261 réponses à ce sujet

[Lady Catastrophe]

I'm not on the bandwagon. Not really.

I personally think it's just a case of people so desperately wanting to believe that Bioware didn't mess up their most popular series that they're willing to connect the dots in order to try and find some kind of pattern so they can get the closure they want.

But as credible as some of these theories and arguments attempting to prove the truth behind the indoctrination theory have been, I'm cynical and pessimistic enough to firmly believe that ME3's writers plain and simply 'dun goofed' and that there is no way that such a badly written plot hole-filled ending could possibly have been written on purpose to make us think that Shepard was indoctrinated.

If that were the case, they'd be evil geniuses. And at this point, I find that very hard to believe. That they're geniuses, I mean. The evil part has already shown itself.

[NotSoElite]

leapingmonkeys wrote...

The ID theory is merely the desperate rationalizing of a collapsing belief system.

That is not to say that if Bioware wakes up and realizes that they have to create a proper and not-completely-nonsensical ending that they may jump on the ID wagon. But I do not believe it was ever their intent to do so.

The ID theory is missing too many parts. First and foremost, ID is not some rapid-fire effect produced by getting hit by a laser. It takes an extended exposure. All prior information about ID indicates that the subjects experience head aches, get a feeling of being watched, etc. None of which happened to Shepard. All the prior experiences we have with ID resulted in the victims wanting to be near the source of the ID. There was no evidence of such behavior from Shepard. The last VI we ran into could detect ID victims, and did not respond to Shepard the same way as Kai.

And to repeat myself, ID is not accomplished by being hit by a laser.

It is simply poor writing at the end. It has to be put into the same bucket as all the other plot holes.  For example, if the Reapers were able to take the Citadel in the blink of an eye with no resistance at the end of ME3 why didn't they simply shutdown the mass relays (ala ME1), or fly it off into deep space in order to protect it against the Alliance Fleet? Heck, why didn't they simply destroy it? They clearly did not need the Citadel to return from deep space (despite the assertion in ME1 that it was a gateway to bring the Reapers back), so why not destroy it? It simply made no sense to leave the mass relays operational and fly it to Earth when the Reapers knew that it was somehow part of the weapon that could destroy them. Just one of the many, many examples of how the plot simply fell apart at the end because they were trying to force an ending that makes no sense.

Agree completely.

[ThatDancingTurian]

I'm very much not on the indoctrination bandwagon. Personally, I find that possibility more insulting than the simple lazy writing of the god-child.

[Vaerkone]

I don't believe in Indoc, and I don't think it fits ME. Recognizing that some people really like the Indoc, I wouldn't mind it being one of multiple endings.

I would never let my Shepard near it though.

[ichik]

Seriously, you didn't provide any slight evidence proving the theory wrong or not possible or even doubtful. The only viable argument so far is that it's highly risky move for a Bioware — to release the game without full ending and that it's rather complicated plot solution.

[HowlettShark]

Faridarsabra wrote...

I don't believe in Indoc, and I don't think it fits ME.

I don't understand this sentiment. Indoctrination has been a present theme in ME since the first game; how then does it not fit?

[ichik]

leapingmonkeys wrote...

The ID theory is missing too many parts. First and foremost, ID is not some rapid-fire effect produced by getting hit by a laser. It takes an extended exposure. All prior information about ID indicates that the subjects experience head aches, get a feeling of being watched, etc. None of which happened to Shepard. All the prior experiences we have with ID resulted in the victims wanting to be near the source of the ID. There was no evidence of such behavior from Shepard.

Yeah, right, because he clearly didn't see all those strange dreams through the whole ME3 game and also, didn't complain to his LI for bad and strangle feelings… OH WAIT!

Considering the real head-aches etc. Paul Grayson who was indocrinated in third book didn't actually have a real head-aches. And when you talk about laser beam as the source of indocrination you're seriously missing the point. The closeness to the reaper and adrenaline + unconciousness, that's the reasons for speeding up the indoc, not the laser itself, and it clearly wasn't the start of the process.

Modifié par ichik, 23 mars 2012 - 09:50 .

[ShepardTheHopeful]

HowlettShark wrote...

Faridarsabra wrote...

I don't believe in Indoc, and I don't think it fits ME.

I don't understand this sentiment. Indoctrination has been a present theme in ME since the first game; how then does it not fit?

I understand where he's coming from while I get the origin of the theory and everyones interest in it. I'm not here to bash it maybe question it. The idea of the theory doesn't fit well with the rest of the feel of the game. To many Shepard was this one way defiant in every step and suddenly like nothing he just caves in a relatively short manner. Everyone tells me how mentally exhausted and torn he was through the whole game. He was mentally exhausted and torn in all three games that was the point. To be people are so focused on how write this ending is they fail to see alternatives. That's why we don't agree and that's why i'm attempting to explain my opposition. 

[Twigginater]

To me personally, I feel like they HAVE to have this set up. It seems to fit too perfectly.

[raigns]

Indoc theory is a nice dampener to the actual endings....but would still hate it to be the ending, as it's still inconclusive OR it just shows that no matter what you chose, you failed.

The indoc theory is just as fulfilling as fighting a war, only to have the main character wake up and say "What a crazy dream!"

Modifié par raigns, 23 mars 2012 - 04:39 .

[jarrettwold]

ichik wrote...
Seriously, you didn't provide any slight evidence proving the theory wrong or not possible or even doubtful.

I think the burden of proof is on the people positing the theory.  As time goes on, it appears that wasn't even in the cards, looking at the reaction from Bioware and Final Hours.  It may have floated around in some fragment at a meeting, but nothing that ever went into full development.

[CronoDragoon]

It doesn't make business sense for it to be true. If all they wanted to do was mess with our heads, they could have accomplished that by following the Catalyst sequence with the real ending. Which, by the way, would have been both memorable and beloved, in my opinion.

As it stands, there's way too much self-congratulatory imagery in the final cutscene and post-credits sequence for me to believe anything but that they felt that the current ending was artistic, bittersweet, and all the misplaced adjectives that the vast majority of posters here disagree with.