230 réponses à ce sujet

[parared]

agathokakological wrote...

I'm sure I may have gotten some details wrong, since I didn't have the codex and game open while writing the OP, but I'm fairly sure without a shadow of doubt, that no one has been able to break Indoctrination once the process has begun.  

One thing to keep in mind, this might be the first time a Reaper has tried to finish
an Indoc while in combat.  For instance, we could always see Harby take a hit coincident
with Shep breaking free.

Modifié par parared, 19 mars 2012 - 09:54 .

[greywardencommander]

greywardencommander wrote...

I am willing to go with 'it is possible to have the ending as the final stages of an indoctrination attempt' because nowhere does it ever explain what happens in the mind. How do you know that the stage from 'sane' to 'the reapers are right about some stuff' to 'control' doesn't happen via the brain trying to represent anything the reaper wants you to do within the context of your own thinking process and morality (like with Shepard). The fact indoctrination can be thrown off for even a few seconds is sufficient enough to imply that in THEORY a strong enough mind can throw it off.

I know it's not the same but in Harry Potter he was the first and only one to survive the killing curse, noone ran around saying he can't have done because noone else could block it before (before anyone point out the ins and outs of the bond with Voldermort it's just a theoretical example). The fact Shepard has (potentially) done it is a fact unto itself regardless of precedent. The fact that we've seen it be thrown off is enough to suggest there's a possibility it can be resisted all together.

All this can be applied within its own lore already set out without violating anything because nothing was explicitly said to be violated. Chucking a deus ex machina and a new 'super villain' for 2 mins as nothing more than space magic which seemingly (without further explanation from bioware) negates all that lore makes indoctrination theory the lesser of two evils so if people want to run with it until OFFICIALLY debunked, I don't see why they can't. Heck if they want to make it their head canon regardless, why not.

Nothing?

[agathokakological]

Tsantilas wrote...
It's never explained...  It's probably just something unique to rachni physiology.

So when this is never explained, it supports your theory? How do you figure?

As for the destruction ending... The reason I didn't choose the destruction ending was because of the trouble I went through to save the geth by making peace with the Quarians. So what you're saying is that the Indoctrination theory rests on the possibility that you might care about the Geth?

Not exactly. That is one reason, and you just admitted that is the reason that you chose. I don't think that's weak at all. If you say it's weak, and you're also saying that you gave in to it... But I don't want to get into that. I'm saying this is one of a number of reasons. Specifically, the Catalyst says that "the peace won't last," which would mean everything Shepard has worked for would be for naught. So, it's weighing everything into perspective-- original goals versus what the Catalyst, who sounds a lot like Harbinger, is saying.

The other 2 result in certain death, while destruction results in only possible death.

Did you know that on your first playthrough? No. And neither did Shepard.

Shepard's gunshot?  Marauder Shields shot him didn't he?

In the right shoulder. So why does he have a gunshot wound on his left abdomen side?

Shepard breathing in space? Mass effect fields/space magic.

Wonderful. So why does Shepard ever have to wear a helmet?

Which part of what Anderson told you seemed like nonsense exactly?

Anderson mentions being in another dark hallway, just like Shepard. Yet, there is only one path, and one dark hallway-- Shepard was in it.
Anderson "came up behind him," and then is suddenly ahead of him, already at the control panel. Again, one straight path makes that impossible.
Did anything on the Citadel look like the Collector Ship?
"Looks like a way to cross over" sounds a lot like the imagery of a near-death experience. Harry Potter comes to mind, for a mainstream example.

And that's just what I can recall off the top of my head.

Modifié par agathokakological, 19 mars 2012 - 10:10 .

[greywardencommander]

Tsantilas wrote...
It's never explained...  It's probably just something unique to rachni physiology.

Funny that, 'the weird space magic ending was never explained, thus it's probably something unique to Shephard'''

Amazing that you can dismiss that to support your theory when all organic life supposedly can be indoctrinated by the reapers including the vast majority of the same physiology you mention. Yet in that one particular case (one that goes against your theory) 'oh it was unique' well maybe the same is true for Shepard (see my previous post you're still ignoring), why is it implausible that he can unique physiological (upgrades), and cognitive makeup that makes him better equipped to resist it if by your logic the same can be true for the Rachni Queen yet not her brethren.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 19 mars 2012 - 10:30 .

[PsydonZero]

[quote]Tsantilas wrote...

The established canon of the mass effect series states:

"indoctrination
as a subtle whisper you can't ignore, that compels you to do things
without knowing why. Over days, perhaps a week of exposure to
Sovereign's signal, the subject stops thinking for themselves and just
obeys, eventually becoming a mindless servant."

"...there
is a balance between control and usefulness. The more control Sovereign
has over a person, the less capable they become."

"The
mental damage from indoctrination is severe and permanent. As Shepard
saw, the captured salarians on Virmire had been turned into shambling
husks, who either attacked on sight or just stood awaiting orders. Only
people with immense mental strength are able to resist indoctrination,
and even then, only for a short time."

There is no mention of dream sequences, or vivid full blown hallucinations.[/quote]

You took that from the ME Wiki. Here is what the established canon really says:
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.
[quote]In addition, Indoctrination isn't a process that can fail.[/quote]

How do you know that?

[quote]What
he manages to do is reach a point where he's able to exert limited
control on people, which is what happens during the
conversation.[/quote]

1. Then why does he praise the Reapers' power and not his own? Why does he say "Look at the power they wield! Look at what they can do!"

2. Then why does that weird purple energy surround TIM's hand at that specific moment he makes Shepard shoot Anderson and never again? What is that? It's not biotics and TIM isn't a biotic. Why did it only appear then?

[quote]That
is the only part in the whole trilogy where Shepard experiences some
form of control/indoctrination, and it ends the moment TIM dies.[/quote]

How do you know that? Also, what if the Reapers are simply deceiving Shepard into believing she's successfully resisted? Which makes sense considering Hackett is somehow able to contact Shepard.

1. Even though Shepard's radio equipment was logically destroyed along with her weapons, armour, shields and everything else.

2.
Why didn't Hackett try to contact Shepard the very second he heard that
Hammer was wiped out at the Conduit? What, did nobody tell the leader
of the Alliance forces, possibly the leader (or one of) of the whole operation that a major strike force was destroyed? Why did Hackett only contact Shepard conveniently right after TIM died? Did TIM keep Shepard from hearing Hackett's voice? Then why didn't he keep Shepard from hearing Anderson? Why didn't he stop Shepard from seeing Anderson
if he could hijack her sensory network? Why would he be able to do all
that but not force Shepard to drop her gun or keep her from speaking?

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

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's
"suggestions" can manipulate victims

You're assuming that one either is or isn't indoctrinated, that there's only one form of indoctrination.

[quote]Indoctrinating Shepard at this stage of the war serves no purpose.[/quote]

Shepard was going to reach the Conduit and possibly actually use the Crucible. Also, you're assuming indoctrination must be something that happens only due to a Reaper's
volition, even though dialogue/events from previous games suggests the
mere presence of any kind of Reaper tech, active or inactive, is enough.
Shepard's severely weakened physical condition after narrowly avoiding
death might have allowed the conditioning to take a greater hold.

[quote]For all practical purposes, killing him would have the same result[/quote]

Which,
whether the indoctrination theory is true or not, Harbinger failed to
do. Yet Harbinger flew away when it could have shot Shepard again. Weird, isn't it? Almost makes you wonder if maybe the events of the ending weren't quite as they seem.

[quote]I'll ignore that this isn't how indoctrination works for argument's sake[/quote]

You misunderstand. We know from in-universe examples (Saren, Benezia, that "my mind is my own" guy on Feros) that indoctrination can be resisted. The theory holds that the endings didn't actually happen but rather the Control/Synthesis
endings represent Shepard's mind succumbing to the indoctrination,
while the Destroy ending represents Shepard's mind successfully
resisting the indoctrination.

[quote]I will agree that the
control and Synthesis endings seem suspicious, but objectively speaking,
they are in fact solutions to the reaper threat.  All 3 ending choices
result in stopping the cycle one way or another.[/quote]

Incorrect.

Control is nothing more than a gamble: Shepard
might eventually fall to the Reapers' collective wills, at which point
they'll come back and do the whole thing all over again. Let's say
that never happens, though. What's stopping another organic race from
creating a race of synthetics who want to destroy all organics,
ultimately triggering the creation of another Reaper cycle, assuming the race of destructive synthetics aren't Reapers in their own right.

Synthesis also doesn't stop the cycle for this same reason. The
new cyborg species of the galaxy could still create synthetics that
want to destroy them all, leading to the same as above. There's
something else, though. If everyone gets merged with all synthetic life
in the galaxy, what happens to the Reapers' programming? We know thanks
to Paul Grayson that Reaper tech, at least the physical form, is
nanomachines programmed with their code, which includes their
indoctrination signal. Does every lifeform in the galaxy bear those
nanomachines now? Because if they do, they're all doomed.

Hell,
even Destroy doesn't really stop the cycle from happening again, but at
least it's the most sensible ending both from a logistics standpoint (it's not space magic like Synthesis is) and a pragmatism standpoint (the Reapers are gone for good, unlike in Control).

[quote]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.[/quote]

The options don't make sense from that
perspective regardless. The Catalyst is an evil villain. It controls the
Reapers: it is technically the main antagonist of the series. Why give
Shepard any options at all? All it had to do to accomplish its objective
was to not allow Shepard to reach it. That control panel didn't have to
respond to Shepard's commands. That platform didn't have to rise and just happen to take Shepard to the place she needed to be even though she didn't know how to get there (makes you wonder how she managed that). There is an atmosphere Shepard is able to breathe even though she is clearly in outer space--the only way that makes sense is if the Catalyst pumped oxygen up there and suspended it in a mass effect field. Why would it do that? Why didn't it just let Shepard suffocate? In fact, why didn't it just not appear to Shepard at all and instead let her stand there watching the Reapers win?

[quote]There is no logical reason for Harbinger to give Shepard the option to break out of Indoctrination.[/quote]

Harbinger
wasn't giving Shepard the option. The option--that is, the possibility
Shepard would break free of the Reapers' control--was always there.
Harbinger just presented it as an unattractive option (if you do this
you will die and basically everyone everywhere will given how heavily
you all rely on machines) to discourage Shepard from resisting.

[quote]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.[/quote]

The Catalyst did lie. It said that Shepard
would die if she chose Destroy ("Even you are partly synthetic."), but
Shepard can survive, and it's clear from its dialogue that it did just
what you said: present Control and Synthesis as attractive options in order to trick Shepard.

[quote]People
also argue that the destroy ending is shown as being "bad" because the
Starchild tells Shepard that he will destroy all synthetic life,
including the geth, and that "even you are partly synthetic".  He never
says that Shepard will die, only that his implants will stop working
(which may or may not result in his death).[/quote]

Those
implants were put in there for a reason. TIM spent, according to
Miranda, an enormous chunk of Cerberus' finances reviving Shepard. He
wouldn't buy those implants if they weren't necessary for bringing back
Shepard exactly as she was before. The Shepard Lives Ending shows that Shepard can survive without the implants, but she didn't know that or else she would have told the Catalyst that. I
doubt she even knows the full extent of what they did to her.
Regardless of whether Destroy really is bad or not, it is presented to
Shepard as such.

[quote]The other 2 endings result in Shepard's
certain death, and yet they are supposedly more attractive?  That makes
no sense.[/quote]

You're right, it doesn't. But that doesn't help your point.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Did you know that you can see The Kid before the vent scene? Play the tutorial mission again and keep a close eye on the building where Shepard meets him. Watch everything he does very closely.


[quote]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.[/quote]

These people are in a shuttle in the middle of a warzone, surrounded by husks and with a Reaper bearing down on them. They're
ready for takeoff, except that there's this one kid clearly struggling
to pull himself up into the shuttle and a soldier standing right next to
his hands not doing anything. No one helps
the kid into the shuttle so they can close the hatch and get the hell
away from there--they wait for him instead, even though every second
could mean the difference between life and death.

[quote]The dreams are explained in the game[/quote]

No they're not.


[quote]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.[/quote]

Yeah, that backstory. See, my Shepard is Sole Survivor. I don't
know about you, but if she's going to have nightmares about anything,
it's being surrounded by thresher maws--worms as tall as
skyscrapers--eating her comrades alive while the rest of them melt in
their acid before her eyes, and she can't do anything but run.

Or
maybe she'll have nightmares about Kaidan. He died on Virmire, you see.
He was a good man, and a friend. They went back even before Eden Prime. It really tore her up having to listen to him die.

Or maybe she'll have nightmares about watching people melt before her eyes (see above) in the Collector Base as she tries with all her might to at least save Chakwas and Kelly. Pretty horrifying stuff, especially once she saw what it was all for.

I could go on. 

But
instead of all that, she gradually breaks down over a random kid, one
of countless people she's seen die before her eyes, that she didn't
know, barely spoke to, and just happens to be a hologram that controls
the Reapers and is part of the Citadel and is the source of the cycle of destruction I mean did you even watch the cutscenes and the ending how can you not see how messed up all this is?

[quote]We also see ghosts of the many faceless civilians and soldiers that have died along the way.[/quote]

Oh, is that what they are? They don't look like civilians or soldiers or even ghosts to me.
They don't even look humanoid. They're just lines of black stuff.
Actually, they kinda look like oily shadows...the very same thing the Rachni queen said the indoctrination signal "sounded" like...the very same thing Shepard sees during the TIM dialogue.

[quote]"The mental damage from indoctrination is severe and permanent.[/quote]

At this point you might as well describe every stage of indoctrination and its effects step by step. Please do that.

[quote]As
Shepard saw, the captured salarians on Virmire had been turned into
shambling husks, who either attacked on sight or just stood awaiting
orders.[/quote]

Saren.
Benezia.
TIM.

[quote]Only people with immense mental strength are able to resist indoctrination, and even then, only for a short time."[/quote]

"You must be remarkably strong-willed, Commander."

Is it so hard to believe?

[quote]It is established canon that there is no indoctrination "attempt" or "trial".[/quote]

It's also established canon that no ship has ever returned from the Omega 4 Relay. 


[quote]A Person simply becomes indoctrinated, and once that happens, he
does not simply break indoctrination and return to normal through sheer
will.[/quote]

Prove it.

[quote]It is a permanent condition.[/quote]

Prove it.

[quote]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.[/quote]

To quote Mordin: "Supposition. Impossible to be certain!"

[quote]I mean really?  Would they risk an entire franchise on some marketting ploy?[/quote]

1. Bioware is owned by EA. EA LOVES atypical marketing.

2.
Bioware is not infallible. They are capable of making mistakes and
ill-conceived decisions. See: any game they've ever made, but especially
Dragon Age 2.

3. Mike Gamble never had to say "You wouldn't react the way you are if you knew what we had planned." He
could have just said something along the same lines as Casey Hudson's
recent letter (ME3 is awesome, you are awesome, buy the DLC). But he chose to say specifically that, or was authorized/told to say that. That has to mean something.

4. Yes. Why is that so hard to believe? They're not risking anything. ME3 has already sold more than the other two games combined.


[quote]The Control ending eyes/scars have no relevance.[/quote]

Why, because you say so? How are you reaching this conclusion?

[quote]It's simply a visual representation of shepard being disintegrated in the process of becoming "reaper king".[/quote]

Shepard's
eyes just happen to transform exactly into TIM's eyes (it happens in
the Synthesis ending as well, BTW), and we know that TIM was
indoctrinated and possibly had been for a long time, and we know that
even Saren had neon blue eyes even though they didn't have the same
pattern as TIM's.

That means absolutely nothing...because you say so? How are you reaching this conclusion?

[quote]The
reason why Shepard only wakes up in the Destroy ending (with 4000+ EMS)
is that he's dead in all the other ones.  Pretty much just straight
forward logic here...[/quote]

How is that logical? Why not just have Shepard die in every ending? Why not have Shepard live in the Destroy ending regardless of EMS? What is it about being dead in every other ending that demands she live in this one ending?

[quote]The pistol has infinite ammo for gameplay purposes.[/quote]

Why didn't they just have thermal clips laying around? You can't even see the pistol's ammo counter.

[quote]unless
Bioware employs "Space Magic" to miraculously make him achieve what no
one in the history of the galaxy before him as done, and break free of
Indoctrination permanently.[/quote]

Considering Shepard:

1. Is the player character.
2. Has personally destroyed three Reapers.
3.
Has at least up to the beam run managed to fight off any negative
effects of indoctrination despite frequent-to-continuous exposure to
Reaper technology, including flying in a ship partially made out of it.
4. Is the only ship captain known to use the Omega 4 Relay and live to tell the tale.
5.
Is impossibly charismatic, to the point where it borders on mind
control strong enough to unite entire species with age-old feuds.

I'd say doing the impossible one last time is within the realm of possibility.

[greywardencommander]

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.

The Catalyst did lie. It said that Shepard would die if she chose Destroy ("Even you are partly synthetic."), but
Shepard can survive, and it's clear from its dialogue that it did just what you said: present Control and Synthesis as attractive options in order to trick Shepard.

can't fault you on most of that detailed breakdown, but he still deflected my pointing out that THAT is exactly what happened with 'making the other 2' seem more attractive to trick the hero.

He's also ignored my pointing out the fact that previous characters have temporarily thrown off the affects, and in the rachni queen case twice resisted them all together, shows that the POSSIBILITY is there and as I said with my HP analogy about the boy who lived but your one is much better with the Omega Relay canon. Thus in the same way Shepard could well be the first (if not including Rachni Queen), the fact others have temporarily resisted means that is plausible not as definitively 'impossible' as he makes out.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 19 mars 2012 - 10:32 .

[Ariq]

Tsantilas wrote...

As far as I understand, Indoctrination itself is simply electomagnetic waves given off through proximity to reaper tech.  There is no mention of mystical ghost children having in depth conversations with the subject, and offering him choices in a scheme to win him over to his side.  It just happens.  One minute you're sane, the next (not literally) you think the Reapers may be right about stuff, and next thing you know the reapers are directly controlling you. 

There are several cases where Indoctrination was shown to be a process, not a binary switch on and off. On the Reaper hulk in ME2 there is evidence of advancing stages of Indoctrination: including hallucinations and altered memories. Saren is a prime example, he voluntarily chooses to help Sovereign, but slowly falls under his sway. He resists. Sovereign implants him with Reaper tech so as to directly control his body even after Saren suicides. The article you quoted from in your OP even contradicts this, mentioning that it takes 'days or weeks' of exposure to Reaper Indoctrination to slowly consume the mind of the victim. And in point of fact, we do have a direct, specific example of someone Indoctrinated breaking free: the Asari Shiala at Zhu's Hope. Unique circumstance? Yes. But Shepard is also unique (Beacons, Cipher).

[Rawgrim]

Good point, Ariq.

[PsydonZero]

So we have the Rachni Queen twice over, Shiala and possibly Shepard as examples of indoctrination being broken. Considering that TIM was exposed to Reaper tech so thoroughly that his eyes were transformed during the First Contact War, that he's lasted this long (he wouldn't have opposed the Collectors had he been under the Reapers' sway), presumably longer than anyone else in the ME universe, also speaks to the effects strong willpower can have on indoctrination.

And here's something you can't explain, TC.

Listen to the Catalyst during the ending. It has three voices. One is a child's, one is Mark Meer (MaleShep) and one is Jennifer Hale (FemShep).

[Jaze55]

PsydonZero wrote...

So we have the Rachni Queen twice over, Shiala and possibly Shepard as examples of indoctrination being broken. Considering that TIM was exposed to Reaper tech so thoroughly that his eyes were transformed during the First Contact War, that he's lasted this long (he wouldn't have opposed the Collectors had he been under the Reapers' sway), presumably longer than anyone else in the ME universe, also speaks to the effects strong willpower can have on indoctrination.

And here's something you can't explain, TC.

Listen to the Catalyst during the ending. It has three voices. One is a child's, one is Mark Meer (MaleShep) and one is Jennifer Hale (FemShep).

http://masseffect.wi...com/wiki/Shiala 

read the LAST paragraph. Once again a case of failing to consider in game lore and mechanics.

Last time I am going to tell you guys there theory has more holes then the real ending. Have fun living in your delusional dream and I hope it doesn't sting very much when you realize how insane this all is. 


Also from there:

Shiala is the only individual who has managed to completely overcome Sovereign's indoctrination without resorting to suicide. This is likely because she was linked directly to the ancient Thorian and 'indoctrinated' by the plant being in turn. After the Thorian died her mind was her own again. 

Modifié par MassEffected555, 20 mars 2012 - 01:18 .

[shadey]

the reapers didn't even need to indoctrinate shepard once the invasion has started, he wasn't needed. 


the reapers also were unaware of the crucible until TIM told them, if shepard was being indoctrinated they would have known


indoc. theory is just full of plot holes and i've never believed it.

 

[Rawgrim]

shadey wrote...

the reapers didn't even need to indoctrinate shepard once the invasion has started, he wasn't needed. 


the reapers also were unaware of the crucible until TIM told them, if shepard was being indoctrinated they would have known


indoc. theory is just full of plot holes and i've never believed it.

 

Check out Shep`s conversation with the reaper on Rannoch. And notice the words the reaper is using.

[shadey]

Rawgrim wrote...


Check out Shep`s conversation with the reaper on Rannoch. And notice the words the reaper is using.

you'll have to clarify if you want to make a point

Modifié par shadey, 20 mars 2012 - 01:29 .

[greywardencommander]

shadey wrote...

the reapers didn't even need to indoctrinate shepard once the invasion has started, he wasn't needed. 


the reapers also were unaware of the crucible until TIM told them, if shepard was being indoctrinated they would have known


indoc. theory is just full of plot holes and i've never believed it.

 

no more, and I'd argue less than any of the ones pointed out already exist in the current endings (regardless of whether you take it as indoctrination/illusion or not) in terms of Normandy running, squad mates managing to appear in Normandy when 5 mins prior they were with you on Earth, Mass Relays, Anderson & TIM switcharoo, bodies, breathing, the inability to challenge the idea (even if in the end it didn't matter), the forces stuck on earth, the stranded fleet etc etc

[shadey]

who emerges from the normandy is imo just based on random selection, which can result in problems. so it's more a sloppy programming issue than a lore issue.

i've done the ending about 6 times and gotten different people each time, sometimes I'll get the squadmates who ran down with me. Other times i'll get people who weren't in my squad, like I ended with garrusy/vega in my squad but joker/edi/traynor were seen coming out of the normandy

Modifié par shadey, 20 mars 2012 - 01:42 .

[rfalzar]

Well I really dont know if anyone has posted this yet, but if I remember correctly it says that extremely strong willed individuals (like Shepard) have been known to resist the effects of indoctrination. Given the way the game turned out we see that Shepard slowly loses hope and his willpower is slowly being drained, making it easy for the indoctrination to take full effect in London.

Here's a vid that explains it nicely:

[Amonthes]

I just don't see the point of it. If they are going to redo the ending, why keep all the stuff people don't like just to handwave it away with a needlessly complex theory? Why not just plain redo it?

[greywardencommander]

shadey wrote...

who emerges from the normandy is imo just based on random selection, which can result in problems. so it's more a sloppy programming issue than a lore issue.

i've done the ending about 6 times and gotten different people each time, sometimes I'll get the squadmates who ran down with me. Other times i'll get people who weren't in my squad, like I ended with garrusy/vega in my squad but joker/edi/traynor were seen coming out of the normandy

That I can live with if it generally a programming mistake, it happens, look at the face import (don't get me started about my distorted wannabe Shepard) but even so the abandonment of your entire crew of you is against the 'in this to the end' of not only the game but the series.

If there is 10 mins or something before hand of Shepard finding out what he has to do and letting the fleet know, then saying 'guys this is what's gonna happen the ME relays are going to blow up get out of there' then fine I can live with that but I shouldn't have to imagine that. Nor should I have to imagine that for whatever reason this anhilation of ME relays (causing arrival like explosions or non-fatal) leads to - well how the hell do they all survive. How does the galaxy function without intergalactic travel. 

If they EXPLAINED these decisions then I can live with the ending (even if I still think its bad) it's the nonsensicle tacked on feel of these endings that explains nothing and for every answer leaves several more questions. The decision to cut out the entire conversation enabling you to ask about how long it's been reaping, how it does it etc HUGE MISTAKE. That's not even talking about the 'a b c' or 'shoehorned canon' we were promised wouldn't happen.

Also a lot of people point to the App thing saying it disproves the theory.  'in the end the indoctrination part was removed because of GAMEPLAY mechanics of controlling Shepard yet being controlled by the Reapers, this does not completely defunct the idea that the storyline still reflects this intention and that more may be built on in the future with regards to it. Nor does it defunct the idea that it could be some sort of mental breakdown/illusion in those last minutes that lead to the ending we get post harbinger beam.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 20 mars 2012 - 02:06 .

[agathokakological]

Amonthes wrote...

I just don't see the point of it. If they are going to redo the ending, why keep all the stuff people don't like just to handwave it away with a needlessly complex theory? Why not just plain redo it?

Because it makes more sense from a developmental standpoint not to waste all that time and disc space by throwing it in the garbage. Also, how stupid would they look if they did that? A patch/DLC that continues from the ending that does the job of throwing the current ending in the garbage without doing that literally makes the most sense. It's very easy to do this with indoctrination theory.

By the way, indoctrination theory is really simple. If Bioware had put it in the main game, there would be fewer people scratching their heads than there are now.

[Intrepid Lynx]

Here are my non-Indoctrination thoughts.

http://social.biowar.../index/10290630

[Amonthes]

agathokakological wrote...

Amonthes wrote...

I just don't see the point of it. If they are going to redo the ending, why keep all the stuff people don't like just to handwave it away with a needlessly complex theory? Why not just plain redo it?

Because it makes more sense from a developmental standpoint not to waste all that time and disc space by throwing it in the garbage. Also, how stupid would they look if they did that? A patch/DLC that continues from the ending that does the job of throwing the current ending in the garbage without doing that literally makes the most sense. It's very easy to do this with indoctrination theory.

By the way, indoctrination theory is really simple. If Bioware had put it in the main game, there would be fewer people scratching their heads than there are now.

I can think of a few ways they could satisfyingly rewrite the ending. But I can't imagine any that would involve playing through the entire ending as originally provided, waking up from a dream, and then playing through the "real" ending. Perhaps they could surprise me by making it work somehow, but it would feel like an extended, pointless narrative sidestep at the most crucial juncture of the game.

I think if they want to keep the current ending and build off of it, they should just expand on what happens after each choice.

[Tsantilas]

[quote]PsydonZero wrote...

[quote]Tsantilas wrote...

The established canon of the mass effect series states:

"indoctrination
as a subtle whisper you can't ignore, that compels you to do things
without knowing why. Over days, perhaps a week of exposure to
Sovereign's signal, the subject stops thinking for themselves and just
obeys, eventually becoming a mindless servant."

"...there
is a balance between control and usefulness. The more control Sovereign
has over a person, the less capable they become."

"The
mental damage from indoctrination is severe and permanent. As Shepard
saw, the captured salarians on Virmire had been turned into shambling
husks, who either attacked on sight or just stood awaiting orders. Only
people with immense mental strength are able to resist indoctrination,
and even then, only for a short time."

There is no mention of dream sequences, or vivid full blown hallucinations.[/quote]

You took that from the ME Wiki. Here is what the established canon really says:
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.[/quote]

Again, the so called "hallucination sequence" after harbinger's beam has no relation whatsoever to what is described in the codex.  If you want to call his dreams "hallucinations of "ghostly" presences, then the Prothean VI pretty much completely debunks that theory when he states that he detects no sign of indoctrination in shepard or his crew.
[quote]In addition, Indoctrination isn't a process that can fail.[/quote]
[quote]
How do you know that?
[/quote]

Because there have been no characters in the game thus far that have managed to say "nope" to indoctrination.  Every time Indoctrination has start affecting some character in the game, it has gone through.

[quote]
[quote]What he manages to do is reach a point where he's able to exert limited control on people, which is what happens during the conversation.[/quote]

1. Then why does he praise the Reapers' power and not his own? Why does he say "Look at the power they wield! Look at what they can do!"

2. Then why does that weird purple energy surround TIM's hand at that specific moment he makes Shepard shoot Anderson and never again? What is that? It's not biotics and TIM isn't a biotic. Why did it only appear then? [/quote]

1.  Because he's been praising the reaper's capabilities since mass effect 2.  Ever since he tells you to keep reaper tech so that they can use it against the reapers.  Not to mention that his ability to control Shepard and Anderson during that scene have been explained by his experimenting on himself with reaper tech.  Did you not pay attention to the horizon/cerberus base subplot?

2.  It's a visual representation of TIM exerting control over them.

[quote]
[quote]That
is the only part in the whole trilogy where Shepard experiences some
form of control/indoctrination, and it ends the moment TIM dies.[/quote]

How do you know that? Also, what if the Reapers are simply deceiving Shepard into believing she's successfully resisted? Which makes sense considering Hackett is somehow able to contact Shepard.
[/quote]

What do you mean how do I know that?  I payed the game... Shepard has never been indoctrinated during any other part of the trilogy.

[quote]
1. Even though Shepard's radio equipment was logically destroyed along with her weapons, armour, shields and everything else.

2.
Why didn't Hackett try to contact Shepard the very second he heard that
Hammer was wiped out at the Conduit? What, did nobody tell the leader
of the Alliance forces, possibly the leader (or one of) of the whole operation that a major strike force was destroyed? Why did Hackett only contact Shepard conveniently right after TIM died? Did TIM keep Shepard from hearing Hackett's voice? Then why didn't he keep Shepard from hearing Anderson? Why didn't he stop Shepard from seeing Anderson
if he could hijack her sensory network? Why would he be able to do all
that but not force Shepard to drop her gun or keep her from speaking?
[/quote]

1.  Shepard's radio equipment wasn't destroyed, considering how it's all based on implants.  Notice how he reaches for his ear during all cutscenes where he is communicating to anyone via radio?  Even when he's not wearing a helmet?  I thought this was established canon? 

2.  Hackett tries to contact Shepard to see if he's still alive...?  Where's the confusion here?  Where is this whole "TIM interfering with communications" line of thought coming from?  Hackett isn't in constant communication with Shepard for the whole mission.

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

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims

You're assuming that one either is or isn't indoctrinated, that there's only one form of indoctrination.[/quote]

Again, considering how we've only seen one type of indoctrination, ie. mind control, then yes.  Indoctrination is a process but ultimately it consists of altering the subjects way of thinking to become in line with the reapers', through subtle hints that you cannot ignore at first, and later as full control.

[quote]
[quote]Indoctrinating Shepard at this stage of the war serves no purpose.[/quote]

Shepard was going to reach the Conduit and possibly actually use the Crucible. Also, you're assuming indoctrination must be something that happens only due to a Reaper's volition, even though dialogue/events from previous games suggests the mere presence of any kind of Reaper tech, active or inactive, is enough. Shepard's severely weakened physical condition after narrowly avoiding death might have allowed the conditioning to take a greater hold.
[/quote]

Shepard reaching the Conduit is nothing a red deathlaser blast wouldn't solve.  I'm not assuming anything about it being Reaper's volition.  I'm aware it occurs due to proximity to reapers, that doesn't explain how Shepard becomes indoctrinated if Harbinger flies off after seeing him fall.  You're going to tell me that after all his contact with repears throughout the 3 games, including actually walking INSIDE a reaper in ME2, that they only now, during the last 10 minutes of the game, started to have some kind of effect on him?

[quote]
[quote]For all practical purposes, killing him would have the same result[/quote]

Which,
whether the indoctrination theory is true or not, Harbinger failed to do. Yet Harbinger flew away when it could have shot Shepard again. Weird, isn't it? Almost makes you wonder if maybe the events of the ending weren't quite as they seem.
[/quote]

He may have thought Shepard was dead, he may have had other things to do, whatever.  This isn't evidence proving anything.

[quote]I'll ignore that this isn't how indoctrination works for argument's sake[/quote][quote]
You misunderstand. We know from in-universe examples (Saren, Benezia, that "my mind is my own" guy on Feros) that indoctrination can be resisted. The theory holds that the endings didn't actually happen but rather the Control/Synthesis endings represent Shepard's mind succumbing to the indoctrination, while the Destroy ending represents Shepard's mind successfully resisting the indoctrination.
[/quote]

We know from in-universe examples, that Saren, Benezia, etc all eventually fell to indoctrination even if they managed to break the hold long enough to tell Shepard that they could not control their actions anymore.  Notice how none of them are alive?  I'm fairly sure they all died moments later either through suicide, or being killed by Shepard.

My point is that this whole mental test in the form of a vivid lifelike hallucination representing his willpower in an attempt to resist indoctrination, has no consistency to anything we know about Indoctrination.  Indoctrination is simply a signal that affects the subject's brain's functions.  There is no mental test involving a mystical character showing up offering you choices.

[quote]
[quote]I will agree that the control and Synthesis endings seem suspicious, but objectively speaking, they are in fact solutions to the reaper threat.  All 3 ending choices result in stopping the cycle one way or another.[/quote]

Incorrect.

Control is nothing more than a gamble: Shepard might eventually fall to the Reapers' collective wills, at which point
they'll come back and do the whole thing all over again. Let's say that never happens, though. What's stopping another organic race from creating a race of synthetics who want to destroy all organics, ultimately triggering the creation of another Reaper cycle, assuming the race of destructive synthetics aren't Reapers in their own right.

Synthesis also doesn't stop the cycle for this same reason. The new cyborg species of the galaxy could still create synthetics that want to destroy them all, leading to the same as above. There's something else, though. If everyone gets merged with all synthetic life in the galaxy, what happens to the Reapers' programming? We know thanks to Paul Grayson that Reaper tech, at least the physical form, is nanomachines programmed with their code, which includes their indoctrination signal. Does every lifeform in the galaxy bear those nanomachines now? Because if they do, they're all doomed.

Hell, even Destroy doesn't really stop the cycle from happening again, but at least it's the most sensible ending both from a logistics standpoint (it's not space magic like Synthesis is) and a pragmatism standpoint (the Reapers are gone for good, unlike in Control). [/quote]

These are all a matter of interperetation and assumtions based on guesswork.  You can't just say "incorrect".  There is no solid evidence pointing to Control and Synthesis not being valid choices.  In fact the game itself tells you the exact opposite, with the "You win.  You have defeated the reapers and commander Shepard is a legend.  Purchase dlc to continue that legend." text at the end.  This proves that Synthesis and Control are both valid endings, and there is no evidence shown in the game that prove anything otherwise.  the only argument the pro-indoctrination theorists have come up with for that is "nuh-uh! It's wrong!".  Sorry if I take what the game itself and Bioware has told me over your speculation.

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]

The options don't make sense from that  perspective regardless. The Catalyst is an evil villain. It controls the Reapers: it is technically the main antagonist of the series. Why give Shepard any options at all? All it had to do to accomplish its objectivewas to not allow Shepard to reach it. That control panel didn't have to respond to Shepard's commands. That platform didn't have to rise and just happen to take Shepard to the place she needed to be even though she didn't know how to get there (makes you wonder how she managed that). There is an atmosphere Shepard is able to breathe even though she is clearly in outer space--the only way that makes sense is if the Catalyst pumped oxygen up there and suspended it in a mass effect field. Why would it do that? Why didn't it just let Shepard suffocate? In fact, why didn't it just not appear to Shepard at all and instead let her stand there watching the Reapers win?
[/quote]

So if the options don't make sense from that perspective, how can you guys keep using it as evidence that the Catalyst is lying to shepard?  The Catalyst clearly wanted to speak with Shepard, which is why he made the platform rise up... you know, since he controls the citadel and the reapers.  All those questions you asked just prove my point that it makes no sense for the catalyst to be some evil mastermind.

[quote]
[quote]There is no logical reason for Harbinger to give Shepard the option to break out of Indoctrination.[/quote]
Harbinger wasn't giving Shepard the option. The option--that is, the possibility Shepard would break free of the Reapers' control--was always there. Harbinger just presented it as an unattractive option (if you do this you will die and basically everyone everywhere will given how heavily you all rely on machines) to discourage Shepard from resisting. [/quote]

This doesn't fall in line with how indoctrination works as I've already argued.

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]

The Catalyst did lie. It said that Shepard would die if she chose Destroy ("Even you are partly synthetic."), but
Shepard can survive, and it's clear from its dialogue that it did just what you said: present Control and Synthesis as attractive options in order to trick Shepard.[/quote]

The Catalyst didn't lie.  It said Shepard's synthetic part (aka his implants) would stop working.  Whether you live or die depends on you having a high EMS score.  How does the Indoctrination theory explain the EMS factor?

[quote]
[quote]People also argue that the destroy ending is shown as being "bad" because the Starchild tells Shepard that he will destroy all synthetic life, including the geth, and that "even you are partly synthetic".  He never says that Shepard will die, only that his implants will stop working (which may or may not result in his death).[/quote]

Those implants were put in there for a reason. TIM spent, according to Miranda, an enormous chunk of Cerberus' finances reviving Shepard. He wouldn't buy those implants if they weren't necessary for bringing back Shepard exactly as she was before. The Shepard Lives Ending shows that Shepard can survive without the implants, but she didn't know that or else she would have told the Catalyst that. I doubt she even knows the full extent of what they did to her. Regardless of whether Destroy really is bad or not, it is presented to Shepard as such.[/quote]

Shepard has survived against near impossible odds.  Yes the Implants were put there in order to revive him.  There's no reason to believe that if taken away once being healed, that he wont be still alive, but in a very damaged state (which is what we see in the ending scene with Shepard breathing under rubble).

[quote]
[quote]The other 2 endings result in Shepard's certain death, and yet they are supposedly more attractive?  That makes no sense.[/quote]

You're right, it doesn't. But that doesn't help your point.
[/quote]

Of course it helps my point.  When pro-indoctrination theorists say "destruction ending is presented as bad, the other 2 endings are presented as more attractive" and it's obvious that's just plain false, then of course it does help my point.

[quote]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.[/quote]

[quote]
Did you know that you can see The Kid before the vent scene? Play the tutorial mission again and keep a close eye on the building where Shepard meets him. Watch everything he does very closely.[/quote]

Yes I know that you can see him before the vent scene.  This just proves that he doesn't "magically" appear in the vent after the room blows up as some figment of Shepard's imagination.

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]

These people are in a shuttle in the middle of a warzone, surrounded by husks and with a Reaper bearing down on them. They're ready for takeoff, except that there's this one kid clearly struggling to pull himself up into the shuttle and a soldier standing right next to his hands not doing anything. No one helps the kid into the shuttle so they can close the hatch and get the hell away from there--they wait for him instead, even though every second could mean the difference between life and death.
[/quote]

Exactly, they're in the middle of a warzone surrounded by husks and reapers.  The soldiers are responsible for making sure they don't get whiped out, not trying to help some kid who obviously manages to get on the shuttle by himself.

[quote]
[quote]The dreams are explained in the game[/quote]
No they're not.[/quote]

Yes they are.  See? I can do that too.

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]

Yeah, that backstory. See, my Shepard is Sole Survivor. I don't know about you, but if she's going to have nightmares about anything, it's being surrounded by thresher maws--worms as tall as skyscrapers--eating her comrades alive while the rest of them melt in their acid before her eyes, and she can't do anything but run.

Or maybe she'll have nightmares about Kaidan. He died on Virmire, you see. He was a good man, and a friend. They went back even before Eden Prime. It really tore her up having to listen to him die.

Or maybe she'll have nightmares about watching people melt before her eyes (see above) in the Collector Base as she tries with all her might to at least save Chakwas and Kelly. Pretty horrifying stuff, especially once she saw what it was all for.

I could go on. 

But instead of all that, she gradually breaks down over a random kid, one of countless people she's seen die before her eyes, that she didn't know, barely spoke to, and just happens to be a hologram that controls the Reapers and is part of the Citadel and is the source of the cycle of destruction I mean did you even watch the cutscenes and the ending how can you not see how messed up all this is?[/quote]

Exactly... Bioware tried to use the kid to be dramatic.  They failed.  It doesn't show any consistency to the Shepard each player has carefully crafted.  In ME3 they simply decided "this is the Shepard we want to portray, and we disregard all player decisions to get our point accross".

[quote]
[quote]We also see ghosts of the many faceless civilians and soldiers that have died along the way.[/quote]
Oh, is that what they are? They don't look like civilians or soldiers or even ghosts to me.  They don't even look humanoid. They're just lines of black stuff. Actually, they kinda look like oily shadows...the very same thing the Rachni queen said the indoctrination signal "sounded" like...the very same thing Shepard sees during the TIM dialogue.[/quote]

I'm sorry, were we playing a different game?  When did you see weird ghostly figures during the TIM dialogue?  Not to mention that they are part of shepard's dreams, which take place way before the so called "indoctrination sequence".  Or are you going to try and argue that he's been Indoctrinated since the beginning of mass effect 3?  If so why did the prothean VI not detect indoctrination in Shepard?  I'm pretty sure my Shepard didn't start seeing ghostly visions and hearing strange noises during the game, let alone start siding with the reapers.

[quote]
[quote]"The mental damage from indoctrination is severe and permanent.[/quote]
At this point you might as well describe every stage of indoctrination and its effects step by step. Please do that.
[/quote]

I don't see where you're going with this.  There is no mention of any character in the Mass Effect mythos returning to normal after Indoctrination.

[quote]
[quote]As Shepard saw, the captured salarians on Virmire had been turned into shambling husks, who either attacked on sight or just stood awaiting orders.[/quote]

Saren. Benezia. TIM.[/quote]

They all managed to break through indoctrination for a few seconds before dying so that they don't return to being indoctrinated.  None of them returned to normal.

[quote]
[quote]Only people with immense mental strength are able to resist indoctrination, and even then, only for a short time."[/quote]"You must be remarkably strong-willed, Commander."

Is it so hard to believe?[/quote]

Sure, why not.  But that assumes Shepard is ever being indoctrinated, which unless the theory is true (which at the moment is just speculation), then this proves nothing either way.

[quote]
[quote]It is established canon that there is no indoctrination "attempt" or "trial".[/quote]It's also established canon that no ship has ever returned from the Omega 4 Relay. [/quote]

Reaper IFF.  Next.

[quote]
[quote]A Person simply becomes indoctrinated, and once that happens, he does not simply break indoctrination and return to normal through sheer will.[/quote]

Prove it.[/quote]

I've already covered this.  There hasn't been a single character in mass effect that has returned to normal after indoctrination.

[quote]
[quote]It is a permanent condition.[/quote]
Prove it.[/quote]
Same as above.

[quote]
[quote]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.[/quote]

To quote Mordin: "Supposition. Impossible to be certain!"[/quote] 

It has been established that after reapers return to dark space when harvesting is complete, that indoctrinated husks simply die without purpose because they no longer have a mind of their own.

[quote]
[quote]I mean really?  Would they risk an entire franchise on some marketting ploy?[/quote]
1. Bioware is owned by EA. EA LOVES atypical marketing.

2. Bioware is not infallible. They are capable of making mistakes and ill-conceived decisions. See: any game they've ever made, but especially Dragon Age 2.

3. Mike Gamble never had to say "You wouldn't react the way you are if you knew what we had planned." He
could have just said something along the same lines as Casey Hudson's recent letter (ME3 is awesome, you are awesome, buy the DLC). But he chose to say specifically that, or was authorized/told to say that. That has to mean something.

4. Yes. Why is that so hard to believe? They're not risking anything. ME3 has already sold more than the other two games combined.[/quote]

You'd think they would have learned something from Dragon Age 2.  ME3 may have sold well, but if this keeps up that'll be as far as it goes.

[quote]
[quote]The Control ending eyes/scars have no relevance.[/quote]Why, because you say so? How are you reaching this conclusion?

[quote]It's simply a visual representation of shepard being disintegrated in the process of becoming "reaper king".[/quote]

Shepard's eyes just happen to transform exactly into TIM's eyes (it happens in the Synthesis ending as well, BTW), and we know that TIM was indoctrinated and possibly had been for a long time, and we know that even Saren had neon blue eyes even though they didn't have the same pattern as TIM's.

That means absolutely nothing...because you say so? How are you reaching this conclusion?

[quote]The reason why Shepard only wakes up in the Destroy ending (with 4000+ EMS) is that he's dead in all the other ones.  Pretty much just straight forward logic here...[/quote]

How is that logical? Why not just have Shepard die in every ending? Why not have Shepard live in the Destroy ending regardless of EMS? What is it about being dead in every other ending that demands she live in this one ending?

[quote]The pistol has infinite ammo for gameplay purposes.[/quote]

Why didn't they just have thermal clips laying around? You can't even see the pistol's ammo counter.

[quote]unless Bioware employs "Space Magic" to miraculously make him achieve what no one in the history of the galaxy before him as done, and break free of Indoctrination permanently.[/quote]

Considering Shepard:

1. Is the player character.
2. Has personally destroyed three Reapers.
3. Has at least up to the beam run managed to fight off any negative effects of indoctrination despite frequent-to-continuous exposure to Reaper technology, including flying in a ship partially made out of it.
4. Is the only ship captain known to use the Omega 4 Relay and live to tell the tale.
5. Is impossibly charismatic, to the point where it borders on mind control strong enough to unite entire species with age-old feuds.

I'd say doing the impossible one last time is within the realm of possibility.
[/quote]

The Indoctrination theory says that Shepard couldn't have survived crashing into earth from the citadel because he isn't superman.  Now you tell me he is.  I'm simply stating alternate explanations that are equally as valid as anything the Indoctrination theory presents.  You tell me to prove it, I'll ask you to do the same.  What influence does EMS have on shepard surviving the indoctrination attempt?

In reality all I have to say to disprove the Indoctrination theory, is mention this:


I made this thread simply to present counter arguments to points made that apparently support the indoctrination theory.

[ZLurps]

Tsantilas wrote...

Sibbwolf wrote...

... Read the books.

Unfortunatelly I do not own the books so I'll have to take your word for it, but are you telling me that in the books, there is a character who has a vivid lifelike dream, in which a mystical figure taken from his memory offers him some significant choices, and choosing the wrong choice results in Indoctrination?  Because I'm fairly sure that's not how Indoctrination works.

I have read the books and I have no idea what Sibbwolf is trying to reference. In ME Retribution there is following about TIM:s experimentation with Grayson. This happens after Grayson has been prisoned about 2-3 weeks. "There was nothing to do but eat and sleep. But when he slept he dreams - nightmares he could never quite recall on waking, but that left him  shivering nonethless."

There is no other mention about indoctrination and dreams in the books AFAIK and the case of Grayson is actually hardly comparable to other cases of indoctrination because unsual way he is indoctrinated, he turns into some sort of semi husk in a matter of day or two after being exposed to red sand in captivity.

I think perhaps not everybody remembers events from the books very well, unless someone is able to find citation from ME novels where vivid dreams, things compared to ME3 ending, are mentioned.

Modifié par ZLurps, 20 mars 2012 - 10:40 .

[SimKoning]

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...

I don't know, a whole new level on the citadel, an epic boss battle and cinematic of the the Normandy blowing a hole through Harbinger's head? That's sort of what I was expecting at least....

[PsydonZero]

Okay, seriously, what's with the formatting in these forums?

[quote]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.[/quote]



DLC.



[quote]MassEffected555 wrote...



read the LAST paragraph.[/quote]



And your point is...? What does it matter if Shiala was a unique case? She
pulled it off. The TC thinks that indoctrination cannot be broken. Shiala
broke indoctrination, as did the Rachni Queen. Maybe they're both unique cases.
Still doesn't matter (they did what TC said can't be done), but let's say it
does: why can't Shepard be a unique case?



It's the same thing with the Omega 4 Relay. The Shadow Broker sent
probes through it without the use of the Reaper IFF and recovered their
remains, yet TIM argued that the IFF was absolutely necessary. Turns out
it wasn't. Just because something is said to be impossible doesn't mean it is.



[quote]Tsantilas wrote...



Again, the so called "hallucination sequence" after harbinger's beam
has no relation whatsoever to what is described in the codex.  If you want
to call his dreams "hallucinations of "ghostly" presences, then
the Prothean VI pretty much completely debunks that theory when he states that
he detects no sign of indoctrination in shepard or his crew.[/quote]



Javik said that there were indoctrinated sleeper agents in the
Prothean Empire. Why weren't they discovered? What, did the Protheans
only put their indoctrination scanners into their VIs?



[quote]Because there have been no characters in the game thus far that have
managed to say "nope" to indoctrination.  Every time
Indoctrination has start affecting some character in the game, it has gone
through.[/quote]



The Rachni Queen and Shiala. I could also argue that Saren and TIM
did it since they were able to retain enough control to kill themselves.



[quote]It's a visual representation of TIM exerting control over them.[/quote]



Even though Shepard and Anderson had by that point already established
what he was doing through their movements, while TIM and Shepard had
already established what he was doing through dialogue? Even though the oily
shadows and sound effects could have served (and do serve) the same
purpose?



[quote] What do you mean how do I know that?  I payed the game...
Shepard has never been indoctrinated during any other part of the
trilogy.[/quote]



Prove it. Once again you claim indoctrination is binary in its
function--that is, it's either in effect or it's not, like a light switch. You
have no evidence of this.



[quote]Shepard's radio equipment wasn't destroyed, considering how it's all
based on implants.  Notice how he reaches for his ear during all cutscenes
where he is communicating to anyone via radio?  Even when he's not wearing
a helmet?  I thought this was established canon?[/quote]



It could just be a device inserted into the ear (something removable, not an
implant). Have any Codex entries to back up your words?



[quote]2.  Hackett tries to contact Shepard to see if he's still
alive...?  Where's the confusion here?  Where is this whole "TIM
interfering with communications" line of thought coming from? 
Hackett isn't in constant communication with Shepard for the whole
mission.[/quote]



Okay, let me break it down.



1. Hammer is totally wiped out at the beam.

2. Someone informs Hackett immediately, since that's part of what soldiers
do: they report changing conditions to their superiors.

3. Hackett remembers that Shepard was part of the team heading for the beam.

4. Hackett immediately contacts Shepard to assess her status given
that Shepard is one of his most important assets.



We know 1 happened. We can reasonably assume 2 and 3 happened. 4 should
have happened but didn't even though Hackett was given plenty of time to
do it. Why? Also, when Hackett finally does contact Shepard, how does
he know where Shepard is? And we know he knows because he
asks Shepard why the Crucible isn't firing. How did he know
the Crucible should have fired by now but didn't, especially considering
by that point Shepard hadn't done anything to it? For all he
knew Shepard was still fighting her way to the beam on the ground.



[quote]Again, considering how we've only seen one type of indoctrination, ie.
mind control, then yes.  Indoctrination is a process but ultimately it
consists of altering the subjects way of thinking to become in line with the
reapers', through subtle hints that you cannot ignore at first, and later as
full control.[/quote]



"Mind control" can manifest in many different ways.



Ever read The Manchurian Candidate? Pre-programmed instructions that take
effect under a certain condition.

Ghost in the Shell? Direct interface from controller to controlled.

Code Geass? Directly implanted instructions that instantaneously take effect.



Now let's look at the various ways it has manifested in Mass Effect:



-Saren/TIM: Thought he was in control. Thought he was going to coexist with the
Reapers through synthesis. Not even close.

-Virmire salarians: Zombies.

-Two of the scientists on the Derelict Reaper: both had the same memories of a
woman each thought was his wife. Were able to describe their memories with
visual clarity and complexity.

-Two of the scientists on the Derelict Reaper (possibly the same two as
above but it doesn't matter): saw grey things that apparently manifested out
of, and disappeared back into, the walls of the Reaper.



Also note that these things were happening during their research and Shepard
says in the Derelict Reaper mission that they were being indoctrinated.
That right there is proof that effects of indoctrination can manifest even if
the subject isn't necessarily doing a Reaper's bidding and proof that your
"indoctrination is only on/off" assertion is wrong.



We know that indoctrination can simulate:



Visual effects (seeing things)

Aural effects (hearing things)

Pain (headaches), which is normally caused due to nerve stimulation



Why, then, is it so impossible that an indoctrinated Shepard could have
experienced all that? Shepard saw things, heard things, felt pain (specifically
as headaches and otherwise) and had her nerves stimulated in numerous ways.



[quote]Shepard reaching the Conduit is nothing a red deathlaser blast wouldn't
solve.[/quote]



Yet the red deathlaser failed to solve it.



[quote]You're going to tell me that after all his contact with repears
throughout the 3 games, including actually walking INSIDE a reaper in ME2,
that they only now, during the last 10 minutes of the game, started to have
some kind of effect on him?[/quote]



No. That is not what the indoctrination theory claims. The Kid, the
dreams and the post-beam part of the ending are all symptoms of indoctrination,
becoming worse over time. Shepard had been indoctrinated the whole time but was
able to retain her mind ("You must be remarkably strong-willed,
Commander"). It's only after Shepard got blasted by the beam that it
became so prominent that the effects went beyond hallucinations and
dreams--which makes sense when you consider the physical and mental
state Shepard must have been in at that moment. She would be very
easy to control.



[quote]He may have thought Shepard was dead[/quote]



Reapers can see. Harbinger couldn't see the one human getting up, sticking out
against the ground, shining in the beam's light?



[quote]he may have had other things to do[/quote]



Such as? Destroying the remaining resistance on Earth is part of the Reapers'
plans. Why not stick around? I hope you realize you're already
reaching and I haven't even covered a third of your responses yet.

[quote]We
know from in-universe examples, that Saren, Benezia, etc all eventually fell to
indoctrination even if they managed to break the hold long enough to tell
Shepard that they could not control their actions anymore.[/quote]



See above: those who have broken free.



[quote]My point is that this whole mental test in the form of a vivid lifelike
hallucination representing his willpower in an attempt to resist
indoctrination, has no consistency to anything we know about
Indoctrination.  Indoctrination is simply a signal that affects the
subject's brain's functions.  There is no mental test involving a mystical
character showing up offering you choices.[/quote]



See above: it has already been established in the series that indoctrination
can make you see/hear/feel what the Reapers want you to.

[quote]These
are all a matter of interperetation and assumtions based on guesswork.[/quote]



No, they're not. None of the options solve the Catalyst's "problem",
and a reasonable argument can be made that Control and Synthesis don't
really solve the Reaper threat anyway.



[quote]You can't just say "incorrect".[/quote]



Incorrect. And I will continue to say it whenever you say something
to which that word applies.



[quote]There is no solid evidence pointing to Control[/quote]



"Or, do you think you can control us?"



[quote]and Synthesis not being valid choices.[/quote]



Reapers are nanomachines. Where did they go?



[quote]In fact the game itself tells you the exact opposite[/quote]



Remember when Bioware said that the endings would diverge in numerous ways,
that we would have a massive pile of unique endings and it wouldn't come down
to "1, 2 or 3, The End"?



[quote]"You win.  You have defeated the reapers and commander Shepard
is a legend.  Purchase dlc to continue that legend."[/quote]



Ever consider that part of that text is a lie?



[quote]Sorry if I take what the game itself and Bioware has told me over your
speculation.[/quote]



Sorry if you blindly accept what you're told and don't consider other
possibilities (which you admitted in your previous post, so don't bother
getting mad at me for it). BTW, that's exactly the sort of thought process that
is very conducive to indoctrination.



[/quote]

[quote]So
if the options don't make sense from that perspective, how can you guys keep
using it as evidence that the Catalyst is lying to shepard?[/quote]



Because. They. Don't. Make. Sense.



Nothing the Catalyst said mattered, according to the indoctrination
theory. It was all just an illusion to turn Shepard over to
the Reapers' way of thinking.



[quote]The Catalyst clearly wanted to speak with Shepard[/quote]



Why would it? Shepard's goal was counter to its own.



[quote]which is why he made the platform rise up...[/quote]



You don't know that. The game shows Shepard operating a control panel.



[quote]All those questions you asked just prove my point that it makes no sense
for the catalyst to be some evil mastermind.[/quote]



The Catalyst is not an evil mastermind. The Catalyst, at least in the form we
saw in the ending, doesn't exist. It was all an illusion. Because Shepard
was indoctrinated.



[quote]This doesn't fall in line with how indoctrination works as I've already
argued.[/quote]



You have said that indoctrination is a process by which the subject's mind is
altered to think in a way that suits the Reapers, which is exactly what it is.



The indoctrination theory argues that the Catalyst tries to
make Shepard think in a way that suits
the Reapers (Control/Synthesis).



Seems harmonious to me.



[quote]The Catalyst didn't lie.  It said Shepard's synthetic part (aka
his implants) would stop working.  Whether you live or die depends on you
having a high EMS score.  How does the Indoctrination theory explain the
EMS factor?[/quote]



Within the illusion they are Shepard's resolve.

Without the illusion they are exactly what they're supposed to be:
everything Shepard was able to bring to the war with the Reapers. I'll add
my own consideration to this: it could be that the remaining forces on the
ground were able to push back the Reapers, so Shepard's semi-conscious body
didn't get killed by a rampaging Brute or something--assuming her EMS is high
enough. Otherwise, she dies.



[quote]There's no reason to believe that if taken away once being healed, that
he wont be still alive, but in a very damaged state (which is what we see in
the ending scene with Shepard breathing under rubble).[/quote]



You're only saying that because we've already seen Shepard live; you're
arguing after the fact. You have to look at it from Shepard's perspective: she
doesn't know that. All she knows is:



1. She died once.

2. Cerberus brought her back to life...

3. ...and had to put implants in her to do so.



The immediate and logical conclusion any reasonable person would draw from that
data is: no implants = dead.

The other
2 endings result in Shepard's certain death, and yet they are supposedly more
attractive?  That makes no sense.



[quote]When pro-indoctrination theorists say "destruction ending is
presented as bad, the other 2 endings are presented as more attractive"
and it's obvious that's just plain false, then of course it does help my
point.[/quote]



My apologies: I misunderstood you when you said it doesn't make sense.



Shepard is told by the Catalyst that every choice will result in her
death. She goes into that choice knowing she's going to die. Control and
Synthesis are presented as more attractive choices because they don't result in
the Geth and EDI being destroyed.



Control is, at least on paper, a novel idea. Control the Reapers and you
can make them stand still while everyone else dismantles them.



Synthesis is, again on paper, a pretty neat idea. Everyone becomes a
cyborg? Think of all the neat upgrades they could enjoy through cybernetics.



Destroy results in an entire species and a friend of Shepard's being
destroyed, in addition to every other being in the galaxy who is partly
synthetic (Garrus, just to name one). Also, since there's no way the
red wave could possibly distinguish between "synthetic life" and
"synthetic everything else", one can extrapolate the conclusion (remember: Shepard's
perspective) that the red wave would wipe out all computer programs in the
galaxy or even all technology in the galaxy, and I don't need to explain
how cataclysmically horrible either one would be.

[quote]Yes
I know that you can see him before the vent scene.  This just proves
that he doesn't "magically" appear in the vent after the room blows
up as some figment of Shepard's imagination.[/quote]



How did he reach that building? 



Why does he stand at that balcony and only move to enter the room
after Shepard reaches a certain distance? Remember, Bioware
programmed all that: the model, the animation, the door opening and closing.
Why would they spend the time to animate and program that whole sequence, which
most people wouldn't see given where the player's attention is drawn in that
part of the game?



Unless that's exactly the point.



[quote]Exactly, they're in the middle of a warzone surrounded by husks and
reapers.  The soldiers are responsible for making sure they don't get
whiped out, not trying to help some kid who obviously manages to get on the
shuttle by himself.[/quote]



Oh, for goodness sake...



Their lives are at stake. Every second they are not in the air is another
second they're not getting away from the things trying to kill them, meaning
it's that much more likely they'll all die (and that people needing evac in
other places will die before the shuttle can reach them). Nobody in the
shuttle, not the soldier standing next to The Kid doing nothing or
even the passengers, tries to help the clearly struggling Kid (yes, he
entered the shuttle but he had some difficulty) so that he can get into the
shuttle and they can leave ASAP.



Do you think EMS operatives and paramedics take their sweet time when they're
helping people? No, because every wasted second makes it that much more
likely that the people in their care could die. Same goes for the shuttle.

[quote]Yes they are.  See?
I can do that too.[/quote]

No, you
can't. The reason I can do it is because the dreams actually aren't explained
in the game. At no point does the game make it clear that Shepard is just
having nightmares, and is a complete jerk for mourning a random child more than
her friends, and is in no way indoctrinated.



[quote]Exactly... Bioware tried to use the kid to be dramatic.  They
failed.  It doesn't show any consistency to the Shepard each player has
carefully crafted.  In ME3 they simply decided "this is the Shepard
we want to portray, and we disregard all player decisions to get our point
accross".[/quote]



Which does nothing to disprove the indoctrination theory.



[quote]When did you see weird ghostly figures during the TIM dialogue?[/quote]



I didn't say ghostly figures appeared during the TIM dialogue (unless you
count TIM, Anderson and the Catalyst). I said oily shadows
appeared, both there and in Shepard's dreams.



[quote]Or are you going to try and argue that he's been Indoctrinated since the
beginning of mass effect 3?[/quote]



See above.



[quote]If so why did the prothean VI not detect indoctrination in
Shepard?[/quote]



See above. 



[quote]I'm pretty sure my Shepard didn't start seeing ghostly visions[/quote]



The dreams.



[quote]and hearing strange noises during the game[/quote]



The out-of-left-field growl Shepard hears when she looks at Anderson
while talking to The Kid.



Whispers in her dreams.



The drumming noises Shepard hears when the oily shadows appear during
the TIM dialogue.



[quote]let alone start siding with the reapers.[/quote]



Well, that depends. Which flavour of Kool-Aid did you pick? Regrettably,
I picked green. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

[quote]There
is no mention of any character in the Mass Effect mythos returning to normal
after Indoctrination.[/quote]



See above.



[quote]Sure, why not.  But that assumes Shepard is ever being
indoctrinated, which unless the theory is true (which at the moment is
just speculation), then this proves nothing either way.[/quote]



Yeah. Go pout. I win.



[quote]Reaper IFF.  Next.[/quote]



Try to understand this. Just because something has never happened before,
doesn't mean it can never happen. You cannot definitively prove that it's
impossible to break indoctrination (especially considering it's already
happened), just like one could not definitively prove that no ship returns from
the Omega 4 Relay (both Shepard and the Shadow Broker
proved that wrong, and the latter didn't even need the Reaper IFF).



[quote]It has been established that after reapers return to dark space when
harvesting is complete, that indoctrinated husks simply die without purpose
because they no longer have a mind of their own.[/quote]



What does that have to do with breaking free of indoctrination? Why can't
Shepard retain her mind and not become a mindless husk? Do you not realize
a large part of your argument is "This must be because this must be"?



[quote]You'd think they would have learned something from Dragon Age 2.[/quote]



Okay, no joke. When I was reading this I was also listening to the
latest TotalBiscuit/GameStation Weekly Podcast, and the moment I finished
reading that sentence Jesse Cox laughed hysterically on the podcast.



That's my response.



[quote]The Indoctrination theory says that Shepard couldn't have survived
crashing into earth from the citadel because he isn't superman.  Now you
tell me he is.[quote]



What? No I didn't. What exactly are you responding to? You just
gathered a large amount of quotes and put the picture next to them.

Modifié par PsydonZero, 21 mars 2012 - 12:11 .