Take Back Mass Effect movement as far as their overall goals and their constructive pursuits are concerned.  The Indoc theorists and the RetakeME3 supporters are not separate.  That idea needs to be killed off, as it's what is causing most of the issues.  

Everyone has a different take in some way, big or small, on the game.  That doesn't mean the goals aren't the same.   Nor are those who kicked off the theory and have analyzed it, including myself, believe by all means we are correct beyond proof.  It's just our view on the events, that is all, and we have a number of supporting elements in the game to make it a valid possibility.  Just like many believe, based on DA2, or development promises, that BioWare writing took a nose-dive in the ending because the writers are horrible, despite the game they wrote up until that point was the best in series (arguably of course). 

The problem I see on here is that people just don't like other's ideas, and have to villify them.  IT people had kept to themselves for a long time while people harassed them in the one thread continuously.  Is it really that surprising that some of them came out to do the same?  And yet, they have to be apologetic and admit they are completely wrong?  It's hypocritical. 

That is why I don't have a RetakeME3 banner.  I know that I support the goals and the donation effort.  Yet, I can't comfortably affiliate myself with a group that seems it's ok to push their view on others while claiming foul to a different view.  I realize that isn't the whole group...I have a friendly relationship with many on there who aren't like that.  But there are too many who are, quite frankly, too driven by their hatred of BioWare that they have to bring it on fellow fans who, despite having different views, would support their movement.


As for the indoctrination established in the games, Saren's indoctrination was different than TIMs, and Benezia's was different than theirs.  Grayson had a unique case.  The crew on the derelict Reaper experienced things unheard of in ME1.  So no, it isn't the same across the board.  Who is to say there isn't more to what Reapers can do?  Again, this is a unique perspective, as Shepard isn't conscience.  That's the main point of the theory beyond explaining the plot holes, namely how Shepard lives.

Then honest question, Why do all the posts about this theory contain the words - "Proof" "Evidence" "Undeniable" ... and so on if you are NOT trying to convince everyone you are right?

[Grusome11]

Great post, I will try to address soem of your points.

[quote]Candidate 88766 wrote...
snip

[/quote]
-There is no lore indicating that indoctrination causes hallucinations of entire locations and events. The highest level of indoctrination leads only to hearing alien voices in your mind, and by that point the Reapers have full control over the subjects body.

We don't know everything about indoc. Perhaps this is how it works, or only this way with Shep. It's a bit lame, but not beyond what many writers have done and it woudl nto break the lore to say that this is how Shep experiences attempted indoc

-There is no evidence whatsoever throughout any of the 3 games that Shepard is even slightly indoctrinated - there has never been evidence of him hearing a buzzing noise of him having feelins of being watched. This means he went into the final battle either not indoctrinated at all, or having been so slightly indoctrinated as to exhibit none of the symptoms. In either case, indoctrination does not happen anywhere near as rapidly as the theory requires.

Depends. Shep has been exposed to 2 reapers before and was out for a bit in The Arrival DLC. We do not know what happened during these times. Also, I can simple say that is why Shep is able to resist, because he has not been exposed long enough, or because he is Sheppard, the hero. Either makes sense and is plausible

-Indoctrination cannot be stopped through simple willpower. Indoctrination permanently changes your mind - willpower can't undo that.

Not sure where you get this. But again, Shep is the hero. He can do things no one else can. Perhaps he is the first one to be able to. Also, see above, is Shep indoc'd or do they try and fail?

-Why would Shepard imagine the same cutscene regardless of whether he had broken free of indoctrinated or had become fully indoctrinated?

Lazy cutscene producers? Not sure about that one.

Then of course there is common sense;

-Bioware wouldn't release the concluding part of the ME trilogy without its real ending.

-Given the backlash over Origin, and the fact that BF3 failed to be as successful as they wanted, EA is going to play it safe with ME3. They need it to be a hit. They aren't going to ask Bioware to withold the ending as DLC, and Bioware wouldn't do that on their own, because the backlash would be volcanic.

-Given how bad the fan, and indeed media backlash has been, Bioware would have said something by now if the theory was true. They wouldn't put up with this much bad press for the sake of basically saying 'April fool's, here's the real ending' to a handful more fans. Not to mention that they have come out and said they're considering changing the endings, which they wouldn't do if they had plans for continuation - a key point of the theory.

-The game directly tells that player that Shepard has just ended the Reaper threat. Not that he went on to end it later, or that someone else ended it, but that during what you just played the Reaper threat was ended by Shepard.

[/quote]

These are the best arguements against Indoc Theory. The business case. I
wrote another thread which got buried, asking for suggestions as to how
it would make sense from a business perspective, to release your triple
A game without its ending and jerk around the fans so much.

However,
it could be done, but it would be such a ballsy move that I think it
would be too risky for EA. But perhaps I don't give them enough credit.
If this is a big April Fool's joke, then it will go down in internet
history and, providing the real ending is good, I am sure all will be
forgiven by BW fans. Only time will tell.

[Rusty0918]

What Xerkysz said was this...Shepard is not indoctrinated in the dream. Through the dream, Harbinger is TRYING to indoctrinate Shepard by distorting reality. Shepard's got an iron will, and he/she wouldn't take indoctrination that easily. Accepting Control or Synthesis means accepting indoctrination, while accepting destroy means you reject it, henceforth him waking up in the rubble if you have high enough EMS. He's not yet indoctrinated when he's dreaming.

Some of these attempted debunkers fail to grasp one thing: Indoctrination is one of the key cornerstones of how threatening the Reapers turly are. Garrus said something about Crucible being a test of wills or something like that. This end sequence seems like it.. Yeah it might mess with some of the game mechanics.

Now...that being said, if I'm wrong, then BioWare really does need to change that ending. If I'm right, still of course they need some serious closure.

[Rohirrim]

There are two indications for the indoctrination hypothesis you could elaborate further, I think:

- Starchild saying "Wake up" instead of "What are you doing here" or something along the lines only if your EMS is high and indoctrination would matter

- Shepard only wakes up when he breaks free from supposed indoctrination if he chooses the destroy option (red choice, usually assocated with renegade)

[Cucobr]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Grusome11 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

You know, for all you people who come in here talking about how this theory is false and that we're overthinking or whatever.

You have a lot of nerve to request new endings with the "Retake" movement when here we are, giving people an out to make the endings better, a reason if you will, and what do you do? You deny that it's even possible! So you hate the endings, but when someone tries to make sense of them to make them better, you STILL hate them?!

I don't get it, do you just hate BioWare in general or what?

The theory doesn't make them better.

There are still lots of holes in the theory (both in lore and logic) and they all to the same outcome - no matter what, Shepard has been indoctrinated. Even in the perfect destroy ending, Shepard's mind has been permanently changed by the indoctrination.

Those of us that want it changed want it changed to something better than the original endings, not something thats even bleaker and still has holes in it.

Please point out the holes in indoc theory, because I don't think you have. There are some things that are not explained, but IT is the best explanation so far for huge plot holes I see if the star child is telling the truth. The most obvious one being "I created synthetics to kill you to prevent you from being killed by synthetics."

And again, if Shepard is able to resist Reaper indoc why would his mind be changed? He resisted it. He may or may not be changed by resisting, but is not plausible that he can function long enough to save the galaxy?

-There is no lore indicating that indoctrination causes hallucinations of entire locations and events. The highest level of indoctrination leads only to hearing alien voices in your mind, and by that point the Reapers have full control over the subjects body.

-There is no evidence whatsoever throughout any of the 3 games that Shepard is even slightly indoctrinated - there has never been evidence of him hearing a buzzing noise of him having feelins of being watched. This means he went into the final battle either not indoctrinated at all, or having been so slightly indoctrinated as to exhibit none of the symptoms. In either case, indoctrination does not happen anywhere near as rapidly as the theory requires.

-Indoctrination cannot be stopped through simple willpower. Indoctrination permanently changes your mind - willpower can't undo that.

-Why would Shepard imagine the same cutscene regardless of whether he had broken free of indoctrinated or had become fully indoctrinated?

Then of course there is common sense;

-Bioware wouldn't release the concluding part of the ME trilogy without its real ending.

-Given the backlash over Origin, and the fact that BF3 failed to be as successful as they wanted, EA is going to play it safe with ME3. They need it to be a hit. They aren't going to ask Bioware to withold the ending as DLC, and Bioware wouldn't do that on their own, because the backlash would be volcanic.

-Given how bad the fan, and indeed media backlash has been, Bioware would have said something by now if the theory was true. They wouldn't put up with this much bad press for the sake of basically saying 'April fool's, here's the real ending' to a handful more fans. Not to mention that they have come out and said they're considering changing the endings, which they wouldn't do if they had plans for continuation - a key point of the theory.

-The game directly tells that player that Shepard has just ended the Reaper threat. Not that he went on to end it later, or that someone else ended it, but that during what you just played the Reaper threat was ended by Shepard.

The Indoctrination theory is the most acceptable. You are inventing things to disprove the theory.
The theory does not invent anything, and part of a solid principle of logic.

1 - You dont know how the indoctrination works because you never been indoctrinated before. The indoctrination makes you belive that you are doing the right thing. ALWAYS. the voices in your head may very well be reliving his dream. Revive your Indoctrination. Saren could have a moment of lucidity and killed himself because he had the willpower needed to get out of Indoctrination. But the catch is: Shepard was not indoctrinate he had the willpower to resist. So he woke up.

2 - As I say again, you're making to disprove the theory.Shepard has been in contact with reapers many many times. With Harbringer was the limit. And so began the process of Indoctrination of Shepard.

3 - Again ... again ... you are again inventing a solution to support its argument. Who said that Shepard does not have the willpower to withstand an Indoctrination? Who said? Shepard, killed Soverign, went to the base of the Collectors on a suicide mission and was victorious, and united Geths and quarians, made ​​EDI discover and fight for human nature just talking .. he managed the impossible. And you have the courage to say that he lacks the willpower to resist?

4 - Shepard can see the future? Shepard chose an option, saw the end ... back in time, made ​​the other choice, saw the end ... etc ... ??? Look at your level of argument!


you can try to disprove the theory in your favor. but you WILL NEVER CAN EXPLAIN why by choosing to destroy the synthetic in the end of game Shepard wakes. You will never be able to explain.

Modifié par Cucobr, 19 mars 2012 - 07:53 .

[Mann42]

MassEffected555 wrote...

And then the only possible outcomes for Shepard are

Turning into a Husk
Suicide
Brain dead vegi
Insane


According to in game lore and mechanics. Clearly states indoc effects are irreversable so thanks a lot for making an ending where Shepard turns into a Husk, as I am sure that's what everyone always wanted for Shepard.

And again, if Shepard is magically to defeat indoctrination, when no one in Mass Effects history has been able to do that then space magic is 100% valid.

Really all this theory supports is that space magic is OK since its fine to break all the laws in the final 10 minutes to allow Shep to be the only one in the history or ME to break completely free of Indoc. 

Oh, I don't think Shepard actually becomes Indoctrinated until he picks Control or Synthesis. He doesn't magically defeat it; The Player, as an agent of choice for Commander Shepard (the theme of the game), have a 1 in 3 chance of not becomming indoctrinated, and ultimately you get to choose. 

Saren was able to choose at first. So was Benezia. She even says in ME1 "It was subtle at first." When you listen to her explain how she teamed up with Saren, she admits that she started with good intentions. She wanted to find out what he was up to and see if she could stop him from doing anything bad. When Saren talks about his own indoctrination, he has nothing but the best of intentions. He's trying to save everyone. Even the Illusive Man ultimately wants the best for Humanity. The path to indoctrination is paved with good intentions. 

Both Saren and Benezia recover their original minds and have lucid moments as you talk to them, so it's clear that willpower does play a factor. These characters were able to resist. I see no reason why the player, in a game centered on choice and player agency, wouldn't be given some chance to resist. 

And more spectacularly (from a narrative standpoint), present the choices to you in the exact same way the Reapers would want you to see them: A sympathetic, godlike figure telling you that the one option you've spent 3 games trying to accomplish is BAD, and that you can save everyone if you only believe in the same things that TIM, Saren, and Benezia believed. 

Perform an exercise in your head. Imagine that in the Control and Synthesis endings, Shepard didn't die, and was forced to face his friends and explain what he did.

"I control the Reapers now, but I'm stronger than the Illusive Man and the Reapers said I could totally do it because I'm not Indoctrinated, so it should be okay."

"Don't worry, I forcibly overwrote everyone's DNA with synthetic reaper nanobots so that we can live in peace with synthetics because the Reaper Brain AI said it was the only way."

Whether you are truly indoctrinated or not, there is only one right answer to end the Reapers forever, and it's Destroy. Anything else is a concession. Anything else and organics lose. 

Modifié par nexworks, 19 mars 2012 - 08:00 .

[scrapmetals]

I was going to actually read your post and comment on it, but then I got to the whole religion part of it.

So not cool to even bring that up, brah. Religion and beliefs have nothing to do with it. Even if that's just an example for simplicity's sake, it's a ******-poor offensive example.

But I am going to leave this little tidbit here:

Shepard's cybernetics that Cerberus put into him/her.

Do we know where those came from? Are they Reaper tech? Whether they are or are not, do we know how they'd react to indoctrination? 

Modifié par scrapmetals, 19 mars 2012 - 07:54 .