364 réponses à ce sujet

[Jeb231]

I believe it should be only be implemented if it was the original intent. If not they should just pull a BSG and hope people buy their next game.

Modifié par Jeb231, 23 mars 2012 - 06:03 .

[Joolazoo]

Would just like to address what the OP said...

Just because some of the options can be objectively wrong doesn't mean that it can't be right...I mean really...do you guys truly enjoy playing games where every decision you make is justified around in some way so that you look perfect? If no decision is objectively wrong that you're literally just playing off your own imagination trying to increase your self asteem or something.

[bliss point]

Slidell505 wrote...

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.

Isn't some of the argument in this thread that Bioware have somehow allowed only one "correct" ending, where the player is "right", and Shepard actually wins - and two endings where the player is "wrong" and Shepard is indoctrinated?

This appears to be the insult to rational people the OP is talking about.

I was suggesting that maybe the insult itself is not in the imagined form, and that there is actually 3 "wrong" choices, that all lead to indoctrination. Whether that is still an insult to rational people is another question, I suppose.

That would seem to be the cleanest way to start any indoctrination related DLC.

Modifié par bliss point, 23 mars 2012 - 06:11 .

[BaKaNoOB]

bliss point wrote...

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?

I think that if you are indocrinated , player will play as someone of teamates vs shepard

[Ieldra]

bliss point wrote...
Isn't some of the argument in this thread that Bioware have somehow allowed only one "correct" ending, where the player is "right", and Shepard actually wins - and two endings where the player is "wrong" and Shepard is indoctrinated?

This appears to be the insult to rational people the OP is talking about.

The insult is the fact that if they implement this theory, the recognition of the "correct" choice will be based on false reasoning. Essentially, I would be forced to play stupid and undiscerning, forced to follow the prejudices and preconceptions of the IT supporters, in order to win. 

 

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

[bliss point]

Ieldra2 wrote...

bliss point wrote...
Isn't some of the argument in this thread that Bioware have somehow allowed only one "correct" ending, where the player is "right", and Shepard actually wins - and two endings where the player is "wrong" and Shepard is indoctrinated?

This appears to be the insult to rational people the OP is talking about.

The insult is the fact that if they implement this theory, the recognition of the "correct" choice will be based on false reasoning. Essentially, I would be forced to play stupid and undiscerning, forced to follow the prejudices and preconceptions of the IT supporters, in order to win. 

 

My point though was that there would be no correct choice.  All choices are valid to the player, and all players would start from the same place, just having got there via different methods.

There is no insult, as no choice is invalid, or 'incorrect'. 

If DLC does follow the end game, then it would have to be that all ME3 end game choices led to indoctrination, or that all choices lead to some other state, like judgement.  It would be interesting if you had to defend all choices you made in the previous games in front of a higher power, for instance.

Modifié par bliss point, 24 mars 2012 - 12:26 .

[bo_7md]

BaKaNoOB wrote...

bliss point wrote...

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?

I think that if you are indocrinated , player will play as someone of teamates vs shepard

Yea.. The thing is now you fight shepard because he is with the reapers and the only option which is the crucible is no longer valid. I doubt it will be fun to play people getting wiped out and running for their lives heh.

Edit: Although it would be fun to play shep under the reapers and kill everyone else however illogical it is.

Modifié par bo_7md, 24 mars 2012 - 04:45 .

[Kabraxal]

Ieldra2 wrote...

bliss point wrote...
Isn't some of the argument in this thread that Bioware have somehow allowed only one "correct" ending, where the player is "right", and Shepard actually wins - and two endings where the player is "wrong" and Shepard is indoctrinated?

This appears to be the insult to rational people the OP is talking about.

The insult is the fact that if they implement this theory, the recognition of the "correct" choice will be based on false reasoning. Essentially, I would be forced to play stupid and undiscerning, forced to follow the prejudices and preconceptions of the IT supporters, in order to win. 

 

So choosing control... an option picked by an indoctrinated man, that has no evidence to support it's viability save for a godchild saying it will work, is suddenly rational?

So choosing synthesis... an option that melds two races in a way that isn't explained, that has the halmark statements that the Reaper's use as tauntsr........hmm... a synthetic/organic hybrid that always claims to be the pinnacle of evolution.  Sound familiar?  O right.. what they were trying to do to harvested colonies.  Right... really rational and great choice 

And surprise, surprise... the diablos ex machina appears suddenly when victory might be possible, offers two choices that have been seen before to either not work or be the Reaper's end goal basically, and conveniently steers Shepard away from destruction with "o... all synthetics... dead.  ANd yep, probably you too.  That is bad.  Probalby just lead to more being created anyway and more war.  Seriously... you don't want this."

And to be fair... I chose synthesis my first run because it SEEMED the best choice out of the three at the time. Upon further reflection and with all the data we had available... it soon become evident that it was far more likely you just handed the Reapers victory.  

So please... let's hera about how much more rational you were than anyone that possibly sides with the IT.  Doesn't make it true.

[Penitent]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

OP, your solution doesn't explain the many plot holes... Indoctrination Theory does.

This is exactly the sort of inability for critical thought to which the OP is referring; and why IT, and its proponents, are impossible to take seriously. Just because a fan provides an "explanation" for Bioware's shotty work, doesn't make that explantion "the" explanation, or one which supersedes theirs. Bioware's explanation is the only one that's relevant, and I've seen nothing on their part which unequivocally establishes the indotrination of Shepard. It's pure fabrication on the part of people, with no authority whatsoever, based upon nothing but their own dubious speculation.

Modifié par Penitent, 25 mars 2012 - 04:51 .

[bliss point]

Kabraxal wrote...

So choosing control... an option picked by an indoctrinated man, that has no evidence to support it's viability save for a godchild saying it will work, is suddenly rational?

So choosing synthesis... an option that melds two races in a way that isn't explained, that has the halmark statements that the Reaper's use as tauntsr........hmm... a synthetic/organic hybrid that always claims to be the pinnacle of evolution.  Sound familiar?  O right.. what they were trying to do to harvested colonies.  Right... really rational and great choice 

And surprise, surprise... the diablos ex machina appears suddenly when victory might be possible, offers two choices that have been seen before to either not work or be the Reaper's end goal basically, and conveniently steers Shepard away from destruction with "o... all synthetics... dead.  ANd yep, probably you too.  That is bad.  Probalby just lead to more being created anyway and more war.  Seriously... you don't want this."

And to be fair... I chose synthesis my first run because it SEEMED the best choice out of the three at the time. Upon further reflection and with all the data we had available... it soon become evident that it was far more likely you just handed the Reapers victory.  

So please... let's hera about how much more rational you were than anyone that possibly sides with the IT.  Doesn't make it true.

That's why the endings are so bizzarre.  That god child thing can instantly re-write the DNA of all creatures in the universe, without killing them, yet it cannot destroy the reapers without also destroying the Geth?  It seems like a very sloppy way of avoiding the obvious 'everybody destroys the reapers' option.  It does jar with with rest of the series, which was generally well written and interesting.


Maybe the DLC could be a Terminator 2 style story where the Geth send someone back in time to exterminate Shepard, before he destroys them.  The Geth could then live happily ever after, with their friends the reapers, who continue to strive for a synthetic/organic "synthesis" which evolves all life in the universe... 

From the perspective of the Geth, surely Shepard is ultra-evil if he chooses the destroy option, which is why I struggle with a scripted ending where destroy is 'correct', breath scene or not.

[steej]

They were only fraking toasters!
Do you think they would offer you the same consideration?

Gods no!
I destroyed them all with out a second thought, and I'd do it again!

I was not "indoctinated". It is more than possible Shepard was on the way to being indoctrinated, but under full control of the reapers he was not!

[srjepsen]

After Harbinger's beam is all a test, we're all so focused on what Shepard perceives, we fail to see it from another point of view, we naturally want the control or synthesis option, Harbinger knows this, that's why you see the Catalist smirking if you choose the control option, you've given into what Harbinger wanted all along, TIM and Saren are testaments to what the Reapers want, I'd love to explain further, but have a look at this: http://uninhibitedan.../mind-holy-fuck

[srjepsen]

and this:
I applaud Bioware.

[Hexi-decimal]

bo_7md wrote...

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

No, toward the DLC.  But Bioware would have to do it.

The Indoc Theory argues that all this is a dream, so the reapers would be alive and kicking when/if he comes to. This would suggest that the DLC is post ending, Now what C.H said is the DLCs will be during ME3 not after it simply rejects this theory.

The "New Ending DLC" was announced as a clarification and answers not a complete re-write, but you never know with Bioware. Lets wait and see

Right, but if Indoc was planned from the begginning, then in essence it wouldn't be a complete rewritem, but it certainly would clarify things.

[daecath]

The idea of indoctrination isn't saying that these are bad choices. What they're saying is that they signify an acceptance of the Reapers. Whether you decide to try and control them, or to merge with them, what you're saying is that they're not so bad, that there are circumstances where they could be useful. As soon as you say that, you open the door to them. It has nothing to do with any kind of moral statement on the choices themselves. It's all about how you perceive the Reapers. Whether they're the enemy that must be stopped at all costs, a potentially useful ally, or even something that can be embraced into our very sense of self.