230 réponses à ce sujet

[Baelyn]

Tsantilas wrote...
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.

And Shepard has never shown that he is capable of doing things others thought impossible....right.

[Holoe4]

imo there's a 50/50 chance that the Indoctrination is true, I support it only because it makes sense to Me...

But that doesn't mean Bioware will run with it though.

[Grasich]

vrumpt wrote...

Whats wrong with the indoctrination theory being true

While I personally don't like the ending, there are some that are happy with it. If the indoc theory is made to be true, then it's basically saying "sorry, your ending is now false." to those who like the current ending.

IMO they need to completely redo everything after Harby shows up in London and market it as an "alternative" ending. i.e neither one is a "false" ending.

That's my two cents anyway.

Holding the line.

[ohbobsagetpiss]

vrumpt wrote...

Whats wrong with the indoctrination theory being true

It makes a bad ending even worse by saying 2/3 of the choices (which are already limited) are wrong. Destroy=good, the rest are "you lose" ending. That would only further alienate dissapointed players.  

[Tsantilas]

Baelyn wrote...

And Shepard has never shown that he is capable of doing things others thought impossible....right.

Shepard has been able to overcome near impossible odds, but he's never gone full plot-armor-and-retcon-established-lore-just-'cause.  There has been no mention of anyone ever being able to break out of indoctrination permanently.

[Jaze55]

Grasich wrote...

vrumpt wrote...

Whats wrong with the indoctrination theory being true

While I personally don't like the ending, there are some that are happy with it. If the indoc theory is made to be true, then it's basically saying "sorry, your ending is now false." to those who like the current ending.

IMO they need to completely redo everything after Harby shows up in London and market it as an "alternative" ending. i.e neither one is a "false" ending.

That's my two cents anyway.

Holding the line.

The thing wrong with the Indoc theory is the only possible outcomes for Shepard, according to in game lore and mechanis are:

Turning into a Husk
Becoming a braindead vegi
Going insane
Suicide
Death at the hands of friends


I think that is VERY wrong about the indoc theory being true. Is that what you want for Shepard?

[effortname]

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 process has directly been shown to fail twice, with the suicides of both Saren and the Illusive Man. These were both nearly fully indoctrinated and yet still retained enough control after being "woken up" so to speak. With Shepard only going through the initial phase and not yet being fully indoctrinated at the crucible scene, we can assume that he might still be able to snap out of it with proper choices or with coaxing from his squad.

If the Starchild is infact an illusion created by Harbinger to fool
shepard, then the options provided make no sense from an "evil villain"
point of view.  There is no logical reason for Harbinger to give
Shepard the option to break out of Indoctrination.  A true villain
would simply lie about the destroy ending and make the other 2 options
seem much more attractive options, or disregard the destroy option all
together in order to trick the hero.

Because the indoctrination is a process going on within the confines of Shepard's own mind and the Reapers obviously don't have full control of it (even after the indoctrination process, Saren and Illusive Man retained some measure of control). Thus, the destroy option could simply be a projection of his own subconscious trying to keep him on the proper path. The starchild wishes to dissuade Shepard from this option without revealing his full distaste for it: thus he simply creates a misleading lie about the effects of that choice.

Many supporters of the Indoctrination Theory claim that the child isn't
real since Shepard is the only person who has interracted with him.  I
disagree.  In the opening sequence, it is pretty clear that the shuttle
waits for the child to get in before taking off and being blown up by
the reaper.  In fact the soldier standing guard is actively looking for
enemies at the perimiter until the child gets on, before signalling the
pilot to take off with a punch to the door.

The dreams are
explained in the game as being a result of Shepard's deteriorating
emotional and psychological state.  When creating a new Shepard, the
player is able to select a psych history background, but no matter
which one the player chooses, it is made clear that the losses and
sacrifices are starting to take their toll on Shepard.  In game this
manifests itself as nightmares.  Shepard has nightmares at key points
during the game whenever an important character dies.  The first one is
after the child dies in the beginning, followed by more nightmares
after Mordin, and Thane's deaths (in my playthrough at least).  In the
dreams Shepard chases after the child but is never able to save him
from the flames.  It's clear imagery.  We also see ghosts of the many
faceless civilians and soldiers that have died along the way.

This is open to interpretation since it's a dream. Your analysis is as valid as the indoctrination theory.

During the trilogy, characters who have been indoctrinated are only
able to break the grasp for a short moment, usually only long enough to
apologizze and commit suicide or be killed.  Saren, Benezia, TIM.  It
is established canon that there is no indoctrination "attempt" or
"trial".  A Person simply becomes indoctrinated, and once that happens,
he does not simply break indoctrination and return to normal through
sheer will.  It is a permanent condition.  Even if the whole ending
sequence was some kind of test for Shepard, successfully breaking out
of Indoctrination would leave Shepard a broken shadow of his former
self.  Essentially a brain dead husk.  This leaves no room for
continuation of Shepard's story.

As previously stated, these are all characters who are in the late stages of indoctrination. Shepard could easily suffer huge mental damage as a cost of this process, but it's unclear if he's going to die or be unable to finish what he started.

Anyway though, it's fairly obvious Bioware intended the endings that we got. However, they are awful. As such, the fans put their collective heart and souls into wild literary analysis and managed to create a fully self-contained and working interpretation of the ending. It allows Bioware to simply add DLC from where the ending left off without any plot holes or any work to redo the game. Also, it makes them look super clever. So why not hold to this theory if it's the last best hope for a proper ending to this franchise?

Modifié par effortname, 19 mars 2012 - 08:23 .

[Jaze55]

effortname 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 process has directly been shown to fail twice, with the suicides of both Saren and the Illusive Man. These were both nearly fully indoctrinated and yet still retained enough control after being "woken up" so to speak. With Shepard only going through the initial phase and not yet being fully indoctrinated at the crucible scene, we can assume that he might still be able to snap out of it with proper choices or with coaxing from his squad.

If the Starchild is infact an illusion created by Harbinger to fool
shepard, then the options provided make no sense from an "evil villain"
point of view.  There is no logical reason for Harbinger to give
Shepard the option to break out of Indoctrination.  A true villain
would simply lie about the destroy ending and make the other 2 options
seem much more attractive options, or disregard the destroy option all
together in order to trick the hero.

Because the indoctrination is a process going on within the confines of Shepard's own mind and the Reapers obviously don't have full control of it (even after the indoctrination process, Saren and Illusive Man retained some measure of control). Thus, the destroy option could simply be a projection of his own subconscious trying to keep him on the proper path. The starchild wishes to disuade Shepard from this option without revealing his full distaste for it: thus he simply creates a misleading lie about the effects of that choice.

Many supporters of the Indoctrination Theory claim that the child isn't
real since Shepard is the only person who has interracted with him.  I
disagree.  In the opening sequence, it is pretty clear that the shuttle
waits for the child to get in before taking off and being blown up by
the reaper.  In fact the soldier standing guard is actively looking for
enemies at the perimiter until the child gets on, before signalling the
pilot to take off with a punch to the door.

The dreams are
explained in the game as being a result of Shepard's deteriorating
emotional and psychological state.  When creating a new Shepard, the
player is able to select a psych history background, but no matter
which one the player chooses, it is made clear that the losses and
sacrifices are starting to take their toll on Shepard.  In game this
manifests itself as nightmares.  Shepard has nightmares at key points
during the game whenever an important character dies.  The first one is
after the child dies in the beginning, followed by more nightmares
after Mordin, and Thane's deaths (in my playthrough at least).  In the
dreams Shepard chases after the child but is never able to save him
from the flames.  It's clear imagery.  We also see ghosts of the many
faceless civilians and soldiers that have died along the way.

This is open to intepretation since it's a dream. Your analysis is as valid as the indoctrination theory.

During the trilogy, characters who have been indoctrinated are only
able to break the grasp for a short moment, usually only long enough to
apologizze and commit suicide or be killed.  Saren, Benezia, TIM.  It
is established canon that there is no indoctrination "attempt" or
"trial".  A Person simply becomes indoctrinated, and once that happens,
he does not simply break indoctrination and return to normal through
sheer will.  It is a permanent condition.  Even if the whole ending
sequence was some kind of test for Shepard, successfully breaking out
of Indoctrination would leave Shepard a broken shadow of his former
self.  Essentially a brain dead husk.  This leaves no room for
continuation of Shepard's story.

As previously stated, these are all characters who are in the late stages of indoctrination. Shepard could easily suffer huge mental damage as a cost of this process, but it's unclear if he's going to die or be unable to finish what he started.

Anyway though, it's fairly obvious Bioware intended the endings that we got. However, they are awful. As such, the fans put their collective heart and souls into wild literary analysis and managed to create a fully self-contained and working intepretation of the ending. It allows Bioware to simply add DLC from where the ending left off without any plot holes or any work to redo the game. Also, it makes them look super clever. So why not hold to this theory if it's the last best hope for a proper ending to this franchise?

Yeah they only broke indoc for 2 minutes TOPS to kill themselves. In Benezias case she broke it but then immedietely tried to kill SHepard AND her daughter Liara if you took her. So you can ONLY break it for a few minutes, not completely
 2- No it is NOT open for interpritaion since when you start the game it tell you in the last set of question labeled PSYCOLOGICAL PROFILE that the tolls of war are having an effect on Sheps psyche. Start a new game, get to that screen and see yourself. Bioware went out of their way to point that out. Do you know what happens with PTSD? I assume not so maybe you should look it up.

Modifié par MassEffected555, 19 mars 2012 - 08:26 .

[bryan12112]

I mostly agree with you on this, Tsantilas.

Thankfully, I don't think the ending has to be changed completely to work. What's there is good. They just need to expand upon it, which I think will definitely happen now that there has been this huge fan backlash.

Modifié par bryan12112, 19 mars 2012 - 08:24 .

[pharsti]

Why do you need to prove something thats true >_>?

The indoctrination theory is just that, a theory thats definitely not true, belonging in the fanfic realm.

[Tsantilas]

effortname wrote...
 So why not hold to this theory if it's the last best hope for a proper ending to this franchise?

Because accepting the Indoctrination Theory as canon, means that essentialy only 1 out of 16 possible endings is the "true ending" that allows you to progress the story via DLC, because that's the only one in which Shepard "wakes up".  It contradicts the current ending more than the plot holes and inconsistencies do.

[RavenEyry]

I'd like to see Shep breaking indoctrination for long enough to defeat the reapers and beg a friend to kill them before they lose control again in a touching and heartfelt scene. Y'know instead of abandoning characterisation to follow star child's advice and blow up the relays.

[Terminus Echoes]

This is very well done. Nice job.

[Schief724]

Midnight Eternal wrote...

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?

That's actually false. I hear pepole say this all the time, but you DO have to have to wrry about the amout of shots you fire off to an extent because you DO have to eject your clips if you fire enough shots. The ammo is unlimited, but the gun still functions the same as it would if it wasn't unlimited.

At the end of the game you DO NOT have to eject ANY clips no matter how many shots you fire off. This goes against every rule established in any Mass Effect game. The gun at some point is supposed to either overheat (ME1) or eject spent clips (ME2 & ME3). You can keep firing forever if you wish with the gun at the end of the game and never have any of those two things occur.

This doesn't prove or disprove the indoc. theory however.

[Jaze55]

Tsantilas wrote...

effortname wrote...
 So why not hold to this theory if it's the last best hope for a proper ending to this franchise?

Because accepting the Indoctrination Theory as canon, means that essentialy only 1 out of 16 possible endings is the "true ending" that allows you to progress the story via DLC, because that's the only one in which Shepard "wakes up".  It contradicts the current ending more than the plot holes and inconsistencies do.

To add :

The thing wrong with the Indoc theory is the only possible outcomes for Shepard, according to in game lore and mechanis are:

Turning into a Husk
Becoming a braindead vegi
Going insane
Suicide
Death at the hands of friends


I think that is VERY wrong about the indoc theory being true. Is that what you want for Shepard?

[Myskal1981]

Tsantilas wrote...

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.

How can he survive the destroy ending? The citadel explodes and is in space, impossible to survive.
The indoc theory has still a better explanation for Joker jumping away than the explanation offered by you (no explanation at all).
Assuming the indoc theory is correct, Shepard cannot question the kid more, because, well, he is indoctrinated and therefore sees no reason to question him more.
Now here, there is only one way to the console, so even if Anderson came behind Shepard, he had to cross his path and see him.

This is not saying the indoc theory is right. The indoc theory has flaws as well, no doubt about it, and is also wishful thinking, but it is a nice theory nonetheless.

And again, the plotholes were not explained a bit. You countered by making more questions. Any debate in which the arguments are based on counter-questions is doomed to fail in convincing the other party.

[savionen]

Honestly all I see from the OP is speculation/interpretation. There's not much to discuss.

The kid alone at the beginning just doesn't sit right with a lot of people. A kid in a building that explodes and lives, sits in a vent that is an electricution hazard and says to Shepard "You can't save me." He then disappears as a growl comes from the vent.

[effortname]

Yeah they only broke indoc for 2 minutes TOPS to kill themselves. In Benezias case she broke it but then immedietely tried to kill SHepard AND her daughter Liara if you took her. So you can ONLY break it for a few minutes, not completely

Again, these were fully late-stage indoctrinated allies of the Reapers. They had been like this for months, if not years. Shepard is only at the very first phase where the Reapers attempt to change his thought process. He's not even close to their level yet.

Because accepting the Indoctrination Theory as canon, means that essentialy only 1 out of 16 possible endings is the "true ending" that allows you to progress the story via DLC, because that's the only one in which Shepard "wakes up". It contradicts the current ending more than the plot holes and inconsistencies do.

No it doesn't. The destroy option is simply the most direct. You can assume that if the DLC picks up where the ending left off, then people who chose the other options would need to do more work to break the indoctrination. For example, some kind of mental battle with Harbinger (like the Geth mind interface minigame) where you can hear your squadmates telling you to fight.

Modifié par effortname, 19 mars 2012 - 08:29 .

[vrumpt]

Tsantilas wrote...

effortname wrote...
 So why not hold to this theory if it's the last best hope for a proper ending to this franchise?

Because accepting the Indoctrination Theory as canon, means that essentialy only 1 out of 16 possible endings is the "true ending" that allows you to progress the story via DLC, because that's the only one in which Shepard "wakes up".  It contradicts the current ending more than the plot holes and inconsistencies do.

You assume that the story would end when Shepard wakes up.  I certainly have never ever thought of that, and i'm certain other people who have come to accept that the indoctrination is true have never thought of that either.

The IT is simply a stepping stone.  By using the IT you extend the ending to allow for a proper ending to be established, with perhaps a boss fight when Shepard wakes up along with the 16 actually different endings we were all promised.

[savionen]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Tsantilas wrote...

effortname wrote...
 So why not hold to this theory if it's the last best hope for a proper ending to this franchise?

Because accepting the Indoctrination Theory as canon, means that essentialy only 1 out of 16 possible endings is the "true ending" that allows you to progress the story via DLC, because that's the only one in which Shepard "wakes up".  It contradicts the current ending more than the plot holes and inconsistencies do.

To add :

The thing wrong with the Indoc theory is the only possible outcomes for Shepard, according to in game lore and mechanis are:

Turning into a Husk
Becoming a braindead vegi
Going insane
Suicide
Death at the hands of friends


I think that is VERY wrong about the indoc theory being true. Is that what you want for Shepard?

TIM and Saren wen't husks. Also the Indoctrination theory is that he is FIGHTING indoctrination.

[RavenEyry]

pharsti wrote...

Why do you need to prove something thats true >_>?

The indoctrination theory is just that, a theory thats definitely not true, belonging in the fanfic realm.

Hooray a definitive statement! Bioware has spoken! Oh wait, you don't appear to work for Bioware, so can you not spout your opinions as if they were fact.

[kunzite]

Oh not this again. Indoc Theory is a theory, nothing more. No 'proof' exists until Bioware says 'Indoc Theory is true'. Otherwise, it's all conjecture.

I think it's good to see other theories presented, and the OP has every right to support his theory. But do people really need to continue the whole 'if you dont support Indoc, you're an idiot' type threads?

[Schief724]

savionen wrote...

Honestly all I see from the OP is speculation/interpretation. There's not much to discuss.

The kid alone at the beginning just doesn't sit right with a lot of people. A kid in a building that explodes and lives, sits in a vent that is an electricution hazard and says to Shepard "You can't save me." He then disappears as a growl comes from the vent.

Speculation for everybody!

[savionen]

Schief724 wrote...

savionen wrote...

Honestly all I see from the OP is speculation/interpretation. There's not much to discuss.

The kid alone at the beginning just doesn't sit right with a lot of people. A kid in a building that explodes and lives, sits in a vent that is an electricution hazard and says to Shepard "You can't save me." He then disappears as a growl comes from the vent.

Speculation for everybody!

Basically. I think the Indoctrination theory makes a lot of sense based upon what I saw. Others don't.

[Vhalkyrie]

Tsantilas wrote...

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.

That is the same argument against the 'control' ending.  Just 5 minutes ago s/he was telling the Illusive Man, "You don't control the Reapers.  They control you."