300 réponses à ce sujet

[ryuasiu]

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

If you don't wake up i.e. get the breathing ending, it means while you resisted the reapers indoctrination but in the end it killed you because it made your brain pudding.

The Reapers are still dead....

If its all in your head, they are very much alive.

It seems that indoctrination is the excuse for anything that tears apart the Indoctrination Theory....

So, you don't understand the theory is what you are saying, because from the very beginning indotrination theory states anything after the Harbinger beam = all in Shepherd's mind as Harbinger is trying to indoctrinate him.

Indoctrination Theory is saying everything from the beginning is in his head...

Um...no. Its not. I have not seen one single IT stating the entire begining of the game was in his head. There is no evidance to support that the ENTIRE game is in his head. The dreams, yes that is the Indoc happening. If you watch the door you see the boy run through the lock door. He might be reall but I am pretty sure he didnt survive after the beam blew it up. IT does state that the kid in the vents is not real, but everything else going around you is very much real and happening

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Bill Casey wrote...

Without viable military opposition, the Reapers have less incentive to try as hard to brainwash Shepard. Therefore, Shepard can fight off the indoctrination effects more easily, but it doesn't really matter because he doesn't live through it...


If Indoctrination Theory isn't true, why do The Reapers give Shepard more options if he has a bigger military opposition?

They needed to provide an ending to the game where Shepard dies and the reapers die for everyone anyway, just so that people wouldn't throw their game consoles through their televisions and sue Bioware and EA for damages. That's why the destruction ending is available regardless.

However, the higher EMS the more incentive they have to indoctrinate you for the one capital ship reaper they've got enough goop for and get the hell out of there, before they all get pounded.

Wait until they meet the Diana Allers GIB'd military asset that hits the absolute max. :innocent: Oh, yes. I figure she's got to be good for something.

[CavScout]

Deganis76 wrote...

The reason I disagree with indoctrination is this: wouldn't it have been a heck of a lot easier for Harbinger to just shoot a second death ray to vaporize Shepard and be done with it?

No, no, no! It makes way more sense to do a mind game and give the person the option to win and in some cases ONLY give them the option to win.

/sarcasm

[Cucobr]

Deganis76 wrote...

The reason I disagree with indoctrination is this: wouldn't it have been a heck of a lot easier for Harbinger to just shoot a second death ray to vaporize Shepard and be done with it?

simple

Shepard is worth MUCH MORE alive indoctrinated than dead. Much more.

Sovereign and Harbinger have already declared their interest in Shepard several times already.

[CavScout]

ryuasiu wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination Theory is saying everything from the beginning is in his head...

Um...no. Its not. I have not seen one single IT stating the entire begining of the game was in his head. There is no evidance to support that the ENTIRE game is in his head. The dreams, yes that is the Indoc happening. If you watch the door you see the boy run through the lock door. He might be reall but I am pretty sure he didnt survive after the beam blew it up. IT does state that the kid in the vents is not real, but everything else going around you is very much real and happening

The kid....

[The Smitchens]

CavScout wrote...

agathokakological wrote...

Low enough EMS means the Reapers have already won by the time Shepard would wake up. In a timeline, this would look like...

Shepard's knocked out -> Reapers kill everything -> Shepard wakes up

The evidence of Shepard waking up with high EMS is that there is a correct way to play-- one that yields a high EMS. This makes perfect sense, and explains why a low EMS would lead to a bad ending like the one i just outlined. That's why multiplayer puts your EMS on a curve. Say you want to eliminate all the geth, but that hurts your EMS by a lot. You can eliminate the geth and still beat the Reapers/indoctrination, if you play multiplayer.

Basically, the goal is to have a high EMS AND choose Destroy. Those two things combined will lead to the true ending.

What makes you think the other two endings aren't "true"?

Technically they would be.  I think Casey Hudson said at some point all possible outcomes are canon.  So if Shepard synthesizes then yeah.  He's a husk.

CavScout wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

No.
 Indoctrination theory says that everything from Harbinger's beam on is
in his head.  The influence of indoctrination prior to that is all in
subtlety.  It's not blatant.  It's all background stuff that you have to
go looking for.  Like a puzzle.

Indoctrination
Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it
will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks
setting up Indoctrination Theory being prove by Indoctrination
Theory.

Huh?

Modifié par The Smitchens, 27 mars 2012 - 01:13 .

[Cucobr]

CavScout wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

If you don't wake up i.e. get the breathing ending, it means while you resisted the reapers indoctrination but in the end it killed you because it made your brain pudding.

The Reapers are still dead....

If its all in your head, they are very much alive.

It seems that indoctrination is the excuse for anything that tears apart the Indoctrination Theory....

So, you don't understand the theory is what you are saying, because from the very beginning indotrination theory states anything after the Harbinger beam = all in Shepherd's mind as Harbinger is trying to indoctrinate him.

Indoctrination Theory is saying everything from the beginning is in his head...

No.  Indoctrination theory says that everything from Harbinger's beam on is in his head.  The influence of indoctrination prior to that is all in subtlety.  It's not blatant.  It's all background stuff that you have to go looking for.  Like a puzzle.

Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks setting up Indoctrination Theory being prove by Indoctrination Theory.

Show me ONE failure of IT.

[liggy002]

Deganis76 wrote...

The reason I disagree with indoctrination is this: wouldn't it have been a heck of a lot easier for Harbinger to just shoot a second death ray to vaporize Shepard and be done with it?

It would have been easier but far less useful to the Reaper's cause.  Even the codex says that if Reapers could subvert a major political or military leader (like Shepard) that the resulting Chaos could bring down nations.  Harbinger wants Shepard because he thinks he would be useful to his cause not because he wants to have his baby.  You want evidence in favor of the theory?  How about all of Mass Effect 2 in which Harbinger is coming after Shepard.  Harbinger even says himself that he wants Shepard alive.  Why just kill him and fly away?  It doesn't make any sense unless Bioware royally f***** up in the writing department.

[CavScout]

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks  setting up Indoctrination Theory being proved by Indoctrination  Theory.

Huh?

Just what it says.

Modifié par CavScout, 27 mars 2012 - 01:14 .

[NReed106]

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

[CavScout]

Cucobr wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks setting up Indoctrination Theory being prove by Indoctrination Theory.

Show me ONE failure of IT.

This is the common tactic of all conspiracy types, they demand you disprove their theory instead of actually supporting it.

The failure of Indoctrination Theory is there is no evidence for Indoctrination Theory.

[The Smitchens]

CavScout wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks  setting up Indoctrination Theory being proved by Indoctrination  Theory.

Huh?

Just what it says.

What it says makes absolutely no sense.  Not in a flawed logic point of view, but just in how you've articulated your point.  I'm just plain not following you.

Part of indoctrination theory is that nothing can invalidate indoctrination theory?  What?  Indoctrination theory is proof of indoctrination theory?  I just don't understand.  Where did you get this stuff from because... I haven't seen it anywhere.

Do you... know what a theory is?

[liggy002]

NReed106 wrote...

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

Yes, but it doesn't mean that they still can't release the content that they originally intended to if that is what they intended.

[ryuasiu]

CavScout wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

If you don't wake up i.e. get the breathing ending, it means while you resisted the reapers indoctrination but in the end it killed you because it made your brain pudding.

The Reapers are still dead....

If its all in your head, they are very much alive.

It seems that indoctrination is the excuse for anything that tears apart the Indoctrination Theory....

So, you don't understand the theory is what you are saying, because from the very beginning indotrination theory states anything after the Harbinger beam = all in Shepherd's mind as Harbinger is trying to indoctrinate him.

Indoctrination Theory is saying everything from the beginning is in his head...

No.  Indoctrination theory says that everything from Harbinger's beam on is in his head.  The influence of indoctrination prior to that is all in subtlety.  It's not blatant.  It's all background stuff that you have to go looking for.  Like a puzzle.

Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks setting up Indoctrination Theory being prove by Indoctrination Theory.

um, actually wrong again. IT has holes, just smaller and fewer. If you have a better well thought out explination about the ending other than 'space magic' or 'lol bioware b lazy' I would love to hear it and if its well thought out we can discuss it and you may talk me into believing it if theres good evidence.

*pulls up a chair and sits*

So please, by all means lets hear what you believe is truely going on. Becuase I have been looking for someone to come up with something diffrent.

Modifié par ryuasiu, 27 mars 2012 - 01:17 .

[The Smitchens]

CavScout wrote...

Cucobr wrote...

CavScout wrote...

Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks setting up Indoctrination Theory being prove by Indoctrination Theory.

Show me ONE failure of IT.

This is the common tactic of all conspiracy types, they demand you disprove their theory instead of actually supporting it.

The failure of Indoctrination Theory is there is no evidence for Indoctrination Theory.

Edit:  Too dick headish of a first response.

Ok.  Say indoctrination is bull.  What's your explanation?

Modifié par The Smitchens, 27 mars 2012 - 01:18 .

[CavScout]

NReed106 wrote...

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

So to be clear, you're claiming Indoctrination Theory was what BioWare intended to do but just didn't actually do.... they meant to do it but never bothered....

[NReed106]

liggy002 wrote...

NReed106 wrote...

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

Yes, but it doesn't mean that they still can't release the content that they originally intended to if that is what they intended.

No doubt, I truly hope they do.  That said, I think they due to time constratints they did their best to make this the "official" ending.  Here's the the blind hope they'll change and give us the ending promised and worthy of a game like ME3

Cav: Ran out of time to do is a better understanding.  Plans possibly changed as EA probably demanded the game ship and not delay a SECOND time (God forbid).  They likely had to wrap up the endings as quickly as possible as evidenced by the copy and paste style cutscenes we see at the endings with just different colored explosions

Modifié par NReed106, 27 mars 2012 - 01:21 .

[The Smitchens]

CavScout wrote...

NReed106 wrote...

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

So to be clear, you're claiming Indoctrination Theory was what BioWare intended to do but just didn't actually do.... they meant to do it but never bothered....

There's a word for what they've done.  Subtlety.  You hint at things.  Leave tidbits laying around.  Like a big puzzle.  Gives people something to think about.

[ryuasiu]

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...

NReed106 wrote...

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

So to be clear, you're claiming Indoctrination Theory was what BioWare intended to do but just didn't actually do.... they meant to do it but never bothered....

There's a word for what they've done.  Subtlety.  You hint at things.  Leave tidbits laying around.  Like a big puzzle.  Gives people something to think about.

Exactly. Bioware wouldnt be the first to do this, espically in science fiction

[CavScout]

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks  setting up Indoctrination Theory being proved by Indoctrination  Theory.

Huh?

Just what it says.

What it says makes absolutely no sense.  Not in a flawed logic point of view, but just in how you've articulated your point.  I'm just plain not following you.

Part of indoctrination theory is that nothing can invalidate indoctrination theory?  What?  Indoctrination theory is proof of indoctrination theory?  I just don't understand.  Where did you get this stuff from because... I haven't seen it anywhere.

Do you... know what a theory is?

Look at the responses whenever something is brought up to invalidate Indoctrination Theory, the rebuttle is "it was all in his head!"

Do you know that theories should be falsifiable. Something Indoctrination Theory lacks.

[liggy002]

CavScout wrote...

NReed106 wrote...

My reasoning: The Indoc theory has to many set pieces/evidence that it was just coincidence (I mean trees in London magically appearing? An infinite ammo gun? etc) I think BW was going to use it and pull off one of the biggest "fooled you" moments in gaming history. It could have worked SO well if the theory was true. The problem I think, however, was they were running out of time and couldn't delay the game due to corporate demands. Thus they were forced to rush out a product with a shoddy ending hoping that us consumer drones would ignore the slap in the face it was.

The Indoc theory pieced together what BW hinted at, but sadly it was changed last minute to make it the actual ending

So to be clear, you're claiming Indoctrination Theory was what BioWare intended to do but just didn't actually do.... they meant to do it but never bothered....

Maybe it's just because they simply didn't have the time to enact that ending with EA putting pressure on Bioware.  They are the ones fronting the money as you know.  So, we received the bad ending that they just slapped together.  Bioware would never admit this because that would mean that they released a bad product.  It's a good product but at the same time is a bad product because of the ending.

[The Angry One]

CavScout wrote...

Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks setting up Indoctrination Theory being prove by Indoctrination Theory.

Hi Catalyst.

[CavScout]

ryuasiu wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks setting up Indoctrination Theory being prove by Indoctrination Theory.

um, actually wrong again. IT has holes, just smaller and fewer. If you have a better well thought out explination about the ending other than 'space magic' or 'lol bioware b lazy' I would love to hear it and if its well thought out we can discuss it and you may talk me into believing it if theres good evidence.

*pulls up a chair and sits*

So please, by all means lets hear what you believe is truely going on. Becuase I have been looking for someone to come up with something diffrent.

Not liking the ending =/= Evidence of Indoctrination Theory

The ending is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. You not liking it doesn't make it "invalid".

[TheMerchantMan]

Orthodox Infidel wrote...

SC0TTYD00 wrote...

Because, the reapers dont really care about Indoctrinating you as much. EMS is so low and your armies are so weak that they know they have won anyway whether they indoctrinate you or not.

Umm, what?

We're told shooting that thing kills all Reapers. Why would the Reapers allow you to do that under any circumstances? They should want to indoctrinate you regardless of EMS simply to stop you from blowing them up.

It's an hallucination.

The destroy ending doesn't literally destroy the Reapers.

This is probably one of the weirder confusions among those who refute indoc theory.


My theory is simply that you hallucinate either way. But the Reapers only really attempt to take over your mind if you're still a threat. Otherwise it's just passive.

My counter to this question however, is how your EMS would have anything to do with which options you get either way. Indeed IT really makes more sense with the greater options than any other.

[The Smitchens]

CavScout wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...

The Smitchens wrote...

CavScout wrote...
Indoctrination Theory says that nothing can invalidate Indoctrination Theory because it will just be attributed to Indoctrination Theory. You have folks  setting up Indoctrination Theory being proved by Indoctrination  Theory.

Huh?

Just what it says.

What it says makes absolutely no sense.  Not in a flawed logic point of view, but just in how you've articulated your point.  I'm just plain not following you.

Part of indoctrination theory is that nothing can invalidate indoctrination theory?  What?  Indoctrination theory is proof of indoctrination theory?  I just don't understand.  Where did you get this stuff from because... I haven't seen it anywhere.

Do you... know what a theory is?

Look at the responses whenever something is brought up to invalidate Indoctrination Theory, the rebuttle is "it was all in his head!"

Do you know that theories should be falsifiable. Something Indoctrination Theory lacks.

Well.  To an extent yeah.  A lot of it would have been in his head.  That's the point.  It's indoctrination.  It's all about everything that is in his head.  It's all about Shepard's slowly deteriating state of mind.  That's the underlying idea of what ME3 in its entirety is about.  All the pressure of the galaxy on him coupled with the reaper influence.

Indoctrination theory isn't just an explanation for the end, but a suggested secondary plot to the game as a whole.  The reapers finding his weaknesses and exploiting them to lure him to their side.