758 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkSeraphym]

Shepard's appearance during the Control and Synthesis ending is hardly what I would call evidence of the indoctrination theory. Husks have their appearance because the more indoctrinated a subject becomes under the Reapers, the more synthetic technology has to be implanted into the husk in order to make it useful. The Catalyst states that Shepard is partially synthetic, so it is hardly surprising that we are going to find parts of his body that appear husk-like in the only two endings where Shepard literally dissolves.

This husk and synthetic issue is identical to the rectangle and square problem. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All husks have synthetic parts, but not all of those with synthetic parts are husks.

[Raxxman]

Liquoid wrote...

I don't understand how Schroedinger's Cat applies to this discussion, as that would imply the interpretation is in the quantum state of both wrong and right. Which is not the case.

While debatable, indoctrination theory gets too much praise from those supporting it, and too much flak to those opposing it. Consensus has to be reached to determine which parts of "evidence" are in fact wishful thinking, and which are too obvious to deny

Problem is people often lack basic reasoning (and the problem stated here is a reasoning issue, not a science one, although scientific values are often based upon reasoning, there's no actual science being done here). People here are displaying a lack of ability to distingush a fact from an extrapolated hypothesis.

I'd say it annoys me, but I see this a lot with students, so I'm just used to it (and jaded).

[Tsantilas]

Captain Shakespeare wrote...

You state that as if it's overwhelmingly likely that one theory is true over the other, and I've seen no evidence to substantiate such a claim.

Video games are audiovisual mediums.  This is a fictional story, which plays out like an interractive movie.  The narrative consists of dialogue, what you see, what you hear, and any text the writers provide.  The narrative provides no information suggesting an indoctrination theory.  There is no mention of Indoctrination.  No wake up scene that makes the player understand he was dreaming.  Nothing.  Why is it so hard to understand, that with no information in the narrative supporting such a theory, that it is more logical to believe what the narrative DOES tell you? Which is... bad writing, plot holes, and gameplay mechanics.

I have yet to see or hear about a rabbit laying eggs, so excuse me if I take your belief in the Easter Bunny with a grain of salt.

In other words... would you like some speculation with that fanfiction?

[Xerkysz]

Morrden wrote...

How about something like... one of them BEING the actual ending and the other being the concoction of fans desperate for something to cancel out said ending? How about a personal statement from Casey Hudson saying that the ending we got was what they intended? How about the fact that 'The Truth' DLC has been specifically denied by Bioware? How does none of that register as evidence, but seeing '1m1' on a part on the citadel does? That's crazy logic.

Concoction of BioWare* 
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 gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue
choices).

Morrden wrote...
How about a personal statement from Casey Hudson saying that the ending we got was what they intended?

They intended an indoctrination ending. We got it?

[Captain Shakespeare]

All that they denied is that any DLC is titled "The Truth". And though Bioware may have done a less than admirable job with DA2, they have traditionally created quality games. Even ME3 was excellent until the ending.

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong. To the contrary, there's a high possibility you're right. I just refuse to discount Indoctrination Theory until I've received confirmation through official channels that it's false.

[DrFrankenseuss]

I'm someone who does not enjoy the ending, but the indoctrination theory does makes sense to me.

What doesn't make sense to me is why the game would end following the final decision. The three games in the series were not about Shepherd's battle against indoctrination. It was about stopping the reapers from destroying life in the Milky Way.

The indoctrination idea (which seems like a pretty obvious explaination for the convoluted ending) makes sense but is not a conclusion to the story. If Shepherd overcomes indoctrination, what happens next. If Shepherd does not overcome it, what happens next?

If we're assuming the indoctrination "theory", as the OP named it, is true then it begs the question; Just because it is a cleverly concieved (most people I know personally would say sloppy conceived) ending does it warrant any respect from anyone who has spent time an money on this product?

If the OP and other people who are on the warpath to prove the indoctrination theory is true before Bioware confirms it (or if they chose to), is it really a victory for the fanbase who feel as if they've been lied to about having X number of endings, etc.

It strikes me that Bioware ran out of juice, slapped together a mishmash of ideas and then had it shipped. It comes across in the same way a novel would if the author threw out the last 10 pages of their manuscript, got it publish and then said "Look, page 652 is the last page. I held up my end of the bargain. It is a complete book. It even ends with a twist" to any reader who complains.

Modifié par DrFrankenseuss, 19 mars 2012 - 11:10 .

[Captain Shakespeare]

The general idea is that there's a different ending that would take place once Shepard managed to free himself from the indoctrination.

[EsterCloat]

Captain Shakespeare wrote...

Morrden wrote...

Captain Shakespeare wrote...

So long as nobody can prove or disprove IT, doesn't it exist in that quantum state?

No, because quantum mechanics aren't in play here at all. Just because something cannot be proved either way doesn't mean both options are equally likely. Like I said before, I can't prove that right now there isn't a truck about to crash into my house, but that doesn't mean that it's just as likely to happen as not to happen. 

 
You state that as if it's overwhelmingly likely that one theory is true over the other, and I've seen no evidence to substantiate such a claim.

We can't provide concrete evidence that the ending is one way or the other because the only data we have at our disposal is the ending itself and the Final Hours app. The theory is based on the assumption that Bioware is hiding critical information that would prove that it is indeed indoctrination and not reality that occurs in the ending. However, the same assumption could be made that Bioware is hiding critical information that would prove that it is indeed reality and not indoctrination that occurs in the ending. There's no means to disprove either scenario.

When attempting to prove one side or the other the only thing we can rely on is the ending itself and the Final Hours app. Outside of circumstantial evidence there is no proof that the ending is anything aside from what is shown.

Modifié par EsterCloat, 19 mars 2012 - 11:14 .

[DarkSeraphym]

Sorry Xerkysz, I cannot quote on here because I am on the iPad and Safari gets distorted if I attempt to quote on this thread. Please bear with me. Has anyone considered the possibility that the indoctrination sequence in question was supposed to be implemented during the scene in which The Illusive Man is attempting to control Anderson and Shepard?

[Xerkysz]

EsterCloat wrote...

Atempting to prove one side or the other the only thing we can bring forward is the ending itself and the Final Hours app. Outside of circumstantial evidence there is no proof that the ending is anything aside from what is shown.

From what I've seen of the Final Hours app...

"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 gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices). "

Which is more biased to proving indoctrination, than disproving it.

Simply because they cut a small segment out of it, doesn't disprove it

Modifié par Xerkysz, 19 mars 2012 - 11:15 .

[AlexXIV]

Indoctrination seems more plausible if they don't change the ending at all. But I still don't think it's true. First I don't think Bioware would or could pull that off. Second, why would they cause this kind of uproar that harms sales. However, if they don't change it the indoc theory will be part of my personal canon which will start after the stargazer BS thing.

[Tsantilas]

Xerkysz wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Atempting to prove one side or the other the only thing we can bring forward is the ending itself and the Final Hours app. Outside of circumstantial evidence there is no proof that the ending is anything aside from what is shown.

From what I've seen of the Final Hours app...

"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 gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices). "

Which is more biased to proving indoctrination, than disproving it.

Simply because they cut a small segment out of it, doesn't disprove it

"we removed the indoctrination sequence because blablabla..." IT MUST BE INDOCTRINATION! What?

"so I was going to paint my room yellow but then I decided not to" SO YOUR ROOM IS YELLOW!

[DarkSeraphym]

All that I see from the quote on indoctrination is that there was supposed to be a gameplay scene, with dialogue, in which Shepard was supposed to lose full control of himself to the Reapers. That sounds a lot to me like the scene in the end of the game where you are having that dialogue the Illusive Man and he has gained control over both of them.

[Captain Shakespeare]

They decided to remove a certain aspect of indoctrination. See? This is the problem with paraphrasing.

Modifié par Captain Shakespeare, 19 mars 2012 - 11:19 .

[EsterCloat]

Xerkysz wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Atempting to prove one side or the other the only thing we can bring forward is the ending itself and the Final Hours app. Outside of circumstantial evidence there is no proof that the ending is anything aside from what is shown.

From what I've seen of the Final Hours app...

"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 gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices). "

Which is more biased to proving indoctrination, than disproving it.

Simply because they cut a small segment out of it, doesn't disprove it

You're extrapolating. Just because there was a segment at one point in which Shepard was controlled by a Reaper does not prove the entire ending as we were given is an indoctrination illusion.

[nullobject]

Nice proof OP.
I've tried a similar thing from a different angle.

[Tsantilas]

ok lets try that again. There is no evidence supporting an indoctrination theory, only speculation. Bioware releases a statement that they removed a sequence involving Shepard being indoctrinated. "HAHAAAAA!! WE WERE RIGHT! HE'S INDOCTRINATED!"

[Captain Shakespeare]

Once again, this argument is pointless. Nothing conclusive on either side. Give it a week or two, and we'll all know for certain.

Modifié par Captain Shakespeare, 19 mars 2012 - 11:21 .

[Xerkysz]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Sorry Xerkysz, I cannot quote on here because I am on the iPad and Safari gets distorted if I attempt to quote on this thread. Please bear with me. Has anyone considered the possibility that the indoctrination sequence in question was supposed to be implemented during the scene in which The Illusive Man is attempting to control Anderson and Shepard?

All good dude.
That part is seen by a lot of people as the only part you're being indoctrinated.

The "theory" is based off when you get hit by Harbinger's beam of rape on the final run through no mans land.
Indoctrination ends once you select to destroy the Reaper's, and see the cutscene of you awaking in the rubble of London.

Another part of evidence against this theory is bad/terrible/lazy writing.
But how can that be true if 99% of the game is GOTY material?

[Xerkysz]

nullobject wrote...

Nice proof OP.
I've tried a similar thing from a different angle.

I saw that xP
Decided I'd sum up and fine tune what I had collected and looked up.

[piemanz]

You do realise that if the indoctrination theory is correct, the game essentially shipped without an ending, right?.

I find it hard to beleive that Bioware would intentionally create a situation that would irk a huge portion of their fan base so they could sell them DLC that basicly ends the game.  DLC is supposed to be optional, this would be essential.

Modifié par piemanz, 19 mars 2012 - 11:26 .

[DarkSeraphym]

I am aware of the theory. My question was mores targeted at the information that came out of the App regarding that indoctrination sequence. They said they dropped it because of the gameplay issues that turned up in tandem with having dialogue choices. We already got a scene in which a Reaper agent is trying to gain control of Shepard, one that had dialogue choices. I don't see why their quote might not just be referring to an aspect of that scene with the Illusive Man that might have just been dropped rather than an indoctrination ending.

[Tsantilas]

99% of the game is GOTY material, ending sequence failed because the writers tried to be profound and deep. ME3 is advertised as being the end of the series where we receive closure and everything is wrapped up. What's more rational:

1. It's the end of the series, the tried to leave it open ended and up to interpretation, the end is bad.
2. They said it's the end, but really they lied and it's a "to be continued" and we should wait for DLC to finish the story.

[Wikkr]

Morrden wrote...
7. The control panel is in view as soon as you pop your head over the top of the ramp. Where's Anderson?

Standing in front of it.

Just gonna point out to you that when anderson talks about seeing something up ahead (the room with the terminal) you can already see into that room. Also while yes its possible for the walls to move the room itself shows no sign of being reshaped as your approaching it also when you look around the floor that your stood on is specificly shaped to conform to the single entrance you came through. im sure anderson would have mentioned if the floor started rotating/changing

[justlogme]

Bioware officially stated this weekend they will not change the endings on facebook.
Also for anyone still holding out for indoctrination r halluciation DLC endings please
Check out the ME3 final hpours Iphone ap or find the recent thread of what it covers in the no spoilers section if Bioware hasn't already removed it