161 réponses à ce sujet

[spychi]

 So I was going through the final push again and again and again trying to explain how that theory could save the endings from being bad.

After a long time, I realized that there is no place for it.
1) Shepard clearly gets pwned almost to death by Harby
2) High ranking officers and admirals saying that nobody make it through the beam
3) Harbringer pulls off as soon as he sees that everyone is dead or if barely alive a small group of husks can finish them off
4) Shepard talks to Hackett on the citadel
5) not to mention Anderson and TIM
 this might be attacked by the indoctrination theory defenders because of Shepard having hallucinations after the beam hitting but when you look at what is happening around you it doesn't make sense for him to be indoctrinated

If anything there should be fix for the choices you've made by gathering various allies and actual consequences
change the flashback scenes according to what you cared most based on you opinion through out the game - by talking to squadmates, crew or anyone, not by making those opinions paragon  or renegade but by being one of the options
In the flashbacks you could also involve everyone you had on your team for the past 3 games and you had a good relationship with. 
Based on the EMS score you should have a different result in those three endings and if you achived a 7k EMS and each class from the MP loaded in to your war assets you would get the best ending possible. Crew surviving relays intact... although those blow up no matter what...Shepard lives
but I remember someone suggested the different EMS and choices=different ending, which I saw on some picture put very clearly and well done.

[TLK Spires]

the current ending doesn't fit, either. because it's *impossible*.

[tommythetomcat]

Yeah indoctrination doesn't fit at all even though its a major reoccurring theme throughout all 3 games.

[wathc me tyep]

Shepard may be under rubble?

[Agent_Dark_]

spychi wrote...

 So I was going through the final push again and again and again trying to explain how that theory could save the endings from being bad.

After a long time, I realized that there is no place for it.
1) Shepard clearly gets pwned almost to death by Harby
2) High ranking officers and admirals saying that nobody make it through the beam
3) Harbringer pulls off as soon as he sees that everyone is dead or if barely alive a small group of husks can finish them off
4) Shepard talks to Hackett on the citadel
5) not to mention Anderson and TIM
 this might be attacked by the indoctrination theory defenders because of Shepard having hallucinations after the beam hitting but when you look at what is happening around you it doesn't make sense for him to be indoctrinated

Why doesn't it make sense?  If it's a hallucination then the entire point is that it doesn't make sense because its a hallucination...

And Shepard is not indoctrinated at that point.  Shepard is fighting off an indoctrination attempt.  You only become indoctrinated if you choose 'Control' or 'Synthesis'.

[Unit-Alpha]

The current ending is far less possible.

[Friendly Hobo]

Idoct theory has always been a grasping at straws type theory. I don't blame them, nobody wants to accept that Bioware is incompetent and intended for ****ty endings. I wish I couldn't see the truth.

[blackangel209]

I'm not sure you actually understand what the Indoc theory is trying to say. It says that Shepard never got to the Citadel. He's still lying under the London rubble the entire time. Everything from when he gets up takes place solely inside his mind, except for perhaps the radio transmissions before he makes it to the beam and even those are just what little awareness of the real world he has left for those few moments. It also explains all of the nonsensical BS that happens when you do get to the beam.

Whether or not you believe in it is pretty much irrelevant. It's the only way anything after he gets knocked out makes sense, unless he somehow had a hallucination unrelated to any indoctrination. Indoctrination just fits better.

Modifié par blackangel209, 21 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[GBGriffin]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

The current ending is far less possible.

Why though? I don't see why it's so hard to accept that they rushed the product rather than buy into a massive conspiracy that is, as of right now, 100% fan-made. 

Seriously. Indoctrination theory is a fan theory, one that seeks to make sense of the plotholes and inconsistencies. BioWare has neither confirmed or denied it, but they've acknowledged that an indoctrination mechanic was on the table before being scrapped.

At this point, both are entirely possible. People seem hellbent on proving the indoctrination theory or disproving it, but you simply can't. An argument in one camp is just as valid as an argument in another because it is pure speculation vs pure speculation. Without any word or input for BioWare, none of us know if this is planned or not.

Yes, I believe they made a mistake and launched the ending as is. I went from beleiving in the theory to dismissing it after Final Hours, but I understand the need to explain all of that away. 

If indoctrination theory works for you and keeps you holding the line, then believe in it. If it doesn't, then make your peace with the fact they launched a game with a poor ending. At this point, what no one seems to want to admit is that those are both entirely valid. There's no need to pick fights with one another over a theory vs another theory.

[Geraro]

Sorry champ. Whether or not the hints about a potential Shep indoctrination attempt are deliberate, accidental or imagined - you have not actually addressed any of them in your post. You made a statement of facts which fit with either an Indoc. or non-indoc. scenario and then suggested an alternative ending process.

*edit - fix grammatical errors.

Modifié par Geraro, 21 mars 2012 - 01:31 .

[spychi]

TLK Spires wrote...

the current ending doesn't fit, either. because it's *impossible*.

yeah but why the indoctrination theory would be better?

I for one see the option to change the actual script (lines) and script (EMS readiness your choices actually affects the ending)
Let's just face it, we all.. well most of us agree that the choices we made and the effort put in order to have the best possible ending was just an awesome waste of time... because like my opinion or not the game despite the last few minutes is very good.
Hmm now that I look at it, it would be more wiser for people to create a group of fans gather money and hire voice actors and create the endings, instead of donating charity (which in either way I don't dissaprove) do something about it ourselfs. I am sure that BioWare won't fix those endings in a long time and I am talking about months or even a year or two.
Seeing how game developers loose their minds in those decisions they make lately it might never happen at all
(not talking bout BioWare I am also talking bout other big ones, like Blizzard for example)
It might just come to that point where the only solution for us fans is to headcanon what we want as endings

Modifié par spychi, 21 mars 2012 - 01:34 .

[ramdog7]

Some people say that he is not indoctrinated, that it takes time and alot of reaper tech to indoctrinate someone. when shepard gets hit by harbinger we see him able to get up and move freely but when we meet anderson we lose that.

all of a sudden shepard cant move ,he is stiff as a rock. why doesn't shepard point his gun at TIM? After all he point his gun at his hologram numerous time through at the game.

Why doesn't anderson take out his gun and shoot TIM? TIM is unarmed and poses no threat to anderson. Why does anderson look like he is being controlled? He can be indoctrinated can he? He could have just left shepard to die when he need help after destorying the AA gun.

Too many question left unanswered= speculation for everybody

Modifié par ramdog7, 21 mars 2012 - 01:32 .

[Lesbian Wood Elf]

If Harbinger killed the president, would that make him Lee Harby Oswald?
If two Reapers got together to do detective work, would they be the Harby Boys?

Modifié par Lesbian Wood Elf, 21 mars 2012 - 01:34 .

[crimzontearz]

right because hallucinations do not explain that at all

[Drake-Shepard]

TLK Spires wrote...

the current ending doesn't fit, either. because it's *impossible*.

this

we are left to choose between 50 potential plot holes and 5 potential plot holes

i choose 5

[balance5050]

Woah. People are still trying to disprove indoctrination over here huh?

[blackangel209]

GBGriffin wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

The current ending is far less possible.

Why though? I don't see why it's so hard to accept that they rushed the product rather than buy into a massive conspiracy that is, as of right now, 100% fan-made. 

Seriously. Indoctrination theory is a fan theory, one that seeks to make sense of the plotholes and inconsistencies. BioWare has neither confirmed or denied it, but they've acknowledged that an indoctrination mechanic was on the table before being scrapped.

At this point, both are entirely possible. People seem hellbent on proving the indoctrination theory or disproving it, but you simply can't. An argument in one camp is just as valid as an argument in another because it is pure speculation vs pure speculation. Without any word or input for BioWare, none of us know if this is planned or not.

Yes, I believe they made a mistake and launched the ending as is. I went from beleiving in the theory to dismissing it after Final Hours, but I understand the need to explain all of that away. 

If indoctrination theory works for you and keeps you holding the line, then believe in it. If it doesn't, then make your peace with the fact they launched a game with a poor ending. At this point, what no one seems to want to admit is that those are both entirely valid. There's no need to pick fights with one another over a theory vs another theory.

I think it's hard to believe that Bioware just screwed up when the amount of things they messed up is freaking ridiculous. I can't believe that any writer, even an incompetent one, could possibly not notice that many horrible inconsistencies. And how was it not checked? Was the ending written with no knowledge of the Mass Effect universe by someone in a box, separated from the rest of the dev team?

And honestly, there's a large amount of things that point specifically to indoctrination. I have no idea how these endings could have been entirely on accident. Coincidence is one thing, but my god, that's a lot to screw up and still somehow leave a pretty convincing, non-retcon out.

Modifié par blackangel209, 21 mars 2012 - 01:36 .

[Peer of the Empire]

There is not a single "debunking" that I've been impressed by.

Indoc theory is about a nonsense ending.  In order to disprove it, there are two methods:
(1) Bioware says ending is literal
(2) You make sense out of nonsense

If the ending is no longer impossible and nonsensical, then there is no need for indoctrination theory.

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 21 mars 2012 - 01:36 .

[spychi]

crimzontearz wrote...

right because hallucinations do not explain that at all

as I said the hallucinations are the problem of this theory, it's a paradox - as strong as the support evidence there may be, the same points exploits and throws it to a trash can 

Modifié par spychi, 21 mars 2012 - 01:38 .

[GBGriffin]

blackangel209 wrote...

I think it's hard to believe that Bioware just screwed up when the amount of things they messed up is freaking ridiculous. I can't believe that any writer, even an incompetent one, could possibly not notice that many horrible inconsistencies. And how was it not checked? Was the ending written with no knowledge of the Mass Effect universe by someone in a box, separated from the rest of the dev team?

And honestly, there's a large amount of things that point specifically to indoctrination. I have no idea how these endings could have been entirely on accident. Coincidence is one thing, but my god, that's a lot to screw up and still somehow leave a pretty convincing out.

But again, it's all speculation. All of it. Everything that points to indoctrination theory can also point to poor writing and plotholes, and the only real defense against that seems to be that they simply wouldn't make this many mistakes. Proof for one becomes proof for the other because they are both theories and you really can't prove either one wrong.

At this point, no one knows but BioWare, and they seem content to just sit back and let us duke it out for ourselves over what they actually meant.

[TheLastAwakening]

#2 how did the prothean that breathe's in almost every planet without a mask make it to the Normandy when he was right behind me? He didn't make it to the beam, and he didn't defend me from the husk. What a traitor, he knew space magic all along and didn't share, I got trolled by the Protheans D:.

[theflyingzamboni]

I don't think many people are trying to say that the ending was intended to be Indoctrination. The whole point is that they know the ending is not good, and they're creating a way for it to be made so, should Bioware choose it. Even if it wasn't meant that way, the Indoctrination theory can be made to fit the data with no effort. What's that quote? Something like "Can't prove, but... theory fits evidence." Mordin supports the Indoctrination Theory.

[spychi]

GBGriffin wrote...

blackangel209 wrote...

I think it's hard to believe that Bioware just screwed up when the amount of things they messed up is freaking ridiculous. I can't believe that any writer, even an incompetent one, could possibly not notice that many horrible inconsistencies. And how was it not checked? Was the ending written with no knowledge of the Mass Effect universe by someone in a box, separated from the rest of the dev team?

And honestly, there's a large amount of things that point specifically to indoctrination. I have no idea how these endings could have been entirely on accident. Coincidence is one thing, but my god, that's a lot to screw up and still somehow leave a pretty convincing out.

But again, it's all speculation. All of it. Everything that points to indoctrination theory can also point to poor writing and plotholes, and the only real defense against that seems to be that they simply wouldn't make this many mistakes. Proof for one becomes proof for the other because they are both theories and you really can't prove either one wrong.

At this point, no one knows but BioWare, and they seem content to just sit back and let us duke it out for ourselves over what they actually meant.

In which case we cannot allow them to do that, we need to take some actions and I am not talking about just typing "hold the line" in some thread
I am talking about people actually doing something about it
We got their attention no doubt, but that is not enough and they know it
because as soon as we won't take any actions that would hit them, we are on a lost cause

[Navasha]

I really don't get how people don't understand that it was all a dream sequence.

Do you remember a border of blood or black oily tendrils around your screen at any other point in the game?

[GBGriffin]

Led Guardian wrote...

I don't think many people are trying to say that the ending was intended to be Indoctrination. The whole point is that they know the ending is not good, and they're creating a way for it to be made so, should Bioware choose it. Even if it wasn't meant that way, the Indoctrination theory can be made to fit the data with no effort. What's that quote? Something like "Can't prove, but... theory fits evidence." Mordin supports the Indoctrination Theory.

There have actually been some people who have been very confrontational over the indoctrination theory, basically challenging people to step up and prove it wrong. But, like I said, you really can't because if it isn't the IT, then it's poor writing, but if it isn't poor writing, then it's the IT. To them, it is as good as fact because it *has* to be true. I just *has* to be true.

I'm not exaggerating, either. While I'm trying to stay away from the BSN, I did post in several related threads where I was basically called stupid for not believing in it. For some, it's become almost a religious devotion (creationalism was even tossed around and, to an extent, it fits).

Again, though, it's so silly to argue about it. It's one theory vs another, and you can't prove either one conclusively.