161 réponses à ce sujet

[legaldinho]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Anyone that wants to know why it doesnt fit just see here

http://social.biowar...695/19#10352787

I laid it all out for you.

I visited the thread. Colour me green blue or red- but mostly disappointed. The OP explains nothing. It just says you think indoctrination theory is bleak. Because you don't understand it.

[theflyingzamboni]

Rohirrim wrote...

Fine with me! As long as we get a sense of closure and answers to some questions, I'll be happy. Most importantly, I want more info on Starchild and its inexplicable reliance on Sovereign.

Given all the points in favour of indoctrination, I'm starting to think that Bioware planned on using it but than decided otherwise due to time constraints. As they had to rush, maybe they forgot to edit some elements (such as the trees and shrubs and Shepard wound after shooting Anderson etc).

You can actually see trees in your approach.

[greywardencommander]

Mcjon01 wrote...

Mbednar wrote...

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.

I know it's wrong because I actually paid attention to the logs in the derelict Reaper and Arrival, and read Retribution, so I know that actual indoctrination doesn't resemble anything that happens to Shepard even a little bit.

that's not strictly true, it's presented that it is possible through hallucinations, dreams etc so it is possible it is still a fight in the mind (and even if not intended I present an easy way to make it such to fix the end). at the end of the day we don't know what happens in the actual mind of someone that's going through the different stages of being indoctrinated, we know that they come to have strange dreams, hallucination, remembering other people's stories as their own memories etc so it is still possible.

Regardless of intention it being in the mind is the EASIEST way for bioware to fix the ending regardless of whether or not they intended this to happen and give us the 'real ending'. My idea even accounts for synthesis and control endings without bioware having to change a SINGLE thing in the game just release the DLC.

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

[bazzag]

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

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.

1) you see beam go towards shep, but then it lashes out, you don't know what happened after the flash, especially as the camera pans in. This can be seen as the start of the indoctrination process.
2)Indoc theory is relying on sheps instincts as a soldier, a hero. Hearing coats say that hammer is gone persuades him that, as the last man standing, its down to him.
3)Following on from soldier instincts, seeing harby fly off would say to any military man-this is my chance to get to where i need to.
5) I'll explain this one first. In the same way as the spacechild has manifested itself to look like the kid on earth, sheps mind has done the same. TIM represents the devil of sheps mind, if you will. The part already indoctrinated. Anderson represents the unindoctrinated part. You'll notice anderson looks at shep throughout the confo. When you shoot anderson, after the situation is defused, you are bleeding in the same place you shot anderson.
4) Hacketts voice is harbys indoc, getting shep further into the trap, for after battling TIM sheps mind is now weaker mentally, and a weaker mind is easier to control. Sheps is weak as he collapses. Space boy is the true power of indoc. Giving you the choices, trying to make the destroy option sound the less sensible, the less heroic and honorable. Think of this part like Inception. A dream within a dream or something like that.

When shep breathes its because hes come back from his indoc encounter.

[hanshotfirs]

Bioware is basically telling us that the endings are whatever we want them to be. Use your imagination! If the Indoctrination Theory is what we believe happens, then it's completely valid. Do I think Bioware planned that from the beginning? No. They gave us some crap endings that, while having full artistic value, ran counter to what a large part of the community wanted, and we're now trying to make sense of an ending that (largely) doesn't make sense.

Just like debating the ending of Lost, Twin Peaks, etc. We all kind of make up what it means to make us either feel better or to make sense.

Completely valid point, as indoc. theory has it's own plot holes as well. Good topic though, I enjoy it!

[Mbednar]

spychi wrote...

JrSlackin wrote...

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.

^This^

It's becoming tiresome of people shooting down one another for their opinions. Theories are theories. Perfect example is Who shot first, Han or Greedo. Was in debate for AGES until recently Lucas came out and said "Greedo shot first". Until Bioware comes out and says "yes this is how it is" or doesn't say anything at all, then there we have it.

Exactly my point
Until we see some kind of official response on those endings or a fix/dlc we can speculate as much as we can but that will never make it true and some people here (as much as I am not just bashing the idea) are being overzealous in order to keep themselfs happy and allowing them to headcanon what they want 
I don't disapprove but seriously as much as I want the endings to be fixed and fanfic is ok to me, let's not loose our minds over this
it's all relative

I can't speak for everyone.  But I think a lot of people including myself understand that the Indoctrination Theory is fan made and not Bioware's intentions.

I believe a lot of us acept the fact that Bioware gave us a terrible ending.

Having said all of that, the Indocrination Theory dooes a very good job of covering plot holes and inconsistencies.  It also allows for much more varible endings.

It would be a nice suprise if Bioware released the Indoc Theory as a "Fan Made Alternate Ending DLC".  If only just to try and appease a lot of angry people.

[GBGriffin]

hanshotfirs wrote...

Bioware is basically telling us that the endings are whatever we want them to be. Use your imagination! If the Indoctrination Theory is what we believe happens, then it's completely valid. Do I think Bioware planned that from the beginning? No. They gave us some crap endings that, while having full artistic value, ran counter to what a large part of the community wanted, and we're now trying to make sense of an ending that (largely) doesn't make sense.

Just like debating the ending of Lost, Twin Peaks, etc. We all kind of make up what it means to make us either feel better or to make sense.

Completely valid point, as indoc. theory has it's own plot holes as well. Good topic though, I enjoy it!

Heh, I'm glad I paid $80 to use my imagination instead of having them design a better ending

[Sirartistic]

How can the end be anything else but a dream/indoctrination???? Shepard is told by the Catalyst to shoot a conduit in order to get the Crucible to work! He's also given the option of space jumping to his death to make the crucible work! Since when does doing any of those things make technology work??? Come on people think!

[Aaleel]

Only reason I don't buy the indoctrination theories is because the Prothean VIs can sense indoctrination. Vigil sensed nothing in ME1. You can chalk that up to it not having happened yet, or being in early stages.

But the VI on Thessia sensed Kai Leng before he even got in the temple, and sensed nothing on Shepard. It would have had to be substantial at that point and nothing.

Modifié par Aaleel, 21 mars 2012 - 02:26 .

[GBGriffin]

Mbednar wrote...

I can't speak for everyone.  But I think a lot of people including myself understand that the Indoctrination Theory is fan made and not Bioware's intentions.

I believe a lot of us acept the fact that Bioware gave us a terrible ending.

Having said all of that, the Indocrination Theory dooes a very good job of covering plot holes and inconsistencies.  It also allows for much more varible endings.

It would be a nice suprise if Bioware released the Indoc Theory as a "Fan Made Alternate Ending DLC".  If only just to try and appease a lot of angry people.

I don't want to fall into the trap of generalizing "everyone" who believes in the IT as some sort of deranged religious fanatic. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

What I'm trying to get across is that, as with both sides, a few tend to take it a bit too...far. They get too confrontational over it, and not everyone is as civil as you. 

Like I said, if the IT makes sense to you, and it keeps you holding the line, playing the games, whatever...by all means, buy into it (though I'd caution you to simultaneously prep for the worst). 

However, going out and actually trying to prove it to others, when in fact neither side can be proven correct, is counterproductive and generally leads to negative dialogue. I really don't want to argue this all night, so I'm staying out of the main IT thread, but if anything, just remember that, as of right now, both the IT theory and the crappy writing theory are equally valid, and by no means the only two options present. Rigt now, truly anything is possible because, without an official world, it's all speculation. All of it.

[Allaiya]

Trace007 wrote...

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.

Well there should be only one right choice in this case. The
other choices of synthesis and control are compromises of your original
goal.

What has Shepard's one goal always been throughout the Mass Effect
series?

Stop/destroy the reapers. If you stick with that original
goal, you break the indoctrination attempt. If you don't, only then do you actually become indoctrinated
like the Illusive man or Saren. Hence, the Prothean VI does not say Shep is indoctrinated, because he isn't at that point. He hasn't willingly submitted himself over to the Reapers, knowingly or not.

Shep's eyes changing to look like TIM and Saren's just help
this theory imo. As others said, until we get information nothing is certain
though.

Of course, even if IT is the case.. we still don't know what happens to the reapers if Shep overcomes it and survives. <_<

Modifié par mrfinke, 21 mars 2012 - 02:38 .

[savionen]

GBGriffin wrote...

hanshotfirs wrote...

Bioware is basically telling us that the endings are whatever we want them to be. Use your imagination! If the Indoctrination Theory is what we believe happens, then it's completely valid. Do I think Bioware planned that from the beginning? No. They gave us some crap endings that, while having full artistic value, ran counter to what a large part of the community wanted, and we're now trying to make sense of an ending that (largely) doesn't make sense.

Just like debating the ending of Lost, Twin Peaks, etc. We all kind of make up what it means to make us either feel better or to make sense.

Completely valid point, as indoc. theory has it's own plot holes as well. Good topic though, I enjoy it!

Heh, I'm glad I paid $80 to use my imagination instead of having them design a better ending

Kid: Grandpa.... tell me a story.
Grandpa: That'll be 80 bucks.
Kid: Ok, here you go.
Grandpa: Use your imagination and the story can be whatever you want it to be!

[GBGriffin]

Aaleel wrote...

Only reason I don't buy the indoctrination theories is because the Prothean VIs can sense indoctrination. Vigil sensed nothing in ME1. You can chalk that up to it not having happened yet, or being in early stages.

But the VI on Thessia sensed Kai Leng before he even got in the temple, and sensed nothing on Shepard. It would have had to be substantial at that point and nothing.

I've seen people argue about when the indoctrination actually happens, security protocols, etc.

At this point, it's open to interpretation. It doesn't back one theory more than the other.

[ryuasiu]

wathc me tyep wrote...

Shepard may be under rubble?

He is, though if you look behind him you will notice the been. Indoc fits

[GBGriffin]

mrfinke wrote...

Well there should be only one right choice in this case. The
other choices are synthesis and control which are compromises of your original
goal.

What has Shepard's one goal been throughout the Mass Effect
series?

Stop/destroy the reapers. If you stick with that original
goal, you break the indoctrination attempt. If you don't, then you become indoctrinated
like the Illusive man or Saren.

Shep's eyes changing to look like TIM and Saren's just help
this theory imo. As others said, until we get information nothing is certain
though.

I think that while that is "the Shepard"'s ultimate goal, people play him differently. Some people legitimately like the Synthesis ending. They feel it makes sense. Some people also enjoy the prospect of controlling the Reapers.

I was always under the impression that the canon was intended to be mostly the player's experience. If this is to be believed, then it actually tells the player there is only one correct choice...so why even make it a choice? If you pick 2 of the 3, you'd get a game over...you'd be forced to pick Destroy to continue, and not everyone wants that.

[greywardencommander]

Aaleel wrote...

Only reason I don't buy the indoctrination theories is because the Prothean VIs can sense indoctrination. Vigil sensed nothing in ME1. You can chalk that up to it not having happened yet, or being in early stages.

But the VI on Thessia sensed Kai Leng before he even got in the temple, and sensed nothing on Shepard. It would have had to be substantial at that point and nothing.

It's only in his weakened state having been knocked out and hurt by Harbingers beam that Harbinger is able to try to attempt to indoctrinate him (I am of the opinion that the last 10 minutes or so plays out as Shepards's Willpower fighting against Harbinger's control)

Also regardless of Vigil in ME1 most IDT are arguing that it happens at the earliest after arrival (2 days knocked out exposed to a Reaper artifact)

[GBGriffin]

ryuasiu wrote...

wathc me tyep wrote...

Shepard may be under rubble?

He is, though if you look behind him you will notice the been. Indoc fits

...And so does them tossing in a cutscene they finished as an easter egg.

Can you prove me wrong? Can I prove you wrong?

[Eriene]

Aaleel wrote...

Only reason I don't buy the indoctrination theories is because the Prothean VIs can sense indoctrination. Vigil sensed nothing in ME1. You can chalk that up to it not having happened yet, or being in early stages.

But the VI on Thessia sensed Kai Leng before he even got in the temple, and sensed nothing on Shepard. It would have had to be substantial at that point and nothing.

I am guessing the indoctrination process was slowly working its way into Shepard; a lot slower than most considering Shepard's strong will there he/she remained uncorrupted. That "will" was not broken until the final push to the beam when the laser hit.

[Rohirrim]

Led Guardian wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

I guess, if anything, what I'd like to get across is this:

You have your opinion and I have mine, and at this present time, both are valid because both are pure speculation.

As for them applying it...I honestly don't know how I'd feel about it. I think it'd be convenient for them because the fans basically wrote it out for them and it would appease a lot of people, but what about those who currently like the ending? For indoctrination theory to work, imo, it needs post-game DLC where Shep "wakes up"...but, at present, that's only even barely hinted at through the Destroy ending. If it stays as is, players would be forced to pick Destroy to wake up...otherwise, what, they become indoctrinated and it's game over?

TL;DR: It'd be easy for them to implement it, but it wouldn't be perfect. I'd personally just like to see them stick with the ending as is and expand on it, give more options or a chance to argue the logic, and those choices coudld springboard into a wider range of endings, from letting the Reapers win to walking away into the sunset.

It would be optional, so those who like the endings as is would simply not download the alternative. Which means even MORE variation in how people's games end, which I think is awesome.

If you don't choose destroy, they could replace the ending sequences with ones letting you know that Shepard was indoctrinated. Maybe if your EMS is high enough, someone has to kill the indoctrinated Shepard and the Reapers can still be defeated. Like how Joker talks to TIM at the end of ME2 if Shepard dies. If it's too low, the Reapers win. If you pick Destroy, you wake up and get the extended ending. It's not perfect, but I personally think it'squite good, and I would enjoy it.

As for having it be real, but giving Shepard more options to argue the logic, I'd be okay with that too. That would be satisfactory as well. Why I would prefer Indoctrination is there is trippiness to the ending that I cannot unsee, for one. Mainly, though, it's that I think the Reapers make better antagonists when they are at the pinnacle, and this ending would still canonize the Starchild as creator of the Reapers, as well as his bizarre motivations. Much cooler to my mind if the Starchild is a deception by Harbinger, and his reasons a lie. But if they did it like this and provided better resolutions, I wouldn't think it was fantastic, but I'd be satisfied.

I totally agree with you. Imagine an ending depending on your colour choice:

- DESTROY: Shepard wakes up in the rubble. Harbinger is furious at his failed indoctrination attempt and despearatly tries to stop Shepard from reaching the Citadel. You get to play a mission on the Citadel which has C-Sec and all inhabitants desperately fighting off the husks storming the place. Shepard has to fight TIM, open the arms of the Citadel, the Crucible docks, fires and you saved the galaxy.

- CONTROL/ SYNTHESIS: The camera shows Hacket onboard of a ship. Through a window in the background you see the ongoing fight between reapers and your gathered forces. "Shepard. Anderson. Come in. Come in.", he calls with desperation in his voice. Shepard does not reply. Your mission is to get to the Citadel. Noone is trying to stop you. Husks ignore you. Inhabitants watch in awe and disbelief as the greatest hero of their time stubmles across the battle on the Citadel. Reports of Shepard on the Citadel reach Hacket. "SHEPARD, open the arms! We need the curible to dock!", yells Hacket. A few heartbeats of silence, then Shepard says: "No.". When Hacket realizes what's going on, he sends the Normandy's crew to the rescue. Here, you could either get to play three of your squadmates going up against an indoctrinated Shep or play out Shep himself, desperately trying to break free of indoctrination but unable to do so (eg no dialogue options to give in to the reasoning by your squatmates). Liara cries, Vega gets into your ear: "Come to your senses, Loco!", Garrus looks down in disbelief. It is too late for Shep to resist. You have the option to fight your squatmates or shoot yourself (like Saren did). If you win, the reapers win, if you lose, the galaxy win. There is no escape for Shep as he lost his fight against indoctrination. That would be a bittersweet ending in my opinion.

[legaldinho]

Aaleel wrote...

Only reason I don't buy the indoctrination theories is because the Prothean VIs can sense indoctrination. Vigil sensed nothing in ME1. You can chalk that up to it not having happened yet, or being in early stages.

But the VI on Thessia sensed Kai Leng before he even got in the temple, and sensed nothing on Shepard. It would have had to be substantial at that point and nothing.

That's the one counter argument there is. One. It is the one inconsistency. But it is not unanswerable.

Kai Leng was fully indoctrinated, as were TIM, Saren, Benezia.

Shepard is fighting against indoctrination. They're trying to trick you. They haven't yet succeeded. That's why a lot of people call it hallucination theory, because unfortunately indoctrination leads some, who don't understand the theory, to think it states shepard is indoctrinated in the same sense and to the same degree as those people the VIs detect. He's not- that's the entire point.

(the allegorical, meta point, as it were, is that all action games are indoctrinations in a sense. They give something a colour, shape the options. The deeper point they want to make is: we've indoctrinated you, the player. You chose control. You spent 150 hours fighting to destroy the reapers. But we shaped things so that at the last minute, you chose the very thing you fought for so long. It's all the rage now, the whole meta games thing: Bioshock, Ass Creed II... well Bioware wants in on the action, I think).

[ryuasiu]

Watch this, this makes all the pieces fit together

[GBGriffin]

Eriene wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Only reason I don't buy the indoctrination theories is because the Prothean VIs can sense indoctrination. Vigil sensed nothing in ME1. You can chalk that up to it not having happened yet, or being in early stages.

But the VI on Thessia sensed Kai Leng before he even got in the temple, and sensed nothing on Shepard. It would have had to be substantial at that point and nothing.

I am guessing the indoctrination process was slowly working its way into Shepard; a lot slower than most considering Shepard's strong will there he/she remained uncorrupted. That "will" was not broken until the final push to the beam when the laser hit.

One thing I'm curious about: how the hell can Shepard survive a full face full of Reaper laser that can, under other circumstances, rip through an Alliance dreadnought. I think it's actually shown vaporizing some asari earlier. I don't want to get into "omg shep is actually dead" conspiracy theory land, but to survive a full frontal blast from a Reaper laser only to be knocked out?

[Mbednar]

GBGriffin wrote...


I don't want to fall into the trap of generalizing "everyone" who believes in the IT as some sort of deranged religious fanatic. I'm sorry if I came off that way.

What I'm trying to get across is that, as with both sides, a few tend to take it a bit too...far. They get too confrontational over it, and not everyone is as civil as you. 

Like I said, if the IT makes sense to you, and it keeps you holding the line, playing the games, whatever...by all means, buy into it (though I'd caution you to simultaneously prep for the worst). 

However, going out and actually trying to prove it to others, when in fact neither side can be proven correct, is counterproductive and generally leads to negative dialogue. I really don't want to argue this all night, so I'm staying out of the main IT thread, but if anything, just remember that, as of right now, both the IT theory and the crappy writing theory are equally valid, and by no means the only two options present. Rigt now, truly anything is possible because, without an official world, it's all speculation. All of it.

I really am angry with Bioware though.  I mean, look at the hate and, to an extent, depression they've caused in a lot of fans.

The truly ridiculous thing, is that arguably 90% of this hatred for ME3 wouldn't exist if Shepard had simply died sitting with Anderson, the Crucible had started, and the Reapers had died.  The End.

By adding the additional 2 minutes, they creeated all of this.

[Unit-Alpha]

I don't fit in your...!!!!

Nevermind.

[Aaleel]

greywardencommander wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Only reason I don't buy the indoctrination theories is because the Prothean VIs can sense indoctrination. Vigil sensed nothing in ME1. You can chalk that up to it not having happened yet, or being in early stages.

But the VI on Thessia sensed Kai Leng before he even got in the temple, and sensed nothing on Shepard. It would have had to be substantial at that point and nothing.

It's only in his weakened state having been knocked out and hurt by Harbingers beam that Harbinger is able to try to attempt to indoctrinate him (I am of the opinion that the last 10 minutes or so plays out as Shepards's Willpower fighting against Harbinger's control)

Also regardless of Vigil in ME1 most IDT are arguing that it happens at the earliest after arrival (2 days knocked out exposed to a Reaper artifact)

Then why didn't the VI on Thessia sense it?  It's not much time left between then and the end of the game.  When did it happen?  People use the visions of the boy as proof, but that happened before Thessia.  He runs into that VI so late in the game, I don't see how Shepard goes from not being indoctrinated there to full blown indoctirnation so soon after.