367 réponses à ce sujet

[Kylie Nightbreeze]

Hunter_Wolf wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

But the Indoc theory creates even more holes than it solves, so it is no better.

How do you know this, do you have considerable amount of data to support your claim? 

No I don't, but what I do have is info gathered from playing all three games, and the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold. I doubt that being revived from the dead would cause the Indoc to still be there.

[chaosomegas]

i'll join any resistance against Indoc Theory.

[Vromrig]

chaosomegas wrote...

i'll join any resistance against Indoc Theory.

See previous post.

[LdyBelial]

I am against the Indoc Theory.

Why? Because I don't like the idea of that being the end of My Shepard! It seems a cop out.

[wheelierdan]

Hunter_Wolf wrote...

Dreogan wrote...
On the contrary, if they completely overhaul the ending or even go with indoctrination they risk an outcry from the people that simply didn't like indoctrination...

People who don't like indoctrination will get no sympathy form me, they've been playing the wrong game for a while now.

aka the non believers cannot see the truth

does anyone else find this disturbing in the sense that it sounds like a religion.  cherry picking ideas together into a creation story (indoctrination theory), and believing despite all the evidence that a savior is coming (dlc)

[Hunter_Wolf]

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

Hunter_Wolf wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

But the Indoc theory creates even more holes than it solves, so it is no better.

How do you know this, do you have considerable amount of data to support your claim? 

No I don't...

Ok then, so don't assume because you know what assuming does right?

...the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold...

If you listen to the dialog at TIM's base, the scientist responsible for recovering Shepard's body says his brain was mostly still in tact and he was even surprised despite how unlikely he thought it would be for Lazerus to work. And from what we saw in ME2, he still remembers everything form the first so whose to say that it can't still be a factor on his mind that he just can't get rid of? 

[Kylie Nightbreeze]

wheelierdan wrote...

Hunter_Wolf wrote...

Dreogan wrote...
On the contrary, if they completely overhaul the ending or even go with indoctrination they risk an outcry from the people that simply didn't like indoctrination...

People who don't like indoctrination will get no sympathy form me, they've been playing the wrong game for a while now.

aka the non believers cannot see the truth

does anyone else find this disturbing in the sense that it sounds like a religion.  cherry picking ideas together into a creation story (indoctrination theory), and believing despite all the evidence that a savior is coming (dlc)

I hear you on that one. This is starting to get a little creepy. It is a game.

[Apollo-XL5]

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

But the Indoc theory creates even more holes than it solves, so it is no better.

Couls you please give us a list of ALL the plot holes that the IDT has, becuase i garantee you that it is a very short list compared to the megalist pf plot holes that the original endings have.

Do you just hate the idea that the hero of the story is just human like the rest of us and can be corrupted the same way.  Isnt it better for the story to have charracter that is just as fallible as everyone else, i believe that is more interesting than a hero that is never swayed by anguish or corruption.  I mean boring would Batman would be if he was absolutly perfect(just lookl at the scott snyder run of new52 batman comics to see how fall batman has fallen.  His climb back up to his best will be as brilliant a read as his fall).

[KevShep]

Dreogan wrote...



On the contrary, if they completely overhaul the ending or even go with indoctrination they risk an outcry from the people that simply didn't like indoctrination, liked the original endings, or consider this an "assault" on Bioware's artistic integrity. These same people may not react like a bear poked by a stick if they only clarify the existant ending.

I think all of the above are BS, but it doesn't change the fact that these people exist. And they do form a large enough group for Bioware to be concerned about them. Majority isn't important, only that enough people would get angry for Bioware to care.

I seem to be much more aware of the problems of the ending than you might give me credit; I've watched this unfold since the very beginning. I am aware of plot holes. But I'm also aware of an author's power over their work; plot holes can be plugged easily. Violations of the writer-reader contract are much harder to repair, but both a salvage attempt OR indoctrination will run into issues with this. This singular issue is what you should be concerned about, as a reader will forgive a few plot holes (even huge ones) if the suspension of disbelief is not broken.

I respect you but I disagree. The simple truth is that people ether want it changed completely or use the indoc theory. The people that like the ending"s" are a small few. That is what this hold the line thing is!

As I have said the plot holes are too many to salvage without ending up with a different ending altogether just trying to explain it. Its the ending (even explained) is not going to work and here is why...please read the hole articale-http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/2/

A reader will forgive a few plot holes (even big ones) unless he/she is a die hard fan!

There is not issue with the indoc theory it means that the Devs can do absolutely anything with the story.

Modifié par KevShep, 25 mars 2012 - 02:22 .

[Apollo-XL5]

sorry about grammer and spelling mistakes, using the joypad keyboard on my ps3.

[Hunter_Wolf]

Brandonized wrote...

Do not see where Shepherd being indoctrinated at this stage of the game being of any use to Harbinger/ reapers. Saren yes.

Reapers aren't invincible and in the chance of the Crucible actually working as intended, to destroy the Reapers once and for all, with Shepard tasked to seal the deal.... considering how far Shepard has come despite countless enemies saying, "No." If I were a Reaper, I'd want to stop him as well even if that means assuming control of him. 

Shepard was always a road  block. He represented the anomoly that the Reapers were not prepared for nor likely have never seen. That one random chance that a species could do what wasn't predictable.

[Dreogan]

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

Hunter_Wolf wrote...

Dreogan wrote...
On the contrary, if they completely overhaul the ending or even go with indoctrination they risk an outcry from the people that simply didn't like indoctrination...

People who don't like indoctrination will get no sympathy form me, they've been playing the wrong game for a while now.

aka the non believers cannot see the truth

does anyone else find this disturbing in the sense that it sounds like a religion.  cherry picking ideas together into a creation story (indoctrination theory), and believing despite all the evidence that a savior is coming (dlc)

I hear you on that one. This is starting to get a little creepy. It is a game.

Hope is one of the hardest things to let go. This false hope for post-indoctrination DLC is what keeps them going, but sadly it needs to be rejected until Bioware announces something solid.

[noobcannon]

Thornquist wrote...

However, from what I can tell, there is no indication of them ever planning this. All the responses they have given have proven that.

you use that word proof, but i don't think you really know what it means

[Hunter_Wolf]

Dreogan wrote...
Hope is one of the hardest things to let go. This false hope for post-indoctrination DLC is what keeps them going, but sadly it needs to be rejected until Bioware announces something solid.

It's a no win situation either way. If they do go with it based on fan feedback, it meant the endings were intended to be legit which goes to show that the writers had lost sight of the over  all image to this conclusion. If this was what they wanted all along, we'll never know because as far as the community is concerned, they gave the writers the idea. So Bioware could come up with a report and date saying, "This is what we had planned and how we were going to implement it." And people would still deny it. 

The other issue is regardless what happens, we were given a broken ending. That is the main problem. As great as IT could be, the fact we have to wait for an ending that should of been in the full game is apauling from a consumer point of view. It's Horse Armor all over again.

[KevShep]

Dreogan wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

Hunter_Wolf wrote...

Dreogan wrote...
On the contrary, if they completely overhaul the ending or even go with indoctrination they risk an outcry from the people that simply didn't like indoctrination...

People who don't like indoctrination will get no sympathy form me, they've been playing the wrong game for a while now.

aka the non believers cannot see the truth

does anyone else find this disturbing in the sense that it sounds like a religion.  cherry picking ideas together into a creation story (indoctrination theory), and believing despite all the evidence that a savior is coming (dlc)

I hear you on that one. This is starting to get a little creepy. It is a game.

Hope is one of the hardest things to let go. This false hope for post-indoctrination DLC is what keeps them going, but sadly it needs to be rejected until Bioware announces something solid.

Its not that we hope for it or even expect it. We are trying to get Bioware to listen to our version of it because they are having truoble doing just that.

[Dreogan]

KevShep wrote...

Dreogan wrote...



On the contrary, if they completely overhaul the ending or even go with indoctrination they risk an outcry from the people that simply didn't like indoctrination, liked the original endings, or consider this an "assault" on Bioware's artistic integrity. These same people may not react like a bear poked by a stick if they only clarify the existant ending.

I think all of the above are BS, but it doesn't change the fact that these people exist. And they do form a large enough group for Bioware to be concerned about them. Majority isn't important, only that enough people would get angry for Bioware to care.

I seem to be much more aware of the problems of the ending than you might give me credit; I've watched this unfold since the very beginning. I am aware of plot holes. But I'm also aware of an author's power over their work; plot holes can be plugged easily. Violations of the writer-reader contract are much harder to repair, but both a salvage attempt OR indoctrination will run into issues with this. This singular issue is what you should be concerned about, as a reader will forgive a few plot holes (even huge ones) if the suspension of disbelief is not broken.

I respect you but I disagree. The simple truth is that people ether want it changed completely or use the indoc theory. The people that like the ending"s" are a small few. That is what this hold the line thing is!

As I have said the plot holes are too many to salvage without ending up with a different ending altogether just trying to explain it. Its the ending (even explained) is not going to work and here is why...please read the hole articale-http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/2/

A reader will forgive a few plot holes (even big ones) unless he/she is a die hard fan!

There is not issue with the indoc theory it means that the Devs can do absolutely anything with the story.

Please. You've linked something ancient. Ending Issues 101. I am very aware of the problems with the ending. I'm simply trying to get you to temper your expectations. There's no way Bioware can do this without making a very large number of people angry, so the most likely scenario would be the fastest and least expensive option to them available.

I never said I thought they'd succeed in salvaging the ending, only that it is what they are most likely to attempt (again, judging by expense, speed, tweets, hudson/the Doctor's posts). It's possible they will succeed, but still improbable. It takes a leap of faith of a completely different magnitude to assume they will jump on a fan-contributed theory to essentially redact what is actually in the game, then build a new ending from scratch on top of that.

Short version: Nobody's getting what they want.

Modifié par Dreogan, 25 mars 2012 - 02:31 .

[Hashbeth]

precisely which indoc theory are we talking about? Not to defend, just to clarify.

So is this anti the conspiracy theory that we were sold an incomplete game? Or is this against those who believe the indoc theory is the best way to solve the ending plot-holes, without altering existing content?

I only ask because it's kind of confusing that way. More along the lines of the "Indoc Conspiracy" and the "Indoc Theory'

[Hunter_Wolf]

Thornquist wrote...

However, from what I can tell, there is no indication of them ever planning this. All the responses they have given have proven that.

Their responses have been vague. And there was a huge emphesis on speculation. A lot was cut out and left blank from the files leaving many to assume that DLS would fill that right up. I wont believe it until I see it but just the thought that this could of been an attempt at creating an episodic conclusion  would be amazing, albeit I would still not like it considering the DLC issue. Nobody, at least not me, wants to buy a game full price and find out it's not complete.

[Dreogan]

Hashbeth wrote...

precisely which indoc theory are we talking about? Not to defend, just to clarify.

So is this anti the conspiracy theory that we were sold an incomplete game? Or is this against those who believe the indoc theory is the best way to solve the ending plot-holes, without altering existing content?

I only ask because it's kind of confusing that way. More along the lines of the "Indoc Conspiracy" and the "Indoc Theory'

This is more anti-theorizing because it gives Bioware too much credit for their poor storytelling.

[Penitent]

Cyan-Glow wrote...

(3) The real "proof" for me is the dream elements after the reaper beam hits you. (1) We could at least agree that it's happening in some sort of alternative or augmented reality. (2) It's not presented in a very coherent fashion,...

Your post illustrates the quintessential issue. It provides multiple examples of the "leaps" IT proponents incessantly make.

(1): No we can't. That's your interpretation. All I see for certain is a badly injured man who's movement, and perhaps even sensory perception, is impaired to some extent; i.e., it is one of the ways in which the game conveys your character has suffered acute physical trauma. That's it.

(2): Believing this a product of "indoctrination," as opposed to simply a poorly written script, is purely a product of you projecting a preconceived notion onto the game's content. Simply put, you are biased, and you're injecting that bias into the story; which everyone, but IT proponents apparently, can see. 

(3): What you designate "real proof," is nothing of the sort, but merely your (completely unsubstantiated) opinion. And this is why people are getting annoyed. They're tired of engaging people, who are apparently incapable of objectivity, in futile dialogues which are irrevocably imbrued by their own presupposition. IT proponents are consistently making baseless and erroneous claims, construing their conjecture as truth, or as the "only" acceptable explanation.

I have no interest in IT. I have no desire to see it in my game (pertaining to Shepard's character). Furthermore, it plainly does not (as of yet) exist. As such it is not a "solution" to anything. It is imagination run amuck. 

As stated before, for virtually every IT assertion, there are any number of more practical explanations. Personally, I would rather a Shepard suffering PTSD, as opposed to alien mind control. It makes him more real, relatable, etc. There is no reason to believe the boy is anything more than a manifestation of Shepard's own feelings of failure. He's done things no one else has, accomplished the impossible, but he was powerless to save that child and it haunts him. The austerity he's displayed in the past, is now revealing cracks, as the true magnitude of the Reaper threat, which prior was considered a mythical doomsday story, becomes real; as well as the reality of the imminent loss of everyone, including those he holds dear (just like the boy he couldn't save) looming. These thoughts and fears, which before could be ignored and suppressed when the threat was aloof, now form an edifice in the mind. This sort of stress would have, and has had, a profound psychological impact upon people in such circumstances. There's nothing "fantastical" about it; nor does there need to be. It's perfectly normal, and that's what's good about it. It establishes a requisite anchor to his humanity, our only commonality, in the otherwise unbelievable context of a fantasy world.

That is my opinion. It is not, unless affirmed by Bioware, anything more than such.

Just because no other explanation makes sense to you, does not mean there is no other explanation, that no other explanation is plausible, etc. If anything IT detracts from the story, as it robs Shepard of his humanity. Some people are proposing it as far back as, what, the second, even first, installment? That completely ruins the game, and makes your role moot, as if true, you were never more than a pawn; a complete betrayal of the game's most fundamental concept; i.e., the choose your own fate motif.

Modifié par Penitent, 25 mars 2012 - 02:35 .

[Vromrig]

LdyBelial wrote...

I am against the Indoc Theory.

Why? Because I don't like the idea of that being the end of My Shepard! It seems a cop out.

Not meant to be end of Shepard.

Once again, misunderstanding of theory.  Resulting in ignorant disapproval.

[Hunter_Wolf]

Hashbeth wrote...
I only ask because it's kind of confusing that way. More along the lines of the "Indoc Conspiracy" and the "Indoc Theory'

I don't understand the need for resistance of it either. It just kind of pooled up. The only legit proof, or lack there of, so far against it is that nobody don't knows. Statements were kept vague for a reason and if anybody knows about business, they do this to entice and get people asking. By now Bioware has probably discovered that whatever they had planned prior probably wasn't executed in the best of ways and therefore finding out the hard way how unforgiving their loyal fan base can be. 


But it's useless trying to argue over how this game could of been great if it took another six months to fill everything out so we weren't given a gipped game. People would of recieved it that much more. Ubisoft is a terrible role model, they nearly got lost in their work with AC.
 

[Kylie Nightbreeze]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

But the Indoc theory creates even more holes than it solves, so it is no better.

Couls you please give us a list of ALL the plot holes that the IDT has, becuase i garantee you that it is a very short list compared to the megalist pf plot holes that the original endings have.

Do you just hate the idea that the hero of the story is just human like the rest of us and can be corrupted the same way.  Isnt it better for the story to have charracter that is just as fallible as everyone else, i believe that is more interesting than a hero that is never swayed by anguish or corruption.  I mean boring would Batman would be if he was absolutly perfect(just lookl at the scott snyder run of new52 batman comics to see how fall batman has fallen.  His climb back up to his best will be as brilliant a read as his fall).

I have given you examples 5 to be exact: 1. If it is a slow indoctronization from game one ending of ME1 is broken right there. Vigil wouldn't have even talked to Shepard. 2. Shepard died in the begining of ME2 so yet again slow indoc not possible unless cyborgs come preloaded with the indoctronized brian. 3. Shepard spent no more than two and a half hours of their time on the deralict Reaper, and even less time infornt of the Reaper embryo. 4. In ME3 if there was an indoc going on when he/she was in the Geth Colective the red lines would be going to the back of his/her head. 5. The little boy was real because at 5'2" (yes I am that short at age 30) tall I can climb in an air duct of that size, and if there was an opening off to the kids right or left he could be gone by thime Shepard looked back.

Would you like more?

[Dreogan]

Penitent wrote...

Cyan-Glow wrote...

(3) The real "proof" for me is the dream elements after the reaper beam hits you. (1) We could at least agree that it's happening in some sort of alternative or augmented reality. (2) It's not presented in a very coherent fashion,...

Your post illustrates the quintessential issue. It provides multiple examples of the "leaps" IT proponents incessantly make.

(1): No we can't. That's your interpretation. All I see for certain is a badly injured man who's movement, and perhaps even sensory perception, is impaired to some extent; i.e., it is one of the ways in which the game conveys your character has suffered acute physical trauma. That's it.

(2): Believing this a product of "indoctrination," as opposed to simply a poorly written script, is purely a product of you projecting a preconceived notion onto the game's content. Simply put, you are biased, and you're injecting that bias into the story; which everyone, but IT proponents apparently, can see. 

(3): What you designate "real proof," is nothing of the sort, but merely your (completely unsubstantiated) opinion. And this is why people are getting annoyed. They're tired of engaging people, who are apparently incapable of objectivity, in futile dialogues which are irrevocably imbrued by their own presupposition. Instead IT proponents are consistently making baseless and erroneous claims, construing their conjecture as truth, or as the "only" acceptable explanation.

I'd just like to point out the very fact that there is disagreement in the audience over the nature of a critical moment of the plot is a catastrophic failure of storytelling. Not only does this show a form of shattering of the suspension of disbelief for a large chunk of the audience, the audience (as a whole) can't agree on what it means. This is in contrast to everything in the trilogy that has come before, becoming the first example of Bioware's failure to express itself. 

Modifié par Dreogan, 25 mars 2012 - 02:44 .

[J717]

The Indoctrination Theory is not the friggin' ending.

People need to get that through their heads. If the IT is to be believed, it means we haven't actually seen the ending(s) yet - which means Shepard can continue fighting, and BioWare can actually implement an ending wherein we get closure, answers and is something a million times better than the garbage we got.

[/quote]
No I don't, but what I do have is info gathered from playing all three games, and the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold. I doubt that being revived from the dead would cause the Indoc to still be there.[/quote]

Um, no. He was completely blasted by Object Rho's energy in Arrival - and that was immediately before the events of ME3.

I'll say it again; all Indoc. Theory would do is wipe out everything after the beam and Marauder Shields...which is pretty much what everyone wants, regardless of if you support IT or not.

Finally...THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS NOT THE ENDING. PERIOD.