364 réponses à ce sujet

[J.C. Blade]

Why yes, I would be very angry that a choice with a grey morality would be labeled as wrong and Shepard painted as a grunt soldier who only knows how to "destroy".

[ItsFreakinJesus]

Yeti1069 wrote...

Why would they want Shepard's body anyway?

Because Harbinger spent an entire game and the Arrival DLC stating that they wanted Shepards body.  Hell, Shepard was knocked out by Object Rho and left at the mercy of dozens upon dozens of armed soldiers who could've easy saw to it that Shepard was turned into slaag, but Harbinger demanded that Shepard be unharmed.  The Reapers want Shepard's body.

[kalle90]

bo_7md wrote...
Their whole mindset is based on how much they hate the old ending that they are willing to replace it with anything not considering how many new problems that introduces. read through this post and you will see many people going with "anything better than this"

Oh I agree there is just as high possibility of getting worse endings than what we have now than there is to get better ones. But I guess most people are willing to take the risk because they don't like the current one. Replacing space magic with space magic.

@someone
I.Theory will be proven false if Bioware doesn't deliver the patches/DLC that prove it right, probably announcing them in april. Sure if Bioware does nothing some people (way less than now) can still insist the ending we got was I.T, but in the end it would mean we never got the real ending which sounds stupid. At that point I rather consider what we got a badly written real-world ending and not a dream.

[bo_7md]

Yeti1069 wrote...

When would we have seen Shepard's body collected? We see him get hit by
the explosion from Harbinger's shot, and he gets up and heads to the
beam up to the Citadel. That's the start of the indoctrination sequence
if you subscribe to the theory. We wouldn't have seen his body recovered
if that were something they wanted to do.

Why would they want Shepard's body anyway?

No
idea what you mean by Shep not being able to resist the "shock/after
effects" of being exposed to Reaper tech from the earlier games.

Indoctrination
is obviously something you can fight against. It plays on your mind.
It's like a form of hypnosis, a strong suggestion of sorts. Some people
are open to that suggestion, and are easily swayed, while others are
more able to resist it. If you want a parallel, think about Luke
Skywalker at the end of Return of the Jedi: the Emperor is trying to
turn him to the dark side, as his father was before him. He clearly
struggles with the temptation, giving into his anger and fear a few
times, fighting savagely with Vader, considering attacking the Emperor,
but ultimately is able to pull himself back from the precipice, even
after almost giving in and cutting off Vader's hand. Meanwhile, Darth
Vader, who has been under the sway of the dark side for 20ish years, is
able to break from his conditioning, from its hold on him, to kill the
Emperor and save his son.

Shepard choosing to kill the Reapers
when presented with his choices by the Star Child thing would be a
visual representation of his succeeding in fighting off
indoctrination--even with the alluring choices at hand, he is able to
stick to his goal of wanting them dead, not giving in to the temptations
that ultimately brought down Saren and The Illusive Man.

Q - When would we have seen Shepard's body collected?
A - We would have seen it instead of the breath scene. Which btw doesn't fit he was in london and never got beamed up.

Q- Why would they want Shepard's body anyway?
A- My point exactly, why bother indoctrinate him ? They are wining.

I only put this point forwad because of you comment on harbinger Indoc shepard near the beam.

Then you argue the following "Shepard choosing to kill the Reapers
when presented with his choices by the Star Child thing would be a
visual representation of his succeeding in fighting off
indoctrination"

Which if I may will use your earlier point to clarify my previous point in the post: You wrote "Indoctrination
is obviously something you can fight against. It plays on your mind.
It's like a form of hypnosis, a strong suggestion of sorts"

My point is what you said here exactly, It is a process like Hypnosis. So it can be repeated indefinately as long as the setting/reason is the same which is the weakining of his body due to injury. Hypnosis can be used to trick people into believing they are free of it. E.g Ask a man under hypnosis to take off his cloths in a public place and he won't, convice him that he is alone and no one is there and he will.

so the minute shep thinks he beat it, Harbings puts him under again and game over.

I apologise in advance as I relise my post might be somewhat confusing but i did my best to break it into smaller pieces.

[Gallimatia]

If I offer you a choice between cake and candy and you choose the former unknowing that I poisoned it but not the latter this does not make you or cake wrong. Cake is still better than candy just as control is better than destruction. It simply means the cake was a lie. It makes me a deceiving bastard trying to fool you. That is what the indoctrination theory claims the starchild is.

For it to make sense as a game option one have to argue it's possible for Shepard and the player to realize the control option is a lie that doesn't actually grant Shepard control, that the well is sufficiently poisoned. Some indoctrination theoriest do make such claims.

Modifié par Gallimatia, 23 mars 2012 - 09:02 .

[bliss point]

bo_7md wrote...

bliss point wrote...


I don't have a strong opinion either way, but on March 9 (release day?),  Mike Gamble, a Mass Effect producer, wrote on twiter:

"Hardest. Day. Ever. Seriously, if you people knew all the stuff we are planning...you'd, we'll - hold onto your copy of me3 forever."


That seems to imply that major plot related DLC was already planned, and given given how the game ends, surely he can't possibly be referring to some 'trivial' quests to gain more war assets?

Also seems to be implying that whatever is planned will make fans very happy, something which obviously is not the case right now... 

From co-founder open letter " it’s incredibly painful to receive feedback from our core fans that the game’s endings were not up to their expectations."

They thought they were giving people a master piece and were surprised by the feedback. So yeah what they planned was meant to do what he mentioned above but it didn't.

source: blog.bioware.com/2012/03/21/4108/

Possibly.  I took it as him knowing that the story was, to a certain extent, incomplete, which is why it was hard for him, as what was to come would finish the story the way they wanted it to end.  Hence the difficulty of the day.

I could be looking for a convenient explanation, however.  Either way, we will find out soon enough.

[J.C. Blade]

SwobyJ wrote...

J.C. Blade wrote...

Why yes, I would be very angry that a choice with a grey morality would be labeled as wrong and Shepard painted as a grunt soldier who only knows how to "destroy".

Sorry, but Shepard has never never never never never never never even as a Paragon, or a Renegade, or the middle, come close to suggesting he ever wants to control the Reapers. It's all been about defeating and destroying them. Just because you keep the Collector Base, it doesn't mean you want to control the Reapers. Gosh, you're not playing TIM.

Because the game doesn't give you the option until last ten minutes. Until then the option for Shepard didn't even exist to think about. Also, what the writers think and want Shepard to be and what I think and want Shepard I roleplay to be are very different things, as they should be.

[muse108]

I agree, this indoctrination makes NO sense. Shepard hasnt been anywhere near a reaper for more than 5 minutes at a time.

[Yeti1069]

J.C. Blade wrote...



If it's a plot hole then it's a damn big one. And Sheprad never had spent enough time for a continous signal to take root in her mind.

A logical assumption, especially after dealing with reapers. Even if that wasn't the case I'm sure Shepard sustained injuries in cross-fire that required more treatment than just slapping medi-gel on it.

Indoctrination causes its vistims to worship the reapers, to agree with them. It's a slow process but if it were there then at any point in the game Shepard should have at least let a few positive comments about reapers here and there slip. I can't see how that would be a problem considering they've already went overboard with all the auto-dialogue.

You never considered the durability of your companions to be at least a little bit of a plot hole through the 3 games? There is a lot of effort made through the games to point out how special Shepard is. Your squadmates are clearly a cut above the rest, but there aren't many indications that they are anywhere near the caliber of uniqueness that Shep is. My assumption has always been that, while the writers wanted to flesh out the squaddies, they didn't want to focus on them that much, since this is Shepard's story. I could be wrong, but that's always been my impression.

A logical assumption maybe, but it's an assumption with rather little basis...there are times we see people sent to get medical treatment in the games, but those aren't ever for Shepard. Medigel is explained to do quite a lot all on its own. It would make sense for him to get check-ups, but we don't know if he ever does. Plus, a looking-over for a bullet wound doesn't come with a brain scan. You're plugging in a bunch of assumptions here in order to combat an assumption that is based on assuming the writers intended the current ending to make some sense, which it doesn't if you take it literally.

Indoctrination causes a lot of things, and at differing speeds. It's rather unclear how long it takes for people to become fully indoctrinated, or whether it takes the same course for every subject. We don't know how long it took to fully affect those individuals we know were indoctrinated, while we never really saw Saren worshiping the Reapers. He holds some reverence for them, but even at the end he appears to be trying to find a way to spare the people of the galaxy, rather than simply admitting that whatever the Reapers do will be perfect, and we don't know how long it took for him to become indoctrinated to the degree he is at the end of ME 1, and that was from riding around inside a Reaper for a long damn time.

Look at the logs from the derelict Reaper...the conversations between the science team members...false memories, mild paranoia... Where's the worship there?

You can argue that the indoctrination theory doesn't hold water, but you really can't argue that the ending works and makes sense as it stands otherwise. Indoctrination at least explains a lot of what's going on, and makes some sense, and is more interesting than believing that Joker flew the Normandy down to the battlefield right behind you and scooped up your two best teammates and then whisked them across the solar system because he alone feared something like the mass relays being destroyed...but didn't bother picking you up. Maybe he figured you were necessary to finish the Reapers off, but your squadmates...not so much, and they didn't deserve to die? Or that, for some reason, a weird child-image thing that control the Citadel couldn't simply skip all the stuff that happened in ME 1 to call the Reapers in, and that it was built hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago, with 3 choices ready and waiting for the one organic that would actually manage to make it into a private meeting. Or that all the writers would think that throwing us such a huge curveball in the last 10 minutes of the game is a good idea.

[bo_7md]

Yeti1069 wrote...

You can argue that the indoctrination theory doesn't hold water, but you really can't argue that the ending works and makes sense as it stands otherwise. Indoctrination at least explains a lot of what's going on, and makes some sense, and is more interesting than believing that Joker flew the Normandy down to the battlefield right behind you and scooped up your two best teammates and then whisked them across the solar system because he alone feared something like the mass relays being destroyed...but didn't bother picking you up. Maybe he figured you were necessary to finish the Reapers off, but your squadmates...not so much, and they didn't deserve to die? Or that, for some reason, a weird child-image thing that control the Citadel couldn't simply skip all the stuff that happened in ME 1 to call the Reapers in, and that it was built hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago, with 3 choices ready and waiting for the one organic that would actually manage to make it into a private meeting. Or that all the writers would think that throwing us such a huge curveball in the last 10 minutes of the game is a good idea.

It makes some sense to me, at least more than the no ending I.T. and what i'm missing is just some clarifications here and there which i hope is what is coming out in april.

[J.C. Blade]

SwobyJ wrote...

No.

Shepard is NOT you. This is not 'blank slate' roleplay. You direct a specific character in largely narrowly (movie-style) defined ways.

They make a point that you are Shepard, not Shepard is you. You can't be romancing everyone you see. You can't join Cerberus in ME3. You can't decide to relax on a resort planet. You live the game through Shepard's point of view, instead of create a character to live in the game.

This makes the storytelling more compact, as Bioware games tend to be (even KOTOR etc), instead of true 'pure' roleplaying. All you're doing in nudging Shepard in one direction or another, experiencing different variables of the same story. It seems a lot of people struggle with this part (not saying you are, but its something I notice).

If Shepard is indoctrinated, you're not gonna be aware of it while you're playing. That's the whole point.

IS this the truth? No, and people seem to be thinking that I fervantly believe in this idea. I don't. I'm only exploring how the theory would fit the game. That's why its a theory.

That was as what as what the game was marketed as. And the ability to mold and roleplay Shepard was greatly reduced since the days of ME1. Shepard's motivations are for me to decide since those motivations are never stated outloud unless the player chooses an option on dilaogue wheel.

And this has gone off-topic now.

[bo_7md]

SwobyJ wrote...

bo_7md wrote...

Yeti1069 wrote...

You can argue that the indoctrination theory doesn't hold water, but you really can't argue that the ending works and makes sense as it stands otherwise. Indoctrination at least explains a lot of what's going on, and makes some sense, and is more interesting than believing that Joker flew the Normandy down to the battlefield right behind you and scooped up your two best teammates and then whisked them across the solar system because he alone feared something like the mass relays being destroyed...but didn't bother picking you up. Maybe he figured you were necessary to finish the Reapers off, but your squadmates...not so much, and they didn't deserve to die? Or that, for some reason, a weird child-image thing that control the Citadel couldn't simply skip all the stuff that happened in ME 1 to call the Reapers in, and that it was built hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago, with 3 choices ready and waiting for the one organic that would actually manage to make it into a private meeting. Or that all the writers would think that throwing us such a huge curveball in the last 10 minutes of the game is a good idea.

It makes some sense to me, at least more than the no ending I.T. and what i'm missing is just some clarifications here and there which i hope is what is coming out in april.

My mind is just boggled at that.

Yes, let's listen to Reaper Child, in space, in front of the blue, green, and red objects which may have been here for millions of years. OK. I just... nooooooo.

Actually those are from the crucible not originally in the citadel, but how do you justify them in the Dream situation did shepard every see a control object like that to link it here ? Can't recall if he did.

[J.C. Blade]

Yeti1069 wrote...

J.C. Blade wrote...



If it's a plot hole then it's a damn big one. And Sheprad never had spent enough time for a continous signal to take root in her mind.

A logical assumption, especially after dealing with reapers. Even if that wasn't the case I'm sure Shepard sustained injuries in cross-fire that required more treatment than just slapping medi-gel on it.

Indoctrination causes its vistims to worship the reapers, to agree with them. It's a slow process but if it were there then at any point in the game Shepard should have at least let a few positive comments about reapers here and there slip. I can't see how that would be a problem considering they've already went overboard with all the auto-dialogue.

You never considered the durability of your companions to be at least a little bit of a plot hole through the 3 games? There is a lot of effort made through the games to point out how special Shepard is. Your squadmates are clearly a cut above the rest, but there aren't many indications that they are anywhere near the caliber of uniqueness that Shep is. My assumption has always been that, while the writers wanted to flesh out the squaddies, they didn't want to focus on them that much, since this is Shepard's story. I could be wrong, but that's always been my impression.

A logical assumption maybe, but it's an assumption with rather little basis...there are times we see people sent to get medical treatment in the games, but those aren't ever for Shepard. Medigel is explained to do quite a lot all on its own. It would make sense for him to get check-ups, but we don't know if he ever does. Plus, a looking-over for a bullet wound doesn't come with a brain scan. You're plugging in a bunch of assumptions here in order to combat an assumption that is based on assuming the writers intended the current ending to make some sense, which it doesn't if you take it literally.

Indoctrination causes a lot of things, and at differing speeds. It's rather unclear how long it takes for people to become fully indoctrinated, or whether it takes the same course for every subject. We don't know how long it took to fully affect those individuals we know were indoctrinated, while we never really saw Saren worshiping the Reapers. He holds some reverence for them, but even at the end he appears to be trying to find a way to spare the people of the galaxy, rather than simply admitting that whatever the Reapers do will be perfect, and we don't know how long it took for him to become indoctrinated to the degree he is at the end of ME 1, and that was from riding around inside a Reaper for a long damn time.

Look at the logs from the derelict Reaper...the conversations between the science team members...false memories, mild paranoia... Where's the worship there?

You can argue that the indoctrination theory doesn't hold water, but you really can't argue that the ending works and makes sense as it stands otherwise. Indoctrination at least explains a lot of what's going on, and makes some sense, and is more interesting than believing that Joker flew the Normandy down to the battlefield right behind you and scooped up your two best teammates and then whisked them across the solar system because he alone feared something like the mass relays being destroyed...but didn't bother picking you up. Maybe he figured you were necessary to finish the Reapers off, but your squadmates...not so much, and they didn't deserve to die? Or that, for some reason, a weird child-image thing that control the Citadel couldn't simply skip all the stuff that happened in ME 1 to call the Reapers in, and that it was built hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago, with 3 choices ready and waiting for the one organic that would actually manage to make it into a private meeting. Or that all the writers would think that throwing us such a huge curveball in the last 10 minutes of the game is a good idea.

Indoctrination theory to me makes no sense. At all. A player should be aware of it. Should be able to spot visible hints. If I have to go to forums to read about all the supposed hints then something isn't done right - like those times you have to explain a joke, it's no longer funny.

ME3 was supposed to have a story and an ending involving Dark Matter, ME2 was riddled with obvious hints about it left and right. What happened was simply that ME3 was hastily clammed together from different pieces in an effort to tell something else. Who knows, maybe that part about Jocker flying away was from the ORIGINAL ending about dark matter and they've just thrown the CGI in instead of scrapping it all together.

[Ieldra]

SwobyJ wrote...

J.C. Blade wrote...
Why yes, I would be very angry that a choice with a grey morality would be labeled as wrong and Shepard painted as a grunt soldier who only knows how to "destroy".

Sorry, but Shepard has never never never never never never never even as a Paragon, or a Renegade, or the middle, come close to suggesting he ever wants to control the Reapers. It's all been about defeating and destroying them. Just because you keep the Collector Base, it doesn't mean you want to control the Reapers. Gosh, you're not playing TIM.

You have no idea which ideas are flying around in the brain of my Shepard. Shepard isn't dumb - controlling the Reapers seems like an insane proposition pre-Sanctuary, of course they never mention it. After Sanctuary, it is foreshadowed as a viable option by Hackett saying TIM might be on to something. Then at the end, it becomes a viable option. It's perfectly ok to dismiss that option - that's what choice is for, remember - but not taking it into consideration if it saves the Citadel, keeps all options open and doesn't destroy synthetics is stupid.

This is a war. Take a good long look at human history. How often has a war ended with the total destruction of the losing side? Control is the equivalent of annexation and Synthesis the equivalent of making peace (that it doesn't make sense as described notwithstanding). "It isn't real" is no counterargument because it's a premise that presumes its own veracity to justify itself. IT *arbitrarily* removes the benefits of two options.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mars 2012 - 09:27 .

[bo_7md]

SwobyJ wrote...

J.C. Blade wrote...

Why yes, I would be very angry that a choice with a grey morality would be labeled as wrong and Shepard painted as a grunt soldier who only knows how to "destroy".

Sorry, but Shepard has never never never never never never never even as a Paragon, or a Renegade, or the middle, come close to suggesting he ever wants to control the Reapers. It's all been about defeating and destroying them. Just because you keep the Collector Base, it doesn't mean you want to control the Reapers. Gosh, you're not playing TIM.

Actually ..... Renegade shepard at the end of ME2 saves the base knowing that the illusive man wants a reaper of his own. So ya he might use what ever he has which is ironic considering that the I.T fans are saying look at the Red light that is good pick it!

[Ieldra]

bo_7md wrote...
Actually ..... Renegade shepard at the end of ME2 saves the base knowing that the illusive man wants a reaper of his own. So ya he might use what ever he has which is ironic considering that the I.T fans are saying look at the Red light that is good pick it!

The biggest irony of all is that the IT fans consider themselves Paragon - and then proceed to do what no Paragon has ever done before: utterly destroy an enemy when less drastic options are available.

[Ieldra]

SwobyJ wrote...
....and with the end goal of....

not controlling the Reapers. Again, Shepard never remotely expresses that. It's just more of a 'anything I can use to stop the Reapers'.

The end goal is to stop the Reapers from reaping. Controlling them is the means to achieve it.