364 réponses à ce sujet

[bo_7md]

SwobyJ wrote...

bo_7md wrote...

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!

....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'.

Ya Stop the Reaper by using a Reaper, sounds familiar ?
Quote from
Shep ending Renegade " Our mission was to destroy the base"
>>illusive man conversation >> Shepard again "A Threat this
big rules go out the window"

so ya he would control them

Edit: Sorry posted inside the Quote markers.

Modifié par bo_7md, 23 mars 2012 - 09:34 .

[kalle90]

J.C. Blade wrote...

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.

I'm kinda curious what are you after. That they keep the current endings that don't even explain those choices you made? So you control Reapers - great, then what? You forced everyone to be synthetic? Way to go. I'm on the same boat as you. Thorough the entire series I've also thought that if there's any way to save Reapers I will grasp it. Geth used to be an enemy, Krogan was threat to all as was Rachni. So even though destroying Rachni, Krogan, Geth, Reapers was in everyone's mind I've always (naively) thought that they can all be saved and most of the time proved everyone else wrong.

Got to admit that when the kid said answer C is genocide I immediately decided no I won't be picking that. Then I thought B might be good, until I realized not everyone wants implants. So because of convincing and seeing it as the least interfering plus preserving everyone (Even Shepard supposing he's to control in astral form?) I chose A.

Ok, then I saw the ending video and I started to think "That's it? No way that's it". I was suspicious about how the final part felt so dreamy and thought it might actually be just a mindgame and not wounded Shepard hallucinating and space magic.

In the end I'm way, way more happier if it turns out that Bioware actually managed to trick me (really, I believed some weird godkid living in Citadel when he said I can do what no one else could in my feeling of superiority and quest to save everyone) than I am if it turns out the ending was just that what it was, completely gray with near identical results as well as logically dooming most everyone seeing as relays are gone and all major civilizations crushed. As long as every "door" gives us an option to continue with both good and bad endings I welcome it. Hell, playing in the Reaper team against my former allies (or trying to resist it) would be a huge twist.

Like Angry Joe said, I might be giving Bioware writers too much credit. If indoctrination theory turns out true and Bioware still has a real ending in store I've got to say the ending so far was pretty ingenious. If it was real-world events and there's nothing more coming then it's just bad writing.

[J.C. Blade]

kalle90 wrote...
I'm kinda curious what are you after. That they keep the current endings that don't even explain those choices you made? So you control Reapers - great, then what? You forced everyone to be synthetic? Way to go. I'm on the same boat as you. Thorough the entire series I've also thought that if there's any way to save Reapers I will grasp it. Geth used to be an enemy, Krogan was threat to all as was Rachni. So even though destroying Rachni, Krogan, Geth, Reapers was in everyone's mind I've always (naively) thought that they can all be saved and most of the time proved everyone else wrong.

Got to admit that when the kid said answer C is genocide I immediately decided no I won't be picking that. Then I thought B might be good, until I realized not everyone wants implants. So because of convincing and seeing it as the least interfering plus preserving everyone (Even Shepard supposing he's to control in astral form?) I chose A.

Ok, then I saw the ending video and I started to think "That's it? No way that's it". I was suspicious about how the final part felt so dreamy and thought it might actually be just a mindgame and not wounded Shepard hallucinating and space magic.

In the end I'm way, way more happier if it turns out that Bioware actually managed to trick me (really, I believed some weird godkid living in Citadel when he said I can do what no one else could in my feeling of superiority and quest to save everyone) than I am if it turns out the ending was just that what it was, completely gray with near identical results as well as logically dooming most everyone seeing as relays are gone and all major civilizations crushed. As long as every "door" gives us an option to continue with both good and bad endings I welcome it. Hell, playing in the Reaper team against my former allies (or trying to resist it) would be a huge twist.

Like Angry Joe said, I might be giving Bioware writers too much credit. If indoctrination theory turns out true and Bioware still has a real ending in store I've got to say the ending so far was pretty ingenious. If it was real-world events and there's nothing more coming then it's just bad writing.

I don't know about you but I know what my Shep would do after Control ending - move the reapers and the Citadel back to the dark space, go to sleep and let the organic sort itself out. The End. I don't need epilogue to tell me that.

There were only two things I had problem with in the ending - Jocker landing on a planet far, far away & Starchild's logic behind the reapers. But that I attribute to poor writting. Heavens know the game is riddled with "dropped balls".

Modifié par J.C. Blade, 23 mars 2012 - 09:39 .

[bo_7md]

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Yes, taking ME1 for example the Thorian mission he helped the evil company in order to save the colony. Paragon route non the less, So shepard will take the non-destructive solution if he can. How they ignore facts and focus on fan fic is beyond me.

[0rthod0x]

Isn't the I.T. mostly a vein of hope for those unsatisfied with the ending? While I don't buy it, I don't see why (if that's what so many seem to want) it's an insult to implement. Considering it's the only way most can rationalize the holes in the ending, it would make more sense than trying to implement a completely different idea without making significant changes to the final sequences of the game. Personally, outside of some wildly varying endings post indoctrination or whatever, I don't really see the point.

[0rthod0x]

bo_7md wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Yes, taking ME1 for example the Thorian mission he helped the evil company in order to save the colony. Paragon route non the less, So shepard will take the non-destructive solution if he can. How they ignore facts and focus on fan fic is beyond me.

It makes people feel better I guess. Friend of mine claims paragon, and went with control, then proceeded to tell me for a week how much he hated the ending and didn't want to play any of the games again...and after hearing about I.T. and dream theories, he's clinging to hope again. Don't agree with the idea, but if it keeps him from making "it won't matter at the end" comments during my game, I'm all for it.

[bo_7md]

0rthod0x wrote...

bo_7md wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Yes, taking ME1 for example the Thorian mission he helped the evil company in order to save the colony. Paragon route non the less, So shepard will take the non-destructive solution if he can. How they ignore facts and focus on fan fic is beyond me.

It makes people feel better I guess. Friend of mine claims paragon, and went with control, then proceeded to tell me for a week how much he hated the ending and didn't want to play any of the games again...and after hearing about I.T. and dream theories, he's clinging to hope again. Don't agree with the idea, but if it keeps him from making "it won't matter at the end" comments during my game, I'm all for it.

I get that, and it is ,I think, the clearest to the point reason mentioned here in all these 14 pages.
I Hope you manage to keep him interested until the next ME series.

[0rthod0x]

bo_7md wrote...

0rthod0x wrote...

bo_7md wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

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.

Yes, taking ME1 for example the Thorian mission he helped the evil company in order to save the colony. Paragon route non the less, So shepard will take the non-destructive solution if he can. How they ignore facts and focus on fan fic is beyond me.

It makes people feel better I guess. Friend of mine claims paragon, and went with control, then proceeded to tell me for a week how much he hated the ending and didn't want to play any of the games again...and after hearing about I.T. and dream theories, he's clinging to hope again. Don't agree with the idea, but if it keeps him from making "it won't matter at the end" comments during my game, I'm all for it.

I get that, and it is ,I think, the clearest to the point reason mentioned here in all these 14 pages.
I Hope you manage to keep him interested until the next ME series.

Lol I'll try. Thanks

[Ieldra]

0rthod0x wrote...
Isn't the I.T. mostly a vein of hope for those unsatisfied with the ending? While I don't buy it, I don't see why (if that's what so many seem to want) it's an insult to implement. Considering it's the only way most can rationalize the holes in the ending, it would make more sense than trying to implement a completely different idea without making significant changes to the final sequences of the game. Personally, outside of some wildly varying endings post indoctrination or whatever, I don't really see the point.

If I may reiterate:

I think implementing the indoctrination theory would be an an insult to rational thinkers because the indoctrination theorists' choice for the "correct" option is based on the false reasoning that association with major villains makes the other options recognizable as being trick answers. The merit of ideas is independent from the morality of those who support them.

Apart from that, some IT fans also attempt to canonize Shepard to a degree that would destroy many existing Shepards, presuming that unindoctrinated Shepard would never choose anything else but the Destroy option. There is no compelling reason to prefer the Destroy option to the others. Thus, saying that choosing the other options shows that you're indoctrinated is insulting.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 23 mars 2012 - 10:35 .

[fwc577]

nikola8 wrote...

I find the idea that "the Indoctrination Theory explains everything" to be amusing. The problem with it is that it would introduce a brand new plot hole- namely that of the nature of indoctrination. Reaper indoctrination, as described in the games and in the books, is a subtle control that "whispers" and "claws" at the mind of the indoctrinated. NEVER once in established ME lore has indoctrination caused hallucinations. The Indoctrination Theory, therefore, in and of itself, would be a plot hole that cannot be explained.

Completely and totally false.

I know I've seen others mention in the books where this happens.

But as far as ingames.  Watch the videos and read the logs on the direlict reaper.

One of the engineers is creeping out cuz he saw a wall move/something come out of a wall.

[Funker Shepard]

Wolfva2 wrote...
But there are people who find it a delicious delicacy, Finns for instance.

... no.

Personally, I consider the current ending to be an insult to any feeling person. So either the focus of the insult has to be moved, or some real magic has to be worked. Magic has been worked by the writing team in the past, maybe they should just examine the good practices they've had and take a critical look at the ones used during the development of the ending.

[Purge the heathens]

The indoctrination theory...

It is...

... a virgin's taste.

...

Wait. No.

Here's my version.

After Anderson's death and being informed that the Crucible is not working, Shepard futilely tries to reach the console and loses consciousness. Then the elevator lifts him up. After this point, everything is a hallucination induced by indoctrination.

Shepard is not given any choices, he's hauled off to be processed for the Human Reaper. What we think is a "choice" is actually a test of character. The Catalyst has either heard about Shepard from Harbinger or it -is- Harbinger presenting itself in a form Shepard would not perceive as hostile. We know Harbinger has always had the hots for Shepard. Why? Several possible reasons exist.

Example A: All Reapers have "masterminds" taken from their source species' most exemplary individuals. If we assume that Harbinger's species created the Reapers, his would be the scientist/philosopher/philosopher-scientist who came up with the concept/designed the Catalyst/bla. Then it's obvious what Shepard's purpose is to the Reapers.

Example B: Shepard's supposed to be a template. Suppose you melt down Joker and you have his DNA in the mix and it codes for Vrolik's syndrome and, assuming the goo serves some practical function in the Reaper and... Well, you wouldn't want all those deficiencies in the mix, so the raw material from everyone else is compared to Shepard's and modified accordingly.

Example C: Something that's neither A nor B.

I'll go with A for the moment. So, Harbinger/the Catalyst wants to test if Shepard is really fit to be this mastermind which is to be determined through the three choices.

If Shepard chooses "Destroy", which, as we're told, will destroy all synthetics in the galaxy, it proves, to Harbinger, that Shepard is uncomfortable with the concept of AIs, synthetic life etc., a backwards attitude that makes him unfit for Reaperdom. In this ending, Shepard is discarded as disappointing and useless and dies.

"Control" is a more satisfying response, but Shepard's need to enslave the Reapers rather than submit himself to their perfect union of flesh and machine shows that he is, at best, suited to be a subordinate part of the new Reaper's gestalt mind.

If the EMS requirement is fulfilled, Harbinger is seriously impressed with Shepard and offers "Synthesis" wherein our protagonist becomes what Harbinger wanted him to be all along.

Everything after making your "choice" is just wishful thinking on Shepard's part.


...


And then Shepard escaped from his conversion pod for the real ending. Fin.

I'll hang onto that even  if indoctrination is officially debunked.

Modifié par Purge the heathens, 23 mars 2012 - 10:49 .

[OdanUrr]

0rthod0x wrote...

Isn't the I.T. mostly a vein of hope for those unsatisfied with the ending? While I don't buy it, I don't see why (if that's what so many seem to want) it's an insult to implement. Considering it's the only way most can rationalize the holes in the ending, it would make more sense than trying to implement a completely different idea without making significant changes to the final sequences of the game. Personally, outside of some wildly varying endings post indoctrination or whatever, I don't really see the point.

1) A lot of people already like the endings they've got. IT would invalidate those endings ("Don't download the DLC then!" is not a very good argument).

2) I honestly don't think the issue are the plotholes but, rather, how disappointing the endings were. Then people came up with IT that essentially says, "this is not the real ending," and started addressing the numerous inconsistencies. Because, if we are completely honest, the ending of ME3 is not the only part filled with inconsistencies. Heck, ME3 is not the only ME game filled with inconsistencies.

3) Implementation of IT would mean we have an unfinished product in our hands. The last game of the series would, essentially, end on a cliffhanger in order for DLC to address the issue. Personally, that would ****** me off a lot more than the endings we got.

4) With IT, there is no choice. Let me repeat this, IT takes choice away from the player. Many people have argued this is not true, but I ask you, if you can only "finish the fight" if you choose 1 out of 9 possible scenarios (factoring EMS), how many choices do you really have here? Another argument I've read is that the current endings already do that. That's just not true. The current endings give us choice, they may be crappy ones but choices nonetheless. What I can and do agree on is that the choices we're given are few, constrained, and have no direct input from Shepard.

[Nimrodell]

OdanUrr wrote...

0rthod0x wrote...

Isn't the I.T. mostly a vein of hope for those unsatisfied with the ending? While I don't buy it, I don't see why (if that's what so many seem to want) it's an insult to implement. Considering it's the only way most can rationalize the holes in the ending, it would make more sense than trying to implement a completely different idea without making significant changes to the final sequences of the game. Personally, outside of some wildly varying endings post indoctrination or whatever, I don't really see the point.

1) A lot of people already like the endings they've got. IT would invalidate those endings ("Don't download the DLC then!" is not a very good argument).

2) I honestly don't think the issue are the plotholes but, rather, how disappointing the endings were. Then people came up with IT that essentially says, "this is not the real ending," and started addressing the numerous inconsistencies. Because, if we are completely honest, the ending of ME3 is not the only part filled with inconsistencies. Heck, ME3 is not the only ME game filled with inconsistencies.

3) Implementation of IT would mean we have an unfinished product in our hands. The last game of the series would, essentially, end on a cliffhanger in order for DLC to address the issue. Personally, that would ****** me off a lot more than the endings we got.

4) With IT, there is no choice. Let me repeat this, IT takes choice away from the player. Many people have argued this is not true, but I ask you, if you can only "finish the fight" if you choose 1 out of 9 possible scenarios (factoring EMS), how many choices do you really have here? Another argument I've read is that the current endings already do that. That's just not true. The current endings give us choice, they may be crappy ones but choices nonetheless. What I can and do agree on is that the choices we're given are few, constrained, and have no direct input from Shepard.

/agreed 100% - I just guess that people are so desperate for some sense in endings that they are willing to give too much credit to persons who designed such poor 'resolution' of entire Mass Effect story. Ingenious and devious plan by BioWare? Yeah right... but I also see this theory as very dangerous in days to come, 'cause BioWare might actually go for it since so many are so vocal about IT being best solution. In the same time I hope it will happen and it won't happen - I don't want it to happen for my sake, but also I wish it happens so all those people get what they want... and knowing how things usually turn out when developer blindly follows the player base... IT supporters should be really careful with what they wish for.

[bo_7md]

Purge the heathens wrote...

After Anderson's death and being informed that the Crucible is not working, Shepard futilely tries to reach the console and loses consciousness. Then the elevator lifts him up. After this point, everything is a hallucination induced by indoctrination.

Shepard is not given any choices, he's hauled off to be processed for the Human Reaper. What we think is a "choice" is actually a test of character. The Catalyst has either heard about Shepard from Harbinger or it -is- Harbinger presenting itself in a form Shepard would not perceive as hostile. We know Harbinger has always had the hots for Shepard. Why? Several possible reasons exist.

Example A: All Reapers have "masterminds" taken from their source species' most exemplary individuals. If we assume that Harbinger's species created the Reapers, his would be the scientist/philosopher/philosopher-scientist who came up with the concept/designed the Catalyst/bla. Then it's obvious what Shepard's purpose is to the Reapers.

Example B: Shepard's supposed to be a template. Suppose you melt down Joker and you have his DNA in the mix and it codes for Vrolik's syndrome and, assuming the goo serves some practical function in the Reaper and... Well, you wouldn't want all those deficiencies in the mix, so the raw material from everyone else is compared to Shepard's and modified accordingly.

Example C: Something that's neither A nor B.

I'll go with A for the moment. So, Harbinger/the Catalyst wants to test if Shepard is really fit to be this mastermind which is to be determined through the three choices.

If Shepard chooses "Destroy", which, as we're told, will destroy all synthetics in the galaxy, it proves, to Harbinger, that Shepard is uncomfortable with the concept of AIs, synthetic life etc., a backwards attitude that makes him unfit for Reaperdom. In this ending, Shepard is discarded as disappointing and useless and dies.

"Control" is a more satisfying response, but Shepard's need to enslave the Reapers rather than submit himself to their perfect union of flesh and machine shows that he is, at best, suited to be a subordinate part of the new Reaper's gestalt mind.

If the EMS requirement is fulfilled, Harbinger is seriously impressed with Shepard and offers "Synthesis" wherein our protagonist becomes what Harbinger wanted him to be all along.

Everything after making your "choice" is just wishful thinking on Shepard's part.

hmmm... Your theory takes all advantages and reasoning behind I.T and throws it away while keeping all the dis advantages of both theories.

The catalyst couldn't have heard anything from Harbringer as he is just arriving and all connections to the citadel was severed by  the last prothean, That is why soverign tried to manually take control of the Citadel in ME1. At this point if they really want him they can indoc him no matter what, he is only human give it a few days with hunger and he will fall anyways.

A) Harbringer is a Reaper, The harbringer you see in ME2 is a collector possesed by the real Harbringer who shows up in Arrival DLC and you talk to him you can see videos on Youtube.

If they were able to create organic life why would they bother taking other races to do so in the first place. They are machines they can't even open the relays without the keeprs to do it for them, which is why they used the collectors to make a new reaper and have not made one themselves.

C) .....


If they wanted to test him why does him being impressed change anything ? The choices would remain the same.

[GnusmasTHX]

Shichamatsu wrote...

I agree 100%. I read Air Gear, a manga, and the Antagonist in the series, Takeuchi Sora, is a pretty complex character. A lot of people dont like him. They say he's evil, but I find him to be more of a neutral, chaotic neutral, type character.

However the Indoctrination Theory doesnt say that the other two are wrong. It states that the two are tricks, played by Harbinger, to steer you into full fledged Indoctrination. Controlling the Reapers means that you accept their control. Synthesis means that you've allowed yourself to become a Husk, or something quite similar. But then again its only a Theory.

The guy kidnapped a woman then brainwashed her. He's only complex in the sense that, if you follow the manga closely, even before the events of the manga proper, you get subtle hints that he is (as you discover in the manga's present-time) in fact a socio/psycopath.

Also the Synthesis ending is garbage, anyway.

Modifié par GnusmasTHX, 23 mars 2012 - 12:11 .

[Candidate 88766]

I fully agree OP.

In a game about choice, the indoctrination theory spits on that idea and tells the player that there is only one 'correct' choice, and punishes them for choosing anything else. Not only this, but the 'correct' ending requires multiplayer to achieve.

At least in the current endings, you have three choices that despite their near-identical cutscenes lead to dramatically different outcomes. The game doesn't try to tell you whether your decision is right or wrong, but the theory dictates that two out of the three choices available are wrong. That goes against everything Mass Effect is about. Even the choices that turned out for the worse in previous games are justifiable for either morality.

[bo_7md]

Shichamatsu wrote...

I agree 100%. I read Air Gear, a manga, and the Antagonist in the series, Takeuchi Sora, is a pretty complex character. A lot of people dont like him. They say he's evil, but I find him to be more of a neutral, chaotic neutral, type character.

However the Indoctrination Theory doesnt say that the other two are wrong. It states that the two are tricks, played by Harbinger, to steer you into full fledged Indoctrination. Controlling the Reapers means that you accept their control. Synthesis means that you've allowed yourself to become a Husk, or something quite similar. But then again its only a Theory.

Synthesis doesn't turn you to husk, in the Codex of ME you read something like the bodies need to be impaled with a special spike that sucks the water from your body and replaces it with implants you can refer to the codex on the iPad for the complete text.

A good example of Synthesis would be the illusive man.

[rexx1888]

i agree on principle, it is correct that one out of those three choices should not be objectively correct. HOWEVER, it is not unreasonable to implement the indoc theory while still allowing all of the three options. it simply isn't posited because we are using the false thinking of the original cut scenes

ergo, if you were to implement the indoc theory, you shouldn't penalize anyone for the choices they made, but its a better alternative to the current endings and allows a significant amount of reworking of the current endings(and there removal, which is my personal fave option because they are an insane mess artistically and mechanically :| )

[bo_7md]

rexx1888 wrote...

i agree on principle, it is correct that one out of those three choices should not be objectively correct. HOWEVER, it is not unreasonable to implement the indoc theory while still allowing all of the three options. it simply isn't posited because we are using the false thinking of the original cut scenes

ergo, if you were to implement the indoc theory, you shouldn't penalize anyone for the choices they made, but its a better alternative to the current endings and allows a significant amount of reworking of the current endings(and there removal, which is my personal fave option because they are an insane mess artistically and mechanically :| )

Well if they are going to implement such pointless cutscene, It's just a cutscene not an ending, then might as well stop the game after the beam and put a cutscene of <Insert Love interest here> dancing around at least it wouldn't get me thinking plot holes and Conspiracy theories.

[Baelyn]

Ieldra2 wrote...

0rthod0x wrote...
Isn't the I.T. mostly a vein of hope for those unsatisfied with the ending? While I don't buy it, I don't see why (if that's what so many seem to want) it's an insult to implement. Considering it's the only way most can rationalize the holes in the ending, it would make more sense than trying to implement a completely different idea without making significant changes to the final sequences of the game. Personally, outside of some wildly varying endings post indoctrination or whatever, I don't really see the point.

If I may reiterate:

I think implementing the indoctrination theory would be an an insult to rational thinkers because the indoctrination theorists' choice for the "correct" option is based on the false reasoning that association with major villains makes the other options recognizable as being trick answers. The merit of ideas is independent from the morality of those who support them.

Apart from that, some IT fans also attempt to canonize Shepard to a degree that would destroy many existing Shepards, presuming that unindoctrinated Shepard would never choose anything else but the Destroy option. There is no compelling reason to prefer the Destroy option to the others. Thus, saying that choosing the other options shows that you're indoctrinated is insulting.

So you are saying that no game should go outside the box and try to trick the player?

Also, I'd just like to say that IT does not base its reasoning on villans/allies being associated with certain choices. It simply looks at the bigger picture and rationally (yes I used your word) decides what the logical reason is for all the inconsistencies, then realizes what these 3 options really are, and not what they are being sugar - coated to be.

I believe you equating IT with emotional and illogical response, and your view with logical, rational response is insulting in and of itself.

[Lugaidster]

I initially liked the Indoc theory out of hope, but in terms of the videogame it doesn't make sense. Also, it is a slippery slope, by "indoctrinating" the player, it's making the player question his personal values. That's like walking to a frozen lake of brittle ice, especially given the current situation.

It is cool and all, the theory I mean, but it doesn't really play out that much in a video game. Especially because if you indeed wake up, what are you going to do, play the same **** again? That's loco man, and stupid, and boring.

The only thing they need to do is add the ability to unlock a fourth option that tells the catalyst to screw off. That we'll take our chances without the crucible. If you have what it takes (made the right choices all over the games), you come out victorious, albeit with a large amount of casualties (in the millions).

I somewhat agree that doing extreme things in the endings based on past games choices could make some fans angry because some Shepards wouldn't be able to get to the end, I believe that the game should bite you in the ass by not making the right call in the moment. For example, destroying the collector base should amount to more than just EMS and should be countered for example by saving the Racnii queen in ME1. Full renegades would go with one, while full paragons would go with the other (Keeping the collector base gives you advanced weapon technologies, saving the rachnii queen gives you massive amounts of soldiers and or ships). I believe however that some minor decisions should come and bite you in the ass, like killing Shaila in ME1 for example. I don't know...

PS: I also believe that the end of the game should reward players of the trilogy (or bilogy and the comic for PS3 players).

Modifié par Lugaidster, 23 mars 2012 - 12:46 .

[BaKaNoOB]

I believe in Indoc Theory
This is all big stunt so we to put our brains in use ... and on 06/04 to be in awe ..

[bliss point]

If there is any truth to IT, and if ending DLC is coming, doesn't it follow that all current endings lead to Shepard being indoctrinated?

The DLC would have to be playable for all players, not just some.   If the DLC itself addresses Shepard escaping indoctrination, then ALL current endings must end with indoctrination.  If not, the DLC would be invalid for a large number of players, and that doesn't make any sense. 

You couldn't start a DLC campaign with some players being indoctrinated, and some players havinig totally destroyed the reapers.  The starting point for all players would have to be somewhat similar.

In that case, there would be no single 'correct' ending, as has been discussed in this thread.  All player endings would remain equally valid to the player themselves.

I haven't spent much time reading up on the theory though, so maybe there's something I'm missing?

[Chuvvy]

As opposed to?

The indoc theory isn't great, I sure as **** don't buy it, but it's better than the yo dawg logic we were presented with.