161 réponses à ce sujet

[Mbednar]

spychi wrote...

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 

What?

Anything can be seen in a hallucination.  How do the hallucinations disprove it I'm confused?  Honestly confused.  Not being condecending.  Again, not intending to condecend, are you sure you understand the Indoc Theory.

The biggest problem I have with the Indoc Theory is that it renders the very powerful Anderson death scene meaningless  

Very good scene

[dointime85]

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

Actually, aren't you quoting the evidence in favor of the indoctrination theory? As I see it 1), 2) and 3) are used as evidence that 4) and 5) aren't real and everything takes place in Shepard's mind.

[GBGriffin]

spychi wrote...

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

TBH, I'd say the ball is in their court. I hope the PAX protest goes well, but honestly, I'd say there isn't much more that can be done on our end. They're stalling, and attempts to call them out on it are met by, you guessed it, no response.

Fortunately, for every article that zeroes in on the one FTC complaint, I see others criticizing the ending. I think once finances start to factor in, they'll do...something. I don't know. But, for right now, I think the strategy is just to wait it out.

[Rohirrim]

- the recorring child in Shepard's mind and dreams (watch it closely being ignored by others)
- the treas and shrubs from his dreams after being struck by Harbinger (weren't there before)
- renegade and paragon colours mixed (give it some thoughts)
- Shepard only surviving when choosing the red option (think about it)
- the "oily" strands (ask the rachni queen about them)
- unlimited ammo in the gun (admittedly could be simply cinematic)
- shooting Anderson causes Shepard to bleed from the same spot he shot Anderson
- the beam moving up the humans leading straight to panel (ok, could be due to "shifting walls")
- the utter destruction of the plot of Mass Effect 1 (why Sovergein if you have Starchild on the C.?)

All this ONLY makes sense if the events after Harbinger's blast were hallucinations/ dreams/ indoctrination attempts.

[Mcjon01]

I don't like Indoctrination Theory because it cheapens and destroys everything that indoctrination was built up to be over the course of the series. It frustrates me that all the ardent supporters can't see that through their desperation for the ending to be less awful, and it would be devastating if Bioware threw away their own canon even more just because a shaky bit of fanon managed to get a little popular.

[GBGriffin]

Rohirrim wrote...

- the recorring child in Shepard's mind and dreams (watch it closely being ignored by others)
- the treas and shrubs from his dreams after being struck by Harbinger (weren't there before)
- renegade and paragon colours mixed (give it some thoughts)
- Shepard only surviving when choosing the red option (think about it)
- the "oily" strands (ask the rachni queen about them)
- unlimited ammo in the gun (admittedly could be simply cinematic)
- shooting Anderson causes Shepard to bleed from the same spot he shot Anderson
- the beam moving up the humans leading straight to panel (ok, could be due to "shifting walls")
- the utter destruction of the plot of Mass Effect 1 (why Sovergein if you have Starchild on the C.?)

All this ONLY makes sense if the events after Harbinger's blast were hallucinations/ dreams/ indoctrination attempts.

OR if it was bad writing / execution as a result of a rushed product. That makes sense too. They rushed the product, cut some things while scrapping others, and we got an imperfect product.  Seriously, everything you've listed I can counter with "poor writing" or "bad design choice", and you cannot prove me wrong because both of our views are speculation at best.

[Blaizer]

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, non-retcon out.

Hanlon's Razor:

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

It seems to me that a lot of people are putting weight on the indoc theory just because they do not want to beleive that BW screwed up this badly.  They did.

[spychi]

I am going with GBGriffin
People are desperate in justifying those endings and without any proper guidance in writing stories they are creating various crazy or not crazy theories mostly with plotholes and all of them without the most important story writer hints on what the endings are.
The endings left me with a huge mind**** so yeah


Edit: as I said it's a theory and a theory with some game facts that allows it to be true and at the same time makes it look unreasonable

Modifié par spychi, 21 mars 2012 - 01:49 .

[Mbednar]

Mcjon01 wrote...

I don't like Indoctrination Theory because it cheapens and destroys everything that indoctrination was built up to be over the course of the series. It frustrates me that all the ardent supporters can't see that through their desperation for the ending to be less awful, and it would be devastating if Bioware threw away their own canon even more just because a shaky bit of fanon managed to get a little popular.

That's the thing though.

NO BIOWARE GAME REALLY HAS CANON.

Most of them are choose your own ending games.  Highly variable.  The gamers direct their own story.  This game should have follwed suit like DAO.

[DevilBeast]

It´s strange. I remember awhile back a discussion on the Mass Effect wiki concerning wether Matriarch Aethyta was Liara´s father or not. At this point, we only had Aethyta´s story about her having a pureblood daugther and the Shadow Broker files, and there were alot who kept claiming that those who believed she was Liara´s dad were grasping at straws. That there wasn´t enough evidence to back up the claim.

Although it´s about a different subject the nature of this discussion about the ID theory is almost the same as the one about Liara´s heritage: Someone believes Bioware has left out "breadcrumbs" for us to find others that Bioware couldn´t possibly have the skills to do so.

[Giguelingueling]

Op can you explain a bit how your points disprove ID theory ? Because honestly all your point reinforce ID theory for me at least (I know bioware never intended to do it, but I really don't see any plot hole with that theory so it's the canon ending for me atm ( only way I have found to be able to play a game I bought 80 $ ) .

[dointime85]

Mcjon01 wrote...

I don't like Indoctrination Theory because it cheapens and destroys everything that indoctrination was built up to be over the course of the series. It frustrates me that all the ardent supporters can't see that through their desperation for the ending to be less awful, and it would be devastating if Bioware threw away their own canon even more just because a shaky bit of fanon managed to get a little popular.

Well, no, that has been Bioware who wrote the Codex in ME3 so that it fits to what we witness.

[Encarmine]

People give up this totally stupid Indoc theory, it makes us all look stupid.

Bioware really did totally mess up their ending, there is no seret double dutch ending meaning. They ruined the ending, and destroyed the galaxy we all love because EA has told them to focus on MMOs and 3rd person multiplayers.

Thats the ONLY future mass effect lore has, as a base for a future set Multiplayer Game of some kind.

The days of RPG bioware are over. Its been walking dead since DA2 and ME3 ending is just that corpse finally falling over.

Stop living in denial

[SamFlagg]

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10349127/1#10349763

Alternative to the Indoctrination Theory, which like indoctrination also has the benefit of not sucking like the current endings.

[Mcjon01]

dointime85 wrote...

Well, no, that has been Bioware who wrote the Codex in ME3 so that it fits to what we witness.

But it doesn't.

[GBGriffin]

DevilBeast wrote...

It´s strange. I remember awhile back a discussion on the Mass Effect wiki concerning wether Matriarch Aethyta was Liara´s father or not. At this point, we only had Aethyta´s story about her having a pureblood daugther and the Shadow Broker files, and there were alot who kept claiming that those who believed she was Liara´s dad were grasping at straws. That there wasn´t enough evidence to back up the claim.

Although it´s about a different subject the nature of this discussion about the ID theory is almost the same as the one about Liara´s heritage: Someone believes Bioware has left out "breadcrumbs" for us to find others that Bioware couldn´t possibly have the skills to do so.

The thing is, do you know what ultimately confirmed that theory as true? BioWare confirming the theory by putting it in the game

At this point, we're arguing over unknowns and theories. Whether or not it's intended or not cannot be proven or disproven at this time. People have just been beating this horse to death because, without anything new from BioWare, it's all people really have to talk about. Again, once BioWare steps forward and addresses it, then we'll know, but I don't see that happening for some time, if ever.

[Mbednar]

Encarmine wrote...

People give up this totally stupid Indoc theory, it makes us all look stupid.

Bioware really did totally mess up their ending, there is no seret double dutch ending meaning. They ruined the ending, and destroyed the galaxy we all love because EA has told them to focus on MMOs and 3rd person multiplayers.

Thats the ONLY future mass effect lore has, as a base for a future set Multiplayer Game of some kind.

The days of RPG bioware are over. Its been walking dead since DA2 and ME3 ending is just that corpse finally falling over.

Stop living in denial

I don't believe it was their plan either.

That doesn't mean that they can't jump on the bandwagon and say it was their plan all along though ha.

I'd be fine with that.

If not then well...

RIP: Bioware     For me at least.

[spychi]

Giguelingueling wrote...

Op can you explain a bit how your points disprove ID theory ? Because honestly all your point reinforce ID theory for me at least (I know bioware never intended to do it, but I really don't see any plot hole with that theory so it's the canon ending for me atm ( only way I have found to be able to play a game I bought 80 $ ) .

Because it's a theory it makes the points taken out in valid and invalid at the same time
because for people defending it, it is more acceptable to understand, for me as a person who takes canon things canon it sounds unreasonable because those hints are non existant

So in the end it will all come to that until bioware won't make either an explenation or a fix with an explenation so that it will be perfectly clear for all of us

also one of the outcomes of Shepards test also doesn't seem valid as who actually has influnce to destroy the Reapers in the end 
they can't do it with conventional weaponry soo..

Modifié par spychi, 21 mars 2012 - 01:56 .

[greywardencommander]

Nor does the current ending, and the theory works if you treat it as an in-head battle against the control of the reapers. I have a way it can fit regardless of choice at the end (i.e. not having only destroy work for ending dlc) and despite it's flaws it has just as many, if not less, than the current 'space magic plunked out of thin air to explain everything' ending.

In this way, you can have your crew battling and having a moment of pure awesome, see your allies have their own moments of taking down the reapers. You can also have a ME2 tactic end where if you get it wrong more people die/you lose.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10350970

Modifié par greywardencommander, 21 mars 2012 - 01:56 .

[theflyingzamboni]

GBGriffin wrote...

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.

Interesting. Not my personal opinion though. I think of it as bad writing that has the possibility to become something else if the theory is applied and an "actual" ending added. Just that difference in perception of what is happening plus something new to conclude the game would make it enjoyable. No need to scrap the sequence entirely if they do opt to make ending DLC.

[Mbednar]

Mcjon01 wrote...

dointime85 wrote...

Well, no, that has been Bioware who wrote the Codex in ME3 so that it fits to what we witness.

But it doesn't.

I really hate that most arguments against the theory are quick one liners saying:

"Shut up"

or

"You're wrong"

How about some explanation as to why its wrong?  Other than the fact that its unlikely that they will do this.

[Huskeonkel]

Hmm I think the indoctrination theory makes a lot of sense to me. It explains well some of the things that happen earlier in the game, like the dreams.

[Encarmine]

Mbednar wrote...

Encarmine wrote...

People give up this totally stupid Indoc theory, it makes us all look stupid.

Bioware really did totally mess up their ending, there is no seret double dutch ending meaning. They ruined the ending, and destroyed the galaxy we all love because EA has told them to focus on MMOs and 3rd person multiplayers.

Thats the ONLY future mass effect lore has, as a base for a future set Multiplayer Game of some kind.

The days of RPG bioware are over. Its been walking dead since DA2 and ME3 ending is just that corpse finally falling over.

Stop living in denial

I don't believe it was their plan either.

That doesn't mean that they can't jump on the bandwagon and say it was their plan all along though ha.

I'd be fine with that.

If not then well...

RIP: Bioware     For me at least.

me to, we need to all stop staring at this Coffin and hoping bioware is going to jump out of it, Its not going to happen. The Bioware we knew 2 years ago, is dead.

This is just infinity ward all over again.

[Trace007]

I like the indoctrination theory, but I think it loses steam after TIM's and Anderson's deaths. Firstly, I think it's very possible that Anderson could be teleported closer to the console than Shepard, and I think that has just as much credit as the indoctrination theory. Same goes for TIM's sudden arrival. I think around when Shepard kills Kai Lang, must be before the fight, TIM says he's going back to the Citadel. Plus, I believe that there wouldn't be a mention of the Citadel itself shifting if it wasn't critical info to understanding what's happening. I'd put my stake into other paths being opened, allowing the other characters to arrive unexpectedly just as much as the indoctrination theory.

Anyway, as I said I do like the indoc theory, but I think it loses steam after the other guy's deaths. If TIM represents the side of Shepard that is already indoctrinated, then symbolically, it only makes sense that when Shepard destroys TIM, he breaks his hold over the indoctrination. To say that "oh, but he's still indoctrinated" just seems silly to me. Plus, after that point, if your only option do break the indoc is to choose the destroy ending, that only limits my choices even more.

Now, I'm not just left with three choices, but only one choice, which is made while Shepard is delusional. This forces the player to think that destroying machines is the only way to go. The only following outcome would be Shepard realizing that he broke the indoc. "Well, that was lucky."

I say, if you want the indoctrination theory to be true, and don't get me wrong, it's an awesome theory, it should end before the meeting with the star child. If you want a different ending, something else completely would be better.

[SamFlagg]

Huskeonkel wrote...

Hmm I think the indoctrination theory makes a lot of sense to me. It explains well some of the things that happen earlier in the game, like the dreams.

The importance needs to be that "it can make sense given what they have to work with" and divorce the theory from the "THEY'VE PLANNED IT ALL ALONG" line of thought.

(I'm fully willing to eat my hat if they have, but I think the supporters of the theory really need to stop giving bioware credit for accidently having enough in terms of assets left over from an abandoned plot line to support a theory)