287 réponses à ce sujet

[Xandax]

As others have said - it would mean Bioware deliberately is trolling us to be able to charge us to finish an incomplete product.

Also - much of the 'evidence' towards the theory can simply be viewed as 'effect to emphasise the state'.
How often do we not see in movies - for example - the hero taking a rocket launcher to the face, to get up and stagger towards the bad guy in slow motion? Doesn't mean he's dreaming it. It's just an dramatic effect.

Similar with the gun without ammo. It's a plot-gun. Like the guns that can instant kill somebody in a cut-scene but requires a clip or two to the face of a NPC in a game sequence fight.
It's a dramatic effect because 'all hope is lost'.

The 'nobody notices Shepard'. Well, everybody around him is dead so how would they see him?

Also even if indoctrinated, it still completely ignores the plots and choices in ME1 and ME2 and would be much less like a concluding part of a trilogy than a 3rd installment while waiting for part 4.

Now - granted, there's a lot of compelling hints, and it's a nice theory to trust in if one doesn't want to think Bioware messed up. However too much of it looks like trying to make sense of something out of fear of the alternative. It does looks like fans trying to make connections to fill out a nonsensical and contradicting ending.
If anything - it might be a theory Bioware adopts because they can see they've messed up

Modifié par Xandax, 21 mars 2012 - 10:51 .

[BrianWilly]

Because the theory A) is flat-out grasping at straws, and lessen's BioWare's culpability for the crappy ending that they did produce.

One of the "evidences" for the theory that I've heard spouted the most is that BioWare is simply too awesome of a company to have bad writing like this, which is just ridiculous. BioWare has made tons of mistakes before. Maybe none have been as disappointing or confounding as this one, but to claim that they're outright incapable of it is, again, just ridiculous.

[thebigbad1013]

Xandax wrote...

As others have said - it would mean Bioware deliberately is trolling us to be able to charge us to finish an incomplete product.

Also - much of the 'evidence' towards the theory can simply be viewed as 'effect to emphasise the state'.
How often do we not see in movies - for example - the hero taking a rocket launcher to the face, to get up and stagger towards the bad guy in slow motion? Doesn't mean he's dreaming it. It's just an dramatic effect.

Similar with the gun without ammo. It's a plot-gun. Like the guns that can instant kill somebody in a cut-scene but requires a clip or two to the face of a NPC in a game sequence fight.
It's a dramatic effect because 'all hope is lost'.

The 'nobody notices Shepard'. Well, everybody around him is dead so how would they see him?

Also even if indoctrinated, it still completely ignores the plots and choices in ME1 and ME2 and would be much less like a concluding part of a trilogy than a 3rd installment while waiting for part 4.

Now - granted, there's a lot of compelling hints, and it's a nice theory to trust in if one doesn't want to think Bioware messed up. However too much of it looks like trying to make sense of something out of fear of the alternative. It does looks like fans trying to make connections to fill out a nonsensical and contradicting ending.
If anything - it might be a theory Bioware adopts because they can see they've messed up

There is clearly someone watching the area because you hear over the radio that "nobody made it to the beam". So, if someone is watching, why don't they see Shepard moving around? Or that other soldier? Or Anderson?

As for the "plot" gun, is it anymore of a stretch to believe in the indoctrination theory than it is to believe that your gun suddenly, magically doesn't need to be reloaded? If anything, the gun should be unable to fire if the idea was to go for the "all hope is lost" thing.

I could go on and on but obviously I'm a firm believer in the indoctrination theory and to me it makes sense and is consistent with the lore throughout all three games, whereas the current "ending" is in direct contradiction to the lore.

[Orumon]

Because it's a poor ending overall. Because it assumes that Bioware would sell us an incomplete game simply to sell DLC.

In the end, it's because if it's true, then we were used by a company whose name was a byword for quality RPGs for more than a decade.

[DemGeth]

Because I don't see it and think it's wrong mainly.

[Ryokun1989]

Well, for a lot of the reasons mentioned, such as that it isn't falsifiable,actively makes the game unfinished and especially because it turns the final choice in a game that has always been about CHOICES into a RIDDLE.
Pick the 'right' answer according to this silly theory, or you LOSE.

Besides that, I think the ending is perfectly fine without resorting to that silly theory. Could it be improved? Probably. Does it have to be? Hell no.
Choosing between a happy or a sad ending isn't choice either. The current ending is choice. A hell of a difficult choice.


That said, I do think that these kinds of theories is exactly the speculation BioWare had in mind when they made the ending. Also check out the one in my signature.

[DESTRAUDO]

bigbad1013 wrote...

As for the "plot" gun, is it anymore of a stretch to believe in the indoctrination theory than it is to believe that your gun suddenly, magically doesn't need to be reloaded?

Oh you mean like a gun from mass effect 1? XD

Also it is not magic that the pistol at the start of the game has infinite ammo. That can be explained as plot convenience. But not having to reload becomes an  ACT OF GOD. 

[Ryokun1989]

What I think is UTTERLY IDIOTIC is that people who believe this theory believe they have found 'the one and only answer' and can't imagine any other reasons for what they're seeing.

BioWare intended 'lots of speculation' (actually the following lines go on about how hard they worked on the ending, so it's not just 'lots of speculation' and leave it at that). You can safely assume they're not then going to pick SOME of that speculation and say 'Oh yeah, this is it; you guys got it right, everyone else got it wrong".

Make up your own mind on what happened, but don't wait for BioWare's stamp of approval.

[thebigbad1013]

DESTRAUDO wrote...

bigbad1013 wrote...

As for the "plot" gun, is it anymore of a stretch to believe in the indoctrination theory than it is to believe that your gun suddenly, magically doesn't need to be reloaded?

Oh you mean like a gun from mass effect 1? XD

Also it is not magic that the pistol at the start of the game has infinite ammo. That can be explained as plot convenience. But not having to reload becomes an  ACT OF GOD. 

That's a fair point but again, it is no less of a stretch to believe that Shepard suddenly gets his hand on an old ME1 gun than it is to believe in the indoc theory. My point being that I don't think it's accurate to refer to the indoc theory as nothing more than grasping at straws. The is evidence to back up the theory. Is it conclusive? Of course not, but it is compelling to a lot of people.

[Faunwea]

Sparatus wrote...

Even with the Indoctrination theory it is still a bad ending.

This. Also, it's a cop out for Bioware.

[moater boat]

I don't understand all these people saying the don't believe it because they don't want it. That makes no sense whatsoever. Either you see the abundance of hints in the game, or you don't. How does the fact that you wanted a complete ending on the disk have any effect on reality?

[DESTRAUDO]

Please read my very large post on page 9. 

bigbad1013 wrote...

DESTRAUDO wrote...

bigbad1013 wrote...

As for the "plot" gun, is it anymore of a stretch to believe in the indoctrination theory than it is to believe that your gun suddenly, magically doesn't need to be reloaded?

Oh you mean like a gun from mass effect 1? XD

Also it is not magic that the pistol at the start of the game has infinite ammo. That can be explained as plot convenience. But not having to reload becomes an  ACT OF GOD. 

That's a fair point but again, it is no less of a stretch to believe that Shepard suddenly gets his hand on an old ME1 gun than it is to believe in the indoc theory. My point being that I don't think it's accurate to refer to the indoc theory as nothing more than grasping at straws. The is evidence to back up the theory. Is it conclusive? Of course not, but it is compelling to a lot of people.

[Aidan Rhane]

Do I want to believe it? Sure, in the sense that it would give me relief that their writers didn't go completey nuts right at end. But as easy as it is to point out all the flaws in the ending as evidence of indoctrination, it's just as easy to point them out as evidence that the ending was either simply badly written, or just plain rushed out. Hey, it happens a lot in gaming.

And if true, then you have the issue of essentially releasing a game without an ending. Could Bioware adopt the Indoc theory even if it's not what they intended? Sure, why not. I wouldn't mind. But if they did intend it as some poeple have theorised, we've still got a game on our hands with no ending, and if they then try to charge us for it...well, if they thought the sh*tstorm was bad now, wait until then!

If the Indoc theory is confirmed true, then I'd be both impressed and disgusted with Bioware.

[MrFob]

bigbad1013 wrote...
 The is evidence to back up the theory. Is it conclusive? Of course not, but it is compelling to a lot of people.

Even as a strong proponent of the IT, I have to say, there is NO evidence. There are indications at best and even those are vague and can be easily countered. Of course, there is also no evidence to completely disprove it. There are indications there as well but they can also be countered.
For me the relevant question at the moment is: Do we have anything better? Anything with less plot wholes ("real" ending included)? I think not. That's why I believe in it and hope the BW either planned it or makes it happen. But there is no evidence either way.

[EmGo]

 Indoctrination or not, the endings still suck. Personally I don't care. I just want a new ending ;( If they decide to somehow follow that "indoctrination theory" that's ok, if not also ok. New ending,please? ;(

[AmaraDark]

I'm fine with people using Indoc theory - everyone has their own coping mechanism.

But to me, it feels like folks are grasping at straws. Trying so hard to find someway to make the ending less bad then it was presented to us. That you have to pick at the tiniest bits of the game that might just have been more sloppy writing in the midst of the already huge heap of sloppy ending they gave us. It's also giving Bioware an easy out for selling us an incomplete product, when we should be laying on the pressure for answers.

If Bioware pops up tomorrow and says it was all a ruse, Indoc is right, they're giving us new endings soon - then awesome. I'll still feel a little betrayed, but at least it will (hopefully) be fixed and Shep/Mass Effect given a proper send off. Finally.

But what are you going to do if Indoc turns out to be wrong? If they come here tomorrow and tell you no, Shepard was not indoctrinated and the endings are for-reals - And they aren't going to change them.

Are you finally going to start demanding answers? That more and better options for endings be added and plot holes resolved, now that the true colors have shown?

Indoc is a nice theory, but there's been no evidence or support for it from Bioware - just stonewalling behind a bunker and hoping the entire stink blows over. With the sheer level of fan rage, they're risking permanently alienating a lot of fans by delaying - myself included at this point.

I intend to keep up the fight until we -do- get a reply. Be it yes changes, no changes or HUZZAH ruse - so I can decide if it's yes I'll buy future Bioware games or no future Bioware games for me. Because one fan theory does not save the atrocious pile of lazy writing we got handed in those last five minutes.

Modifié par AmaraDark, 21 mars 2012 - 11:25 .

[thebigbad1013]

MrFob wrote...

bigbad1013 wrote...
 The is evidence to back up the theory. Is it conclusive? Of course not, but it is compelling to a lot of people.

Even as a strong proponent of the IT, I have to say, there is NO evidence. There are indications at best and even those are vague and can be easily countered. Of course, there is also no evidence to completely disprove it. There are indications there as well but they can also be countered.
For me the relevant question at the moment is: Do we have anything better? Anything with less plot wholes ("real" ending included)? I think not. That's why I believe in it and hope the BW either planned it or makes it happen. But there is no evidence either way.

Perhaps indications is a better word than evidence. In my mind it's evidence but yeah, indications work too. Doesn't change my point that there are enough hints and indications to make the indoctrination theory seem likely or at least possible. Surely enough to make it more valid than simply "grasping at straws".

Modifié par bigbad1013, 21 mars 2012 - 11:31 .

[Abram730]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

Because the idea that bioware would purposely with hold the real ending because they either didn't have time or because they wanted to release it as DLC is quite frankly insulting and is no way to treat loyal customers.

You were indoctrinated... THE END

[stillnotking]

Why don't I want to believe it? Actually I'd love to believe it (even though it would mean BW probably plans to charge me extra to finish the game). But unlike some people, I'm not capable of turning my belief on and off like a switch to line up with my desires. I want to believe it, but I don't believe it because it's ridiculous. It imputes motives to EA/BioWare that make no sense, and even if their motives made sense, their actions don't. They are currently offering full refunds through Origin and Amazon (at least), even for digitial copies or opened physical copies of the game. Why on earth would they be trying to appease/buy off people who don't like the ending, if we haven't even seen the real ending yet?

Sorry, but whatever clues exist in the game to support it, your theory just doesn't pass the real-world smell test.

[hawat333]

I can only quote Jack on the matter.
Because hey, why the f..k not?

[General User]

The indoctrination theory is an attempt by fans to to make sense of the absolute garbage Bioware put in front of them.

It's a Rorschach slide, en masse. Nothing less, nothing more.

[sOUZUKEN]

 youtu.be/ZZOyeFvnhiI


now THIS guy has some points and pointed out things I didn't even notice. Things from ME1, things at the beginning of ME3. Damn. Shepard was being indoctrinated. Especially at the end.. Look at the EYES. Both Synthesis and Control has TIM-like eyes. all except Destroy option.

At least ithis theory is grounded on those observations. It's not grasping for straws like some people believe it is.

Modifié par sOUZUKEN, 21 mars 2012 - 11:41 .

[Ingu]

Complistic wrote...

Because they got fooled and picked either synthesis or control. If they then admitted that the indoctrination theory was true, they'd be admitting they got tricked.

And no one willingly makes a fool of themselves.

Not necessarily, I got tricked, and I think the indoctrination theory is brilliant.  <_<

Modifié par Ingu, 21 mars 2012 - 11:48 .

[CroGamer002]

General User wrote...

The indoctrination theory is an attempt by fans to to make sense of the absolute garbage Bioware put in front of them.

It's a Rorschach slide, en masse. Nothing less, nothing more.

Yeah.

I accepted the fact that Bioware f*cked up the endings.


Plus, Indoctrination theory only bring more plotholes, retcons and it's just plain bad writing.

[DESTRAUDO]

You realise that shepard has the exact same eyes as the illusive man in me2 right?

http://imageshack.us...hepardeyes.jpg/

In all cases shepards eyes are artificial/ augmented. A lot of you in me2 and 3 is artificial/augmented.

sOUZUKEN wrote...

 youtu.be/ZZOyeFvnhiI


now THIS guy has some points and pointed out things I didn't even notice. Things from ME1, things at the beginning of ME3. Damn. Shepard was being indoctrinated. Especially at the end.. Look at the EYES. Both Synthesis and Control has TIM-like eyes. all except Destroy option.

At least ithis theory is grounded on those observations. It's not grasping for straws like some people believe it is.