300 réponses à ce sujet

[hexediter]

CarpeJugulum wrote...

zzcoreyzz wrote...

I remember from school we had a long course about conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK, etc.), that one of the main trademarks of a conspiracy theory was that it could never be proven wrong to its followers.
Any evidence that the theory was incorrect, would be added to the conspiracy. Example, Investigations into 9/11 concludes that it was a terrorist attack --> The american government was behind the investigation and is further proof they are trying to cover it up --> New evidence added to the theory.
Bioware saying they liked the current ending --> Bioware must mean AFTER the big reveal --> New evidence added to the theory.

This is so true. I actually can't think of a way anyone could prove IT wrong. The entire thing is perfectly internally consistent, and if someone finds some evidence that contradicts it? Just twist IT to fit. I'm pretty sure that even if Bioware stated it was false, most of IT's followers would say something along the lines of "Of course they would say that." 

Challenge for anyone who believes IT: give me one piece of evidence that would refute the theory for you. If it couldn't, under any circumstances, be proven wrong, then calling it a "theory" is a joke. If you can't prove it wrong, then it fails as a logical argument, and all your evidence means nothing.

Even though Mass Effect is interactive, testing a thoery that is itself an explanation for fiction is hard to do, all we have is what the game allows and shows.  To that extent, the upcoming DLC should prove or disprove it.  We can't really test it other then to say if we assume IT is true does the story make sense or does it fall apart.  But even if this is true it is not definitive, we must wait for Bioware.

[Agent_Dark_]

Lethys1 wrote...
Why, then, with a low Effective Military Score (between 0-1749) is the destroy option the only one that is offered?

Isn't that option actually decided by whether you kept or destroyed the Collector Base in ME2?  If you destroyed the Collector Base, then your only ME3 Low War Asset option is to Destroy the Reapers.  If you kept it, your only option is to Control.  I'm guessing most people destroyed the Collector Base in their game, which is why they are assuming the only option is Destroy when your assets are too low.


So maybe, since Shepard is so under prepared for the final fight, that the only thing she can comprehend is what's worked in the past. But ultimately the Indoctrination attempt on Shepard is pointless - the Reapers can just blow away the Alliance fleet because it's not powerful enough.

[Sisterofshane]

CarpeJugulum wrote...

zzcoreyzz wrote...

I remember from school we had a long course about conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK, etc.), that one of the main trademarks of a conspiracy theory was that it could never be proven wrong to its followers.
Any evidence that the theory was incorrect, would be added to the conspiracy. Example, Investigations into 9/11 concludes that it was a terrorist attack --> The american government was behind the investigation and is further proof they are trying to cover it up --> New evidence added to the theory.
Bioware saying they liked the current ending --> Bioware must mean AFTER the big reveal --> New evidence added to the theory.

This is so true. I actually can't think of a way anyone could prove IT wrong. The entire thing is perfectly internally consistent, and if someone finds some evidence that contradicts it? Just twist IT to fit. I'm pretty sure that even if Bioware stated it was false, most of IT's followers would say something along the lines of "Of course they would say that." 

Challenge for anyone who believes IT: give me one piece of evidence that would refute the theory for you. If it couldn't, under any circumstances, be proven wrong, then calling it a "theory" is a joke. If you can't prove it wrong, then it fails as a logical argument, and all your evidence means nothing.

^The reason I'm not quite sold is this very fact.  Most every piece of evidence can go either way.
I think what it mostly shows is that Indoctrination was clearly intended for the ending, as stated explicitly in the Final Hours App.  I however, believe that it was scrapped at the last minute (why?  I don't know) and that due to time/budget constraints much of the content created for it was used unaltered in a kind of slap-dash sort of way.  I can understand why it is so appealing - it boils down to either excepting it as the greatest literary device ever used within an interactive story, or as sheer evidence to the fact that the Bioware writers dropped the ball in the eleventh hour.

[MrDavid]

While I think Indoctrination Theory is quite a nice catch, I seriously doubt that it's true. For one thing I think the theory itself comes from being motivated by denial. The theory is comforting to fans who want to believe that the actual ending did not happen. I personally don't believe the theory because it is asking me to accept that Shepard's confrontation with the Illusive Man at the end of the game never happened. That also goes for Anderson's death; which had me fighting back tears.
I refuse to believe that none of that actually happened.

[Izhalezan]

The other endings unlocking are just another attempt to stop Shep since his scores so totally rad.

[kylechu]

I'm assuming here that if you're only presented the destroy option, the crucible beam also ends up being incredibly destructive.

Also, this is less of a "this is what I believe Bioware was thinking" post, and more of a "this is how bioware can write themselves out of a corner if they go with indoc theory" post.

Maybe the reapers were playing with Shepard's doubt. He knew he brought an insufficient fleet, and thus was not confident in their ability to win. This doubt manifests itself in the death caused by the crucible. Maybe they didn't feel a need to present the other options to Shepard that would lead to indoctrination because of this. They instead relied on the (less flimsy) idea that Shepard would be emotionally crippled by seeing this destruction, and that he wouldn't wake up.

For why they care about Shepard still, it's possible that though the Reapers didn't see the fleet as a threat, they still saw Shepard as one seeing as he's beaten incredible odds twice now.

As for why Harbinger didn't kill him? Harbinger killed Shepard once before, and it just slowed him down. Maybe he felt he needed to break him.

I blame any lapses in logic and grammar in my post, of which I'm sure there are many, to it being 1am and me being on a tablet.

[effortname]

You can view the destroy choice as the Reapers having to contend with your own mind checking the reality of the situation. If they took away the option to defeat indoctrination, your mind would instantly know something is wrong and they'd have trouble maintaining the illusion. However, if you have low EMS it's assumed that you're a sub-par Shepard anyway, so it's much easier for the Reapers to trick you. You're offered the destroy option alone because they were able to trick your mind enough that all options lead to indoctrination anyway. Thus, they had no need to make more than 1 choice.

[dorktainian]

play through the game multiple times and the Indoctrination Theory is just staring you right in the face. It's just so obvious.

The Child.
The Dreams - and their descriptions.
Red/Blue/Green.

Maybe the correct choice is not to choose at all but to fight. Maybe thats where the previous races including the protheans failed.

Think of Star Kid & Red/Blue/Green as a Reaper fail safe to ensure they cannot be challenged.

Modifié par dorktainian, 26 mars 2012 - 07:59 .

[Bill Casey]

zzcoreyzz wrote...

I remember from school we had a long course about conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK, etc.), that one of the main trademarks of a conspiracy theory was that it could never be proven wrong to its followers.
Any evidence that the theory was incorrect, would be added to the conspiracy. Example, Investigations into 9/11 concludes that it was a terrorist attack --> The american government was behind the investigation and is further proof they are trying to cover it up --> New evidence added to the theory.
Bioware saying they liked the current ending --> Bioware must mean AFTER the big reveal --> New evidence added to the theory.

Comparing a work of fiction to reality in this manner is utterly ridiculous...
Fiction is being lied to by the author in an entertaining way...
It's a few people in a room making things up...

Reality is bound by, you know, reality...

The whole series is about fighting an enemy that indoctrinates people. The protagonist becoming indoctrinated near the end isn't a huge stretch...

There's even a trope on this type of ending...

http://tvtropes.org/...angesEverything

The Gordian Knot of Twist Endings. Because the Twist Ending is no longer enough to satisfy viewers, the writers make the endings even twistier, thinking that if they can't shock the audience, confusing them is almost as good. When The Ending Changes Everything, it calls into question exactly how much of what you've seen was actually real. A charitable director (or one who wants to show off how clever the script is) might give you a Once More With Clarity montage to help you work it out. See also Unreliable Narrator. Less straightforward than All Just a Dream, and usually more confusing than Or Was It a Dream?. Compare Through the Eyes of Madness, which is a Mind Screw with similar effects (we can't be sure how much of what we're seeing is true) but accomplished in a different way. May be connected to a Kansas City Shuffle by one of the characters.

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 mars 2012 - 08:22 .

[zzcoreyzz]

Bill Casey wrote...

zzcoreyzz wrote...

I remember from school we had a long course about conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK, etc.), that one of the main trademarks of a conspiracy theory was that it could never be proven wrong to its followers.
Any evidence that the theory was incorrect, would be added to the conspiracy. Example, Investigations into 9/11 concludes that it was a terrorist attack --> The american government was behind the investigation and is further proof they are trying to cover it up --> New evidence added to the theory.
Bioware saying they liked the current ending --> Bioware must mean AFTER the big reveal --> New evidence added to the theory.

Comparing a work of fiction to reality in this manner is utterly ridiculous...
Fiction is being lied to by the author in an entertaining way...
It's a few people in a room making things up...

Reality is bound by, you know, reality...

Okay, fine you didnt like the indoctrination theory as an example. Then take the entire "gaming media is bought by gaming companies" theory. Or EA is forcing deadlines on Bioware to release games early instead. 

Please do not jump to the conclusion that my point was to say the Indoctrination theory was wrong. 

However, try comparing "Loose change" (the 9/11 video) with the indoctrination videos on youtube. Its quite obvious they share similar traits in how they are presented, how evidence is extremely biased, and how they do not show any of the counter arguments to the theory. 
Its a chopped up, mixed bag of hints and clues put together in a way to convince us that the video is speaking the truth. Maybe its correct, maybe its not, but I found it very interresting atleast.

Its just alarming to me how easily people believe wholeheartedly in these things, right or wrong, none of us knows (both the indoc and the EA/gaming companies) yet many seem to be absolutely certain its true. 
You would be surprised how many believe JFK was assasinated by the FBI, the CIA or even the Illuminati. 

[ChuckieJ]

Very good question. My own theory on this is that when your fleet strength is that low, the Reapers can easily wipe everyone out. They are not scared of you at all and feel no need to trick you.

At medium levels they present you with a better sounding option (control). When you have a really strong force they present you with two better sounding alternatives (control & synthesis).

[ChuckieJ]

Lethys1 wrote...

imtwocats wrote...

The reason the destroy option is the only one offered when your EMS is low is because the pathetically small fleet that you gathered was completely obliterated by the reapers, thus removing the need to have a trump card (indoctrinated Shepard) because the reapers already won.

I assume they left this in so the players with a bad score won't just get a "everyone dies, the end" ending.

Though of course this is all theory.

Why go through it all?  Why wouldn't you just be dead in that scenario?

This is a game where there is an option to skip all plot dialog....of course they aren't going to pull something like this over everyone.  Indoc theory is just wrong.

If you hit the X button, that's your choice. If you choose Action gameplay you supposedly still hear all the most important dialog and make the key choices.

[CavScout]

ChuckieJ wrote...

Very good question. My own theory on this is that when your fleet strength is that low, the Reapers can easily wipe everyone out. They are not scared of you at all and feel no need to trick you.

At medium levels they present you with a better sounding option (control). When you have a really strong force they present you with two better sounding alternatives (control & synthesis).

They still lose in the low EMS destroy option....

[Capeo]

Yes, the Reapers don't care because your Fleets weak even though it gets the Crucible there anyway. Because clearly Hackett is indoctrinated too! And the Reapers "show" you the Earth getting destroyed with low EMS, due to your actions, just to twist the knife a little... even though your dead... and indoctrination doesn't cause massive detailed hallucinations... but beside that? Yeah, IT is stupid.

[Pangaron]

A farmer has herd of cows, their milk is very popular in a village. One day, he gathers the whole village near his barn, goes inside,... now you hear cows mooing very strangely from inside the barn, like in pain? You cannot say. The farmer then goes out with a bucked of reddish liquid.

Now tell me, what just happened? Or is it so nuts it cannot be true?

Yeah, I should stop with the special tea.

Modifié par Pangaron, 26 mars 2012 - 10:15 .

[Streambeck]

Didn't read the responses, but in response to the Destroy option being the only one, this works incredibly well with MY interpretation of the Indoctrination Theory.

The Reapers would want Shepard indoctrinated because of his/her ability to sway galactic opinion, his/her pull over galactic society. If Shepard isn't a viable host, if Shepard couldn't deliver the galaxy to the Reapers on a platter, if the galaxy was already in an easily defeatable position because of being scattered, there'd be no use for Shepard as an agent.

[The Smitchens]

I'm curious what everyone's going to say when they come out and reveal it was indoctrination.

[Foolsfolly]

I find myself agreeing with the OP.

I get the feeling BioWare never wanted us to assume Shepard was indoctrinated. They just gave us a lousy ending and we're looking for sense in it.

Not that the indoc theory's a garbage theory. But it's based too much on trust. "BioWare took choice away and gave us a choice between three bad endings that go against established Shepard beliefs... it must be on purpose and part of the story!"

It's like rationalizing.

It's just bad endings. Nothing special.

And the fact that Destroy is the lowest required ending does kind of point to that, good job OP. Wouldn't have thought of that.

[Foolsfolly]

The Smitchens wrote...

I'm curious what everyone's going to say when they come out and reveal it was indoctrination.

If it ever comes out that Shepard was indoctrinated then three bad endings became one dreadful ending.

[Lakeshow1986]

EMS could be the difference between fighting the Reapers off and frying your brain, I don't know. The FACT is that IDT solves A LOT of plot hole issues, but may have the odd thing that stands out unless BioWare confirm otherwise.

[Worhaim_]

It's a theory hole. Even so, if you compare with the enormous amount of plot holes in the endings without the indoctrination theory, it's almost nothing.

[Capeo]

The Smitchens wrote...

I'm curious what everyone's going to say when they come out and reveal it was indoctrination.

Given that the co-founder already outright said these are the endings they intended no rational person is worried about that. 

[Phyzzix]

Who only gets that many points anyways? It's like the Shepard dies ending in ME2. You don't even deserve a colorful cutscene at that point.

[The Smitchens]

Lakeshow1986 wrote...

EMS could be the difference between fighting the Reapers off and frying your brain, I don't know. The FACT is that IDT solves A LOT of plot hole issues, but may have the odd thing that stands out unless BioWare confirm otherwise.

What's funny is of all the plot holes that indoctrination does fill in people bring to the table one minute detail and proclaim it to be all it takes to completely abolish it.  This thread for example.  Ok.  Low EMS means you have no choice but to select destroy. 

Ok.  Indoctrination debunked.  Now explain the plot holes from scratch?  The best conclusion people can come up with from there is "bad writing" at least that I've noticed so far, but that doesn't solve anything.

Indoctrination does make sense to a wide extent, so what's easier to explain?  One plot hole in indoctronation theory?  Or throw the whole theory out and start from scratch trying to force explanations in there?  It becomes the equivalent of a square peg in a circular hole.

In the scientific community there's a saying.  A better theory can always exist.  That doesn't mean to say they throw them out completely, but rather they tweak them.  They keep the aspects that work and update the parts that don't.  Same thing here.  If it doesn't make sense then don't just throw the whole theory out.  Find a reason to make it fit with the rest.

The thing is if Bioware already had this figured out then they are very good at writing.  If they didn't and they wanted to see what the community came up with then we all have an opportunity to write the conclusion to ME3.  Can you think of a better way to engage the fan base in the creation of something?

[Capeo]

Lakeshow1986 wrote...

EMS could be the difference between fighting the Reapers off and frying your brain, I don't know. The FACT is that IDT solves A LOT of plot hole issues, but may have the odd thing that stands out unless BioWare confirm otherwise.

No, that's not a fact at all. That's all in your head. The endings, as trite as they are, aren't plot holes unto themselves. People just don't like them nor their implications. The only pothole is the Normandy which wouldn't be one if they went with the original idea of killing your squadmates. They thought that was too harsh and lazily injected the Normandy scene.