287 réponses à ce sujet

[streamlock]

Storenumber9 wrote...

I've personally never supported the theory. I think it's interesting, but in the long run, it's just grasping at straws.

Odds are, Bioware dropped the ball. It happens sometimes.

It's the difference between dropping the ball, and dropping the ball and falling down to pick it back up while grinding your face into a bloody pulp into the pavement.

If the ending stood as is, it would be sooooooo bad as to defy belief.

[Jaze55]

This theory is like the plague.

[TheShinySword]

The Indoctrination theory being true would delight me. It would seriously make me happier than any other gaming news. It would make me throw money at Bioware so fast that all other transgressions would be forgotten. But I can't bring my self to build up my faith when it's been broken already.

[DESTRAUDO]

Indocs are not saying the arrival is where he was indoctrinated. I know this. My point is, indoc theory is based on taking the logical inconsistencies associated with storytelling, and applying them to the ending to suggest it is proof it is a dream. However you can apply that level of logical questioning of a number of points in mass effect , again like why the collectors did not harvest shepards body after they blew up normandy. Like if harbinger was so interested in shepard why did he blow up the normandy and basically kill shepard.  Like if he was willing to do that why did they not just kill him in arrival. Like the stroke of timing that shepard wakes up after the grenade explosion with a few minutes to spare but there was like an hour to spare before the explosion. So he was out for 50 mins and nobody even drew on his face with a sharpie marker let alone killed him. 

Indocs take these logical inconsistencies and coincodences in the ending, a declare them to be proof of something, when all they are proof of is that sci fi is always full of small logical problems like this. 

Why did the deathstar have a single critical flaw? Plot reasons. 

Why did the borg in star trek first contact not go back in time before heading to sector 001. Plot reasons. 


Indocs are latching onto these things and forcing them in to meaning something. I can do the same with the arrival blackout.  

Grusome11 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

DESTRAUDO wrote...

Indoc theory is a desperate attempt by a percentage of the community to rationalise/come to terms with an ending they would not accept. The logic used by them could be used to suggest that everything that happened since you were knocked out beside the reaper artefact in the arrival DLC was an indoctrination fantasy. He wakes up under no armed guard when they could have murdered him easily in his sleep. He them kills millions of batarians and faces no punishment for it. He then goes on an adventure to save the galaxy using a machine whose purpose is unknown but in whom all faith is placed. On this journey, in most cases by chance he runs into and saves everyone he knew of any importance, and overcomes totally impossible odds to see the greatest challenges of his time overcome by his hands and the hands of those he knows best. He then defeats his enemies in a burst of glory or heroic self sacrifice. Sounds like an indoctrination fantasy that plays to shepards desires from start to finish to me. XD

You could go further and say everything that happened since shepard touched the protean artefact in ME1 is all a fantasy. A star trek TNG 'inner light' style sequence in which the device examines a human mind to gain an understanding of this species.

Or maybe shepard is a brain in a jar, recovered by the collectors at the beginning of ME2 and allowed to run through various tactical scenarios to make the domination of this cycle significantly easier. Afterall why would the collectors/reapers have such an interest in shepard, blow up the normandy but then not bother recovering the remains themselves.

See that is the problem with indoc theory. If you lower the bar of evidence to where indoc is valid, you can suggest pretty much anything is true.

No it doesn't.  And it's no desparate plea to rationalize or justify the endings.  

If you want to insult a group, do it properly next time.

Indoc theory is saying that everything after harbingers beam is an attempt by the Reapers to indoc Shep and happens in his mind. This explains all the plot holes in the ending.

Could everything from The Arrival be a dream/indoc attempt? Sure, but most Indocionists are not saying that.

[Erethrian]

Sparatus wrote...

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

Well, if the IT is true, this is not the "ending".

[Dark_Caduceus]

I guess because it's all speculation and conjecture, not really a good way to tell a story.

[thebigbad1013]

Thing is, indoctrination theory makes a hell of a lot more sense than the "actual" ending. The actual ending pretty much ignores much of the previously established lore, whereas the indoc theory actually makes sense based on the previously established lore, all the way back to ME1. Or at least it does to me.

[Mcfly616]

It can't be a Bad Ending if its not The End....imo

[Hexxys]

The indoctrination thing is a big reach, made by people who are reading too deep into a very shallow ending. Bioware probably won't use it (at least not as it has been described) because that creates issues with intellectual property.

[Kanner]

Indoc theory only seems good because people keep comparing it to the actual ending. That's not exactly setting the bar high.

Also, it's a terrible terrible idea in the sense that any subsequent playthroughs would require you to play the original ending again. probably up to and including the pick a color segment. I just don't think I have it in me to do that again.

[thebigbad1013]

I really don't see it as that big of a reach. No bigger than just assuming that BioWare, after creating almost three exceptional games, the just fail so utterly and completely in the last 10 minutes. And honestly, I refuse to believe that people can play through the ending and not at least recognize that there is a possibility of it being indoctrination: the strange black oily thing at the edges of the screen during the confrontation with the Illusive man, the reaper sounds, the gun that suddenly can fire endlessly without reloading, the fact that when the starchild speaks you hear both the male and female Shepard's voice as well. There are just too many things that are off. But again, that is just my view.

[Rossa14]

After some time to think about it, i actually agree with the Indoctrination theory. I just don't like the idea of EA possibly charging for the "real" ending (or mid-game DLC that will help explain it)....because let's face it, it's EA; and they will do what they can to get more money from fans.

Note: I say this, but of course i will still probabaly buy all/most ME3 DLC anyway lol.

Modifié par Rossa14, 21 mars 2012 - 09:04 .

[Mcfly616]

@bigbad1013
Everything you just said....I completely agree...

I don't understand how people can't comprehend all the hints and clues....I didn't look for anything or reach for anything....I simply noticed all the hints on my first playthrough....

[DESTRAUDO]

Also this document people are floating around is hilariously selective. Some examples. Though god knows i am not going to go through all of it.


 7. The gun has unlimited ammo and never needs to be reloaded.

Even the unlimited ammo pistol in the beginning needed to be reloaded. Some have suggested the gun is a symbol of Shepard's resolve, which is why she is very deliberately shown dropping it to the ground when choosing the blue or green options - the final step to giving in to the indoctrination.[/b]
[/b]

So there being an infinite ammo pistol at the start means nothing and can be ignored. But you dont have to reload it and suddenly it is incredibly meaningful. It is certainly not because since your entire hud was removed you have no way of knowing when you need to reload and would burst into rage flames if you were one hit killed by marauder shields. Why does shepard drop the gun in blue and green, but not red. Hmm. Well it could be, that in red, he uses the gun to shoot stuff. But in blue and green he does not. Infact in blue he needs to drop it because he has to grab the handles with both hands. If you want symbolism, maybe he dropped them because blue and green are the non violent solutions. Shepard is casting aside their weapon because they know it wont solve the problem. Just as it was a speech that ended the geth war, not a gun.


5. It seems bizarre how neatly Shepard's armor and helmet were blown off.

Although it may simply be an issue with the art department’s rendition of the scene, it seems as though Shepard's mind is fabricating a vulnerable image of herself.

Realistically, being close enough to get knocked out by a blast but not severely damaged or killed by it would not have completely any neatly removed portions of her armor.  Military helmets are not secured with velcro. The armor on Shepard's back is completely burned but her helmet-less head is mysteriously untouched? Maybe Reaper lasers are just like that.[/b][/b]

You are really going to apply logic to these lasers? Ok.
In the beginning and throughout the game, reaper lasers are shown to be able to slice through buildings and starships like BUTTER. Yet in the sequence defending the thanix missiles on earth and the reaper battle on rannoch the same lasers can miss you by inches and cause zero damage to you. With a direct hit one hit killing you. At the same time these mega lasers that cut starships and buildings in half are TOTALLY UNABLE TO BEAT PLOT DIRT. In all three in game reaper battles the uber lasers that otherwise can carve through anything have almost zero effect on the ground. They throw up flicks of rocks andf dirt but that is it. Logically they should be carving 200 ft deep trenches in the earth with every sweep, however this would make the game functionally unplayable. On tuchanka you can TAKE COVER BEHIND A 2FT THICK ROCK to block one of these beams. In mass effect 2, the protoreapers death ray (powered by a fully functional core) could be blocked by any number of the 2ft thick things you could take cover behind. Man If they wanted to defeat the reapers they should have armoured their ships in tarmac or stone or ground dirt. That stuff is hella tough. And you have to love reaper targeting. In the mission protecting the thanix missiles, no enemies go after the thannix missiles. The reaper sees you have tried to shoot it with thannix missiles, but it does not just shoot the second identical missile launcher. It certainly seems to have the accuracy given its beam will follow you (a much smaller target) around the screen.

But these inconsistencies are ignored.

[/b]

What indocs need to stop and think back on is not how these sequences played out when examined logically. Think back to what it was like to be in them. That charge on the beam was incredible. Everything you had done came down to this choke point. No matter what happened. No matter who fell you had to keep running. My heart was pounding as beams rained down. It was like something from ww2, storming the normandy beaches. Appropriate. When i got hit by harbingers beam i was overcome by despair. This will be impossible i thought, as i waited for the retry screen to come up. But it did not come up. My shepard would not die, could not give up, and instead her broken form struggled back to her feet, and began limping pathetically, desperately towards the beam. This is it i thought. Then i heard the general retreat, that the forces were decimated. Garrus and liara must be dead or dying. This is the end. I have to keep moving, even if it is so slowly, like in those dreams. I have to keep moving forward. It can't all have been for nothing. I can't not make it. And then the husks appear and start charging. I can't not make it. And then a marauder is 3 ft from me firing. My shepard take a hit. So close. I manage to kill it. So close. so close. I made it.

I would not give up the rollercoaster of emotions that scene very carefully put me through.

Nor would i give up the moment of hope meeting fear/uncertainty when you catch up to Anderson and then he turns around and you can tell something is wrong with him.

Nor would i give up shepard crawling towards the console to try and get the crucible to fire before losing consciousness and being lifted up into the light.

If people want to add to the ending, or rework the catalyst scene to have more options... fine.
But please. Do not cheapen the extraordinary emotional power of most of the ending by saying it was all a dream.




[/b]
[/b]

Modifié par DESTRAUDO, 21 mars 2012 - 10:22 .

[LegendaryBlade]

Because of the Final Hours app

[Qutayba]

LegendaryBlade wrote...

Because of the Final Hours app

Which, were the conspiracy theory to be true, would be a deliberate diversion to throw us off the scent.

Just because it's a silly conspiracy theory doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy

Part of me wants to believe, but another part of me thinks EA would have stepped in and squashed such a risky plan like a bug.  They like sure things.

[Joccaren]

Kamagawa wrote...

Is it because we are still getting an incomplete game?
or because they don't think bioware has 2 brain cells to rub together?
Perhaps it is because they don't like this kind of ending (like thinking fight club was epic except for the end)?

Because it was not Bioware's plan all along. Evidence of this is overwhelming: Dev Comments, Press releases, PR people commenting on how Bioware PR will be working now, their utter silence throughout. People thinking it is are desperately trying to save Bioware, and when they imply that we should stop fighting for a new ending as its obviously the Indoctrination ending and Bioware have been planning this all along - they reduce the chances of Ending DLC coming out.
Also, because people like you keep spamming threads like this. We get it. You like Indoctrination theory. Stick to that thread then, and don't add to the tons of other threads about it.
Also, if Bioware put it in now, it would feel like a copout, copy fans work to satisfy fans. I'd rather they came up with their own explanation of events, and did it right.

[Stegoceras]

Because it's still not an ending, It's still explains nothing and concludes even less. It's just more speculation for everyone.

[GuardianAngel470]

Because it would imply Bioware/EA planned all along to gouge us for an ending that made sense/a real ending and I prefer to think the best of people until proven otherwise.

[KingKhan03]

Honestly BioWare should of just kept it simple, Boss Fight with Harbinger the ending depends on how you've played the games and a nice little epilouge... any objections?

[KingKhan03]

Modifié par KingKhan03, 21 mars 2012 - 10:37 .

[Wes Finley]

Indoctrination Theory transforms a terrible ending into an interesting plot twist that immediately cuts to credits.

Aside from ignoring some elements present inside "the dream" for the sake of the theory (Joker's escape), it still fails to actually CONCLUDE anything.

[Navasha]

People would rather believe that a big evil corporate entity is trying to screw them over rather than follow the very obvious and in your face evidence that it was a dream sequence.

[Simpfan]

 because its fan theory and speculation

[nitefyre410]

Because its a terrible business move that states Bioware instead of just making a complete be terrible ended game. They instead made a game that was not complete , sold it as complete in a pr stunt to sell post game DLC. It always removes all options for multiple endings sense the mental damage from the Indoctrination process is irreversible in every ending Shepard going to end up dead. Defeats the purpose of multiple ends and we're back a square one.