230 réponses à ce sujet

[wtbusername]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The issue with the indoctrination theory is that even if it is correct, what can possibly be gained from it? Even if you break the indoctrination, the game still ends in a similar way, and the reaper threat has not been stopped.

So really, if the indoctrination ending was correct, all we've got instead was an unfinished ending, brilliant...

DLC

[Avl521]

I believe indoctrination theory is just wrong. It's wishful thinking. And is completely ridiculous. I'd love to discuss with anyone about it to try and prove them wrong while they try to prove me wrong. Those kinds of debates are always interesting and fun.

However when someone claims to have the "definitive" proof and comes up with such a poorly thought out, in some moments agressive and porrly researched claims... I just have to look at them with contempt as I eat my cereal in front of the screen.
Shame on you OP, shame on you.

[Myskal1981]

The indoctrination theory is, simply put, a theory. Not proven until Bioware confirms. So the OP can state his opinion, but the use of the word "definite" will provoke some strong replies.
What the OP omits is the assumption that Shepard is not indoctrinated right after the beam, but is already under influence since the beginning of the game. The game suggests that he is the weakest when not fully awake (if you take the dreams as another indication), so being hit by the beam gets him over the edge looking at the indoctrination as he is knocked out.

Now, what in my opinion is lacking by the OP is the clarification of certain plot holes that only seem to be plausible when believing in the indoc theory.

Why does Shepard wake up only in one of the options and where does he wake up?
Why does Joker jump away?
Why does Shepard not question the Starchild more?
Why does the Starchild look like the Kid that died? I mean that is only possible if the starchild "entered" Shepards mind.
How does the OP explain the fact that Anderson in one occasion says he is behind Shepard and all of the sudden is in front of him?

You see, OP, it would be better for your argumentation to instead of attacking the indoctrination theory you started to explain the plot holes. I just mention a few of them. You could say: bad writing. But that is not really satisfactory, at least not for me.

[Malanek]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The issue with the indoctrination theory is that even if it is correct, what can possibly be gained from it? Even if you break the indoctrination, the game still ends in a similar way, and the reaper threat has not been stopped.

So really, if the indoctrination ending was correct, all we've got instead was an unfinished ending, brilliant...

No ones denying that. If they had something ready to go and deploy a few days later I would have considered it brilliant. Even a month later seems too late for me to agree with it being a good idea.

[Midnight Eternal]

Camronnba wrote...

Midnight Eternal wrote...

To add to your point about the gun I'll make an analogy. His gun doesn't run out of ammo for the same reason cars in the GTA series never run out of gas. But people never read too much into that huh?

And this is a moot point because guns in ME are shown to have either over-heating or ammo limitations (I realize they're technically the same) so this represents a drastic change.  Your comparison to GTA was frankly r-tarded

Its the same principle =/, having ammo for that sequence would eject you from the narrative. You want a same in game comparison how about when you are shooting at the husks on the wall first thing in the game, you don't have to worry about the amount of shots you fire off then either do you?

[Tsantilas]

Noatz wrote...

How does he control Anderson and Shepard? I mean logically he can't just control anyone he wants to, he didn't place a chip in Shepard - this we are told exhaustively, and he certainly didn't do anything to Anderson.

TIM's work revolves around co-opting the Reaper's signal to their forces, last time I checked Shepard and Anderson weren't husks.

Lastly the codex specifically mentions "ghostly images". You're using only entries from ME1 because the wording is slightly different and better supports your assertions - a classic example of cherry picking evidence.

Holes, your arguments have them.

There is no sign of Shepard ever seeing "ghostly images" in the ending sequence, so as far as the Indoctrination theory goes, it is irrelevant.  Someone can argue that his dreams include ghostly images, but that can easily be explained by nightmares due to PTSD.

Feel free to list other codex entries on Indoctrination that you feel apply though.  I'm trying to generate discussion.  I created this thread as a summary list of the counterarguments that I've seen floating around these forums because I see the same arguments and counteraguments being repeated whenever a thread reaches 10 pages.

[111987]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

im sorry but all of your points are off. Your idea of what indoc does to people is flawed. It DOES INDEED give hallucinations, guess you dont remember cerberus crew in derelict reaper? seeing that "grey thing jump out if the wall" and others.

you are selective and nitpicking.

Im not going to counter your counter points again because you obviously have made up your mind but bottom line is. I think you are incorrect or off on all counts. but nice try.

Seeing fleeting shadows, and hearing voices is VERY different than what Shepard went through.

As much as Indoctrination theory supporters say that the Codex supports their position, it really doesn't. No-one experiencing indoctrination has spent 20+ minutes living in some altered state of reality. Saren, Benezia, the Salarians on Virmire, and TIM were all very conscious of the world around them.

I wonder if anyone supporting the Indoctrination Theory has ever read Mass effect: Retribution. A lot of the story is written from the perspective of a person undergoing the entire Indoctrination proccess, and he never hallucinates an alternate reality like Shepard did.

[Vhalkyrie]

Tsantilas wrote...
There is no mention of dream sequences, or vivid full blown hallucinations.  In addition, Indoctrination isn't a process that can fail.  If the reapers use indoctrination on someone, their way of thinking is altered to follow reaper doctrine.  After a while, the subject becomes a full blown slave who isn't in control of his actions.  The subject never makes a choice to join the reapers, nor does he become tricked.  He simply joins them without knowing he has changed.

Go back to ME1 and redo the mission where you meet Benezia.  She said she knew she was being indoctrinated, and shielded a small part of her mind away.  Saren also said he knew he was not immune, and said he appeared complacent to Sovereign so it would not have need to exert more control over him. 

Also listen to Benezia's description of being indoctrinated.  Paraphrased, "It's like beating on glass in your mind, unable to stop what you are doing."  Shepard and Liara also mention this in a conversation in ME3.

Saren and Benezia were fully aware of their indoctrination; they were unable to stop it.  But yes, they knew they had changed.

Modifié par Vhalkyrie, 19 mars 2012 - 08:07 .

[111987]

wtbusername wrote...

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The issue with the indoctrination theory is that even if it is correct, what can possibly be gained from it? Even if you break the indoctrination, the game still ends in a similar way, and the reaper threat has not been stopped.

So really, if the indoctrination ending was correct, all we've got instead was an unfinished ending, brilliant...

DLC

But according to the theory, choosing anything other than 'Destroy' results in Shepard being indoctrinated. So to play the DLC, you have to make the right choice? That definitely goes against one of the core principles of the trilogy, choice.

[MustacheManatee]

Well thought out, and your logic is sound, but I have to disagree with you. And isn't that the problem with the ending in the first place. That it can be interpreted in so many ways. Fans don't want to speculate on this forum, they want to be telling stories about the different endings they chose.mthey want to compare notes, not debate theories. There are plenty of threads with plenty of indoctrination evidence that you didn't address. Won't rehash them al here,mas we've all read them. What I appreciate about this post is the way you utilize logic and reason. Thank you for presenting a counter argument.
Personally, I think they could use indoctrination as a bridge to a better choice of endings. The indoctrination codex doesn't say it's impossible to fight it off. You are assuming that based on examples in the game. Like I said, this is sound logic. But just because we haven't seen it done yet, doesn't mean it can't be done. The Reaper cycle has never been stopped before either, yet Shepard is able to stop it. I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that Shepard could fight off an indoctrination attempt.
Either way, you're left with one of two conclusions. Either this is the most elaborate media stunt in the history of gaming, or it's the most poorly written and designed ending of all time.
I'm sure you can take a guess as to which option I prefer. Even though neither is very palatable.

[savionen]

111987 wrote...

wtbusername wrote...

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The issue with the indoctrination theory is that even if it is correct, what can possibly be gained from it? Even if you break the indoctrination, the game still ends in a similar way, and the reaper threat has not been stopped.

So really, if the indoctrination ending was correct, all we've got instead was an unfinished ending, brilliant...

DLC

But according to the theory, choosing anything other than 'Destroy' results in Shepard being indoctrinated. So to play the DLC, you have to make the right choice? That definitely goes against one of the core principles of the trilogy, choice.

The whole ending went against choice.

[Malanek]

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Tsantilas wrote...
There is no mention of dream sequences, or vivid full blown hallucinations.  In addition, Indoctrination isn't a process that can fail.  If the reapers use indoctrination on someone, their way of thinking is altered to follow reaper doctrine.  After a while, the subject becomes a full blown slave who isn't in control of his actions.  The subject never makes a choice to join the reapers, nor does he become tricked.  He simply joins them without knowing he has changed.

Go back to ME1 and redo the mission where you meet Benezia.  She said she knew she was being indoctrinated, and shielded a small part of her mind away.  Saren also said he knew he was not immune, and said he appeared complacent to Sovereign so it would not have need to exert more control over him. 

Also listen to Benezia's description of being indoctrinated.  Paraphrased, "It's like beating on glass in your mind, unable to stop what you are doing."  Shepard and Liara also mention this in a conversation in ME3.

Saren and Benezia were fully aware of their indoctrination; they were unable to stop it.  But yes, they knew they had changed.

And Paul Grayson, who had a much more severe case with his body being filled with implants, was able to fight it on several occasions.

[Tsantilas]

Myskal1981 wrote...

Now, what in my opinion is lacking by the OP is the clarification of certain plot holes that only seem to be plausible when believing in the indoc theory.

Why does Shepard wake up only in one of the options and where does he wake up?
Why does Joker jump away?
Why does Shepard not question the Starchild more?
Why does the Starchild look like the Kid that died? I mean that is only possible if the starchild "entered" Shepards mind.
How does the OP explain the fact that Anderson in one occasion says he is behind Shepard and all of the sudden is in front of him?

You see, OP, it would be better for your argumentation to instead of attacking the indoctrination theory you started to explain the plot holes. I just mention a few of them. You could say: bad writing. But that is not really satisfactory, at least not for me.

He only wakes up during the Destroy ending because he's dead in all the other endings.

The Indoctrination theory has no explanation for Joker jumping away either other than "it's what Shepard would want"

Why does shepard not question the starchild more?  Why doesn't he question him more in the "dream?"  Bad writing either way.

How does the OP explain the fact that Anderson in one occasion says he
is behind Shepard and all of the sudden is in front of him?  He says he followed shepard in but Appeared somewhere else.  Shepard passes out between the conduit and the citadel, it's perfectly possible for Anderson to have made progress while Shepard was out of it.

[Liquoid]

Rofl troll harder with the shuttle.

[111987]

savionen wrote...

111987 wrote...

wtbusername wrote...

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The issue with the indoctrination theory is that even if it is correct, what can possibly be gained from it? Even if you break the indoctrination, the game still ends in a similar way, and the reaper threat has not been stopped.

So really, if the indoctrination ending was correct, all we've got instead was an unfinished ending, brilliant...

DLC

But according to the theory, choosing anything other than 'Destroy' results in Shepard being indoctrinated. So to play the DLC, you have to make the right choice? That definitely goes against one of the core principles of the trilogy, choice.

The whole ending went against choice.

Except it didn't. You got three vastly different choices. Maybe you hated all of them, but none of them were the 'right' choice. You have supporters and detractors for all choices.

If the Indoc theory is right, than Bioware has just trolled everyone who chose the other two endings, basically forcing them to replay parts of the game to re-choose 'Destroy'.

[Baelyn]

Tsantilas wrote...



There is no mention of dream sequences, or vivid full blown hallucinations.  In addition, Indoctrination isn't a process that can fail.  If the reapers use indoctrination on someone, their way of thinking is altered to follow reaper doctrine.  After a while, the subject becomes a full blown slave who isn't in control of his actions.  The subject never makes a choice to join the reapers, nor does he become tricked.  He simply joins them without knowing he has changed.

The in-game codex in Mass Effect 3 specifically states both hallucinations and ghostly apparitions, both of which we see in this final scene. It can't really get more cannon than that.

As such, if Harbinger did use indoctrination on Shepard, we would not have the whole ending sequence.  Shepard would simply become Indoctrinated.  

You do not have enough evidence to assume this. Grayson was able to fight off indoctrination, only actually giving in once his mind was weakened by red sand.

It has already been said multiple times (most vivdly by Liara) that Shepard must have an exceptionally strong will to not be compromised by the Reapers after being so heavily in contact with them and their artifacts. It is quite possible that all throught ME3 (after the event with Object Rho) Harbinger has been assaulting Shepard's mind, and only when Harbinger is in direct contact with Shepard that he is actually able to put up a final fight for Shepard's mind. 

If Harbinger was so simply able to indoctrinate Shepard, why did we hear over and over in ME2 Harbinger threatening that he will have Shepard's mind but yet didn't do anything about it?

Modifié par Baelyn, 19 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[Grasich]

Indoctrination can certainly fail. And it DOES involve vivid hallucinations, which might be made even more so by the fact that Shep is passed out.

That said, I don't support the indoc theory, though it would be better than the current ending.

[MetallicShepard]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The issue with the indoctrination theory is that even if it is correct, what can possibly be gained from it? Even if you break the indoctrination, the game still ends in a similar way, and the reaper threat has not been stopped.

So really, if the indoctrination ending was correct, all we've got instead was an unfinished ending, brilliant...

Have you even read the theory? The theory states that everything after Shepard gets hit by Harbinger's beam is a dream/hallucination, a visual metaphor of Shepard battling against Harbinger's attempt to indocrinate him/her.  Therefore, everything we saw, including the endings, aren't real, just a dream raging in Shepard's mind.  If you choose destroy, Shepard defeats Harbinger's attempt at indoctrination, wakes up in the rubble of London where he/she was shot (alluded to by the bonus "breathing' scene), and whatever happens after that will have to be what Bioware comes up with in the DLC, which absolutely has to be better than picking A, B or C. 

[RavenEyry]

Hernok wrote...

Javic the protean can see if you are adoctrinated or not...

I don't recall Javik being with Shepard when you meet the RGC.

[Shock n Awe]

The Catalyst is a lying bastard. He implies that destroy would kill Shepard as well due to his numerous implants when Cerberus rebuilt him, yet you see him waking up in the Destroy ending with 5k+ EMS.

[vrumpt]

Whats wrong with the indoctrination theory being true

[Tsantilas]

Malanek999 wrote...

Vhalkyrie wrote...

Saren and Benezia were fully aware of their indoctrination; they were unable to stop it.  But yes, they knew they had changed.

And Paul Grayson, who had a much more severe case with his body being filled with implants, was able to fight it on several occasions.

Yes yes, they may have been aware of it at some point, and were even able to resist it for a while, but they never permanently broke free of it, yet everyone expects Shepard will be able to because he must be superman... or something.

[noobcannon]

excellent post. i do not agree with it but it is refreshing to see someone actually counter argue the theory and put effort into it rather than throw around "wishful thinking" over and over.

[AlexMBrennan]

Exactly. Shep's not indoctrinated, the "buy more DLC " message says as much (and should be sufficient to convince anyone who has moved on to acceptance) and any inconsistencies are due to bad/lazy writing.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 19 mars 2012 - 08:17 .

[savionen]

111987 wrote...

savionen wrote...

111987 wrote...

wtbusername wrote...

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The issue with the indoctrination theory is that even if it is correct, what can possibly be gained from it? Even if you break the indoctrination, the game still ends in a similar way, and the reaper threat has not been stopped.

So really, if the indoctrination ending was correct, all we've got instead was an unfinished ending, brilliant...

DLC

But according to the theory, choosing anything other than 'Destroy' results in Shepard being indoctrinated. So to play the DLC, you have to make the right choice? That definitely goes against one of the core principles of the trilogy, choice.

The whole ending went against choice.

Except it didn't. You got three vastly different choices. Maybe you hated all of them, but none of them were the 'right' choice. You have supporters and detractors for all choices.

If the Indoc theory is right, than Bioware has just trolled everyone who chose the other two endings, basically forcing them to replay parts of the game to re-choose 'Destroy'.

Mass Effect 3's ending choices were all basically the same since they didn't show much. They're all inconclusive and vague. But we've talked about that in other threads before.

You could pick Anderson as Earth's Council Member, but Udina becomes the Council Member regardless in ME3. It fit the story more and there was enough logic that Anderson go back to Earth.

They could have it where you're temporarily indoctrinated with Control/Synthesis and then it plays X scene, but then Destroy plays Y scene.

There are also some right and wrong answers in the game. There's a lot of choices, such as keeping Maelons data, that either have a positive or a negative outcome. They're not really "Paragon and Renegade" since going with the Renegade option doesn't really net you anything.