470 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

An interesting post, OP. I agree to a large extent that the Indoctrination theory rests on wishful thinking and self-delusion.


One point of lore to bring to your attention, though: Reaper Indoctrination Devices do exist. There's a ME2 N7 mission where you go into a mine populated with husks and see one. (It looks something like a giant hourglass.)

While there are non-Reaper artifacts that do indoctrinate, the real issue is that not all Reaper technology indoctrinates. EDI, Collector Technology, the IFF, and other pieces have never been linked to indoctrination. Even Dragon's Teeth have yet to be established as indoctrination devices: while it's clear that indoctrinated people will place themselves on them, it's not clear that Dragon's Teeth alone will indoctrinate people.

[SovereignX6]

I gotta agree with you on this. I kinda did get over with the ending, it's kinda fine to me now. I was looking at a YouTube video called Javik on Thessia. And after the video i was thinking of the ending and said, yeah it's reality. But to me still, i think the ending had plot holes. And it did look like they rushed it. But we cant accept anything as a fact. Hopefully they will have something to say soon about it.

[IronSabbath88]

You're going to feel pretty damn silly if you're wrong

Just sayin'

[dreman9999]

phantomdasilva wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Therestill the dirlict reaper and the reaper divices Sheperd comes near by.  Reguardless to how you cut it, Shep always is put in posistions where an attempt of indoctrination can happen.

Yeah it can happen but I guess I probably refer to the opening post where he goes through estimated time of direct contact of reaper.

The codex stated days to weeks as the timeframe of indoctrination (assuming the codex is correct). The two days in arrival was pretty much the only way to fulfil the days to weeks timeframe and that was the optional DLC that not every player participated in. Maybe Shepard had more contact with reaper technology off screen. but that doesn't fit with the theory being planned in advance

Can it still happen without the ARrival DLC, yes but I'm far less convince about the Bioware planned theory than I would be if Arrival DLC was a main plot point

But all the contact with the indoctrination attempt can stack up. It the end, the years of small interactions with reaper indoctriation attemp will add up to days and weeks.

[No Snakes Alive]

BlackAlpha wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...
You REALLY need to pay attention, because this has been said many, many times before. FOR THE LAST TIME, Shepard is NOT indoctrinated. He is fighting off the Indocrination attempt. Indoctrination isn't just a sudden flick of the control switch in your brain and you're under reaper control. It's something your mind has to succumb to. It's voics in your head trying to coerce you into believing what Saren was made to believe, or what TIM was made to believe.

And what better way to portray an Indoctrination attempt on not only Shepard, but the player himself, then to have the solution you've been chasing all along addressed and dismissed, brushed off as possibility, sure, but a futile one. Now those other options that formerly indoctrinated characters were spewing all trilogy long? Yeah you'll die but everyone will join together in symbiotic harmony or you'll in chrge to do as you see fit.

It's supposed to CONVINCE Shepard, and the player, that what the enemies believed is actually the right way to go and what you believed will only lead back to square 1.

YOU ARE NOT INDOCTRINATED UNLESS YOU SUCCUMB TO THE CHOICES THAT WERE ALWAYS THE REAPERS' AND NEVER SHEPARD'S.

He clearly understands this...He's for the indoctriation theory...He's just using the logic the other person presented to show how flawed th logic is...Calm down..You biting your own tail.

No, I did not. 'No Snakes Alive' has made his point.

But I still find the whole dreaming thing far fetched and that the Reapers can't kill or control Shepard in a more effective way at that point.

Thank you. Sorry I got loud lol.

The way I see it is that Shepard made it past everything the reapers threw at him and it was gameover unless they had one more ace up their sleeve at that point, right? And whoa imagine that! Look who's waiting for you. Mr Indoctrination himself, the Illusive Man. Next thing you know you're about to push the big red button and declare checkmate on the reapers and suddenly you're hearing voices that are saying that's not such a good idea compared to what Saren and TIM were spewing forth while under Reaper control throughout the series.

It just adds up to me that nothing is a "dream" so much as that final scene with Starchild being the best way to portray Shepard struggling with the Reaper's last ditch coercion attempt effort, brought upon him by TIM's blatantly Indoctrination-heavy presence, on his way to pushing the button that wipes the reapers out. Hel he could have been picking himself up off the floor and reaching for the console the whole time we're seeing that scene that took place in his head...

That's just how I see it, how I saw it from the start, and how I'll probably continue to see it until someone brings up some real, legitimately good points about how that doesn't make sense. Hasn't even almost happened yet though.

I think if Bioware intended for this, they would've made it a lot more clear. Like other people said, if you assume IT is correct, then it means Bioware screwed up BIG TIME, because there's simply too little material ingame that hints at the IT. If you assume IT is wrong, then Bioware only screwed up the ending.

But let's wait for the "ending explained better" DLC.

In all fairness, I guess I'd have to agree with that after seeing so many people's reactions to the ending. I peronally jus took some time to let it all sink in, gave it some good thought, and came up with what I did. I loved the ending for letting me do that, and letting me figure out a way to make sense out of the confusion like that.

I'm not trying to come off in that arrogant "I can get what most people failed to see" way at all here either. I've yet to see anything disproving what I think happened, but that doesn't mean it's the actual case here either. I love the way I was able to interpret the ending myself, and the way I feel Bioware very deliberately led me there.

But the fact that SOOOO many people were not led to their own happy ending does maybe say something. Maybe. I'm backing the writers, personally, but I'm not conceited enough to think that the majority of fans "just didn't get it." Perhaps, generally speaking, it could have done better to lead more people to their own OMG moment of clarity, but for me, personally, I love what I was given and am grateful for that.

Here's hoping the DLC can give those that seek more what they want without giving us who are perfectly happy with what we've been given "too much," so to speak. I'm a big fan of ambiguity, as long as there's just enough for me to form my own conclusion that stands up no matter how I look at it. If they beat us over the head with definitive answers that take away my ability to personalize the ending like I have, then a lot more fans will be happy but I'll be ****ing about the DLC lol.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Funny, I remember being fairly detached from the ending of Mass Effect 3. I'm not as invested in the series as some others might be, yet I find the indoctrination theory plausible. Maybe I'm emotionally devastated and don't know it yet?

[tyrrelduckard]

  Just wanted to say a pair things to the author of the article.

1 
First you forgot to adress the "Shepard's breath"scene. "This Easter Egg" can be seen if you choose Destruction AND if you had enouh ems. 

- this scene features a short camera pan to the left, on the ground, and we can see some destroyed objects, and pieces of ruins. Then the camera shows us a piece of ruined armor, with a N7 patch on it. Camera stops and we see the body takes a breath.

Who is this guy (if you played maleshep) or girl (if you played femshep)?
Problably Shepard. 
Why?
-He is clearly a male if you played male shep. 
-She is clearly a female if you played femshep.
-He/She wears an armor whith a N7 patch on it right side. Only ONE character wears a N7 patch on their armor: Shepard
-He/She wears an armor with the same ruined lokk you see on your shep after the laser hits.

So I think you can agrre with me on this scene showing Shepard is still alive.


But why this is a pice of evidence pro indoc theory? I'll explain.

-How the hell shep survived the Citadel explosion?
No matter your final decision we see clerly that firing the laser has a devasteting impact on the Citadel, which detonates ... There's no way shep could survive such an explosion.

-The debris around shep body.
The debris around your shep seems coming from concrete building, not from the metallic and futuristic structrures of the Citadel.

-The location of the debris and of shep.
Even if these cebris are on the Citadel you have to consider the Citadel was in space (orbiting around earth).
But the Citadel was exploding! So all the debris from it fell on earth ... going though atmosfere and buring down.
Shep body (and most of the debris) would have been incenerated going down. 

-Shep breathing.
this is my most far fetched point but still.
Shep has been hit hard. First by harbinger, then by that marauder, then from blood loss.
He/She even fainted after Ackett contacted him/her.
Then, to execute the desctruction choiche,  a conduit of sort blows off in fornt shep. 
Then the Citadel start taking damage from the strain necessary to fire its laser.
Some debris even fall on shep.

And after all this, if magically the part of the Citadel where shep is, didn't blow up, he is still alive. Whoah.

-Why you can see it only if you had high EMS?
Why shep survival should be affected by the allied forces strenght? 

All these point makes much more sense if indoc theory is right :
Shep is seen breathing after waking up from the indoctrinaction attempt, he is in London, and you can see him only if your forces are powerful enough because if they aren't the reapers take your body. 
The debris are an artistic exploit to make indoc theory only subtle and not apparent.

Another problem with the destruction options is in its very different results:
- If you have low ems the red beam from the citadel will burn thought the atmosfere killing the reapers, destroing buildings and pulverizing peoples.
-If you have average ems the reapers and buildings will be hit and destroyed but peoples will be safe.
-If you have high ems only the Reapers will suffer destruction from the beam. Then you'll see Shep' breath scene.
 

Why should a weapon have various settings depending from how many starships you bought here? It dosn't make sense. 

2
I'll disprove briefly one of your points. Idoc theory dosn't say the characters which were whith you (during the final skirmishes with the reapers, as part of your three man team) instead were on the Normandy (you weren't very clear here).
The indoc theory says that the scene of the normandy falling on a planet didn't happen at all !!! 

So, insted of going close to insult those who don't agree with you, you should have red indoc theory more.

3 
Bioware couldn't have wrote such a bad ending beacuse they are soo good.
Indoc theory don's say that. 

Bioware made a mess with the third game plot ASIDE from the ending!

-Crucible: look we found it just when the reapers attacked, what stroke of luck.
-The Citadel ... counquered off screen withouth even a little explanation of how they did it.
-The Citadel ... moved magically to earth ...

And those are only examples (side quests ... )

And Indoc theory only tries to give sense to what, for now, has very little sense (the ending) using in-game elements. 

Sure it is NOT true : it's a glorified fan-fiction!

BUT IT MAKES MORE SENSE THAN THE CANON ENDING WE GOT.

My though - indoc theory has been constructed by bioware writers with subtle hints because ea forced the game lauch on march (it already was delayed from december to march) and they wanted to give to fans a spark of hope.


Only future (posts by bioware and maybe a dlc) will say who will "win".

P.S. 
Have you been paid by bioware to divide fans?

P.S.S. 
Or you work for another game company who wants to enrage fans against bioware and ea to gain them?
( this was a joke).

[BlackAlpha]

No Snakes Alive wrote...


In all fairness, I guess I'd have to agree with that after seeing so many people's reactions to the ending. I peronally jus took some time to let it all sink in, gave it some good thought, and came up with what I did. I loved the ending for letting me do that, and letting me figure out a way to make sense out of the confusion like that.

I'm not trying to come off in that arrogant "I can get what most people failed to see" way at all here either. I've yet to see anything disproving what I think happened, but that doesn't mean it's the actual case here either. I love the way I was able to interpret the ending myself, and the way I feel Bioware very deliberately led me there.

But the fact that SOOOO many people were not led to their own happy ending does maybe say something. Maybe. I'm backing the writers, personally, but I'm not conceited enough to think that the majority of fans "just didn't get it." Perhaps, generally speaking, it could have done better to lead more people to their own OMG moment of clarity, but for me, personally, I love what I was given and am grateful for that.

Here's hoping the DLC can give those that seek more what they want without giving us who are perfectly happy with what we've been given "too much," so to speak. I'm a big fan of ambiguity, as long as there's just enough for me to form my own conclusion that stands up no matter how I look at it. If they beat us over the head with definitive answers that take away my ability to personalize the ending like I have, then a lot more fans will be happy but I'll be ****ing about the DLC lol.

There's a very good chance things will not change with the DLC. We joke about the "LOTS OF SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE", but Bioware is dead serious about it. They stated very clearly that the ending was made the way it is, so that some things are left unexplained. Bioware feels that every players' story is unique to the person playing it. Bioware wants people to make up their own mind, to fill in their own story. So Bioware intentionally left things out to make that happen. That's why there's a good chance the ending DLC will disappoint some people and it might never answer the questions concerning the indoctrination theory.

Modifié par BlackAlpha, 31 mars 2012 - 04:30 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

No Snakes Alive wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...

BlackAlpha wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

No Snakes Alive wrote...
You REALLY need to pay attention, because this has been said many, many times before. FOR THE LAST TIME, Shepard is NOT indoctrinated. He is fighting off the Indocrination attempt. Indoctrination isn't just a sudden flick of the control switch in your brain and you're under reaper control. It's something your mind has to succumb to. It's voics in your head trying to coerce you into believing what Saren was made to believe, or what TIM was made to believe.

And what better way to portray an Indoctrination attempt on not only Shepard, but the player himself, then to have the solution you've been chasing all along addressed and dismissed, brushed off as possibility, sure, but a futile one. Now those other options that formerly indoctrinated characters were spewing all trilogy long? Yeah you'll die but everyone will join together in symbiotic harmony or you'll in chrge to do as you see fit.

It's supposed to CONVINCE Shepard, and the player, that what the enemies believed is actually the right way to go and what you believed will only lead back to square 1.

YOU ARE NOT INDOCTRINATED UNLESS YOU SUCCUMB TO THE CHOICES THAT WERE ALWAYS THE REAPERS' AND NEVER SHEPARD'S.

He clearly understands this...He's for the indoctriation theory...He's just using the logic the other person presented to show how flawed th logic is...Calm down..You biting your own tail.

No, I did not. 'No Snakes Alive' has made his point.

But I still find the whole dreaming thing far fetched and that the Reapers can't kill or control Shepard in a more effective way at that point.

Thank you. Sorry I got loud lol.

The way I see it is that Shepard made it past everything the reapers threw at him and it was gameover unless they had one more ace up their sleeve at that point, right? And whoa imagine that! Look who's waiting for you. Mr Indoctrination himself, the Illusive Man. Next thing you know you're about to push the big red button and declare checkmate on the reapers and suddenly you're hearing voices that are saying that's not such a good idea compared to what Saren and TIM were spewing forth while under Reaper control throughout the series.

It just adds up to me that nothing is a "dream" so much as that final scene with Starchild being the best way to portray Shepard struggling with the Reaper's last ditch coercion attempt effort, brought upon him by TIM's blatantly Indoctrination-heavy presence, on his way to pushing the button that wipes the reapers out. Hel he could have been picking himself up off the floor and reaching for the console the whole time we're seeing that scene that took place in his head...

That's just how I see it, how I saw it from the start, and how I'll probably continue to see it until someone brings up some real, legitimately good points about how that doesn't make sense. Hasn't even almost happened yet though.

I think if Bioware intended for this, they would've made it a lot more clear. Like other people said, if you assume IT is correct, then it means Bioware screwed up BIG TIME, because there's simply too little material ingame that hints at the IT. If you assume IT is wrong, then Bioware only screwed up the ending.

But let's wait for the "ending explained better" DLC.

In all fairness, I guess I'd have to agree with that after seeing so many people's reactions to the ending. I peronally jus took some time to let it all sink in, gave it some good thought, and came up with what I did. I loved the ending for letting me do that, and letting me figure out a way to make sense out of the confusion like that.

I'm not trying to come off in that arrogant "I can get what most people failed to see" way at all here either. I've yet to see anything disproving what I think happened, but that doesn't mean it's the actual case here either. I love the way I was able to interpret the ending myself, and the way I feel Bioware very deliberately led me there.

But the fact that SOOOO many people were not led to their own happy ending does maybe say something. Maybe. I'm backing the writers, personally, but I'm not conceited enough to think that the majority of fans "just didn't get it." Perhaps, generally speaking, it could have done better to lead more people to their own OMG moment of clarity, but for me, personally, I love what I was given and am grateful for that.

Here's hoping the DLC can give those that seek more what they want without giving us who are perfectly happy with what we've been given "too much," so to speak. I'm a big fan of ambiguity, as long as there's just enough for me to form my own conclusion that stands up no matter how I look at it. If they beat us over the head with definitive answers that take away my ability to personalize the ending like I have, then a lot more fans will be happy but I'll be ****ing about the DLC lol.

To quote the quote in this post, the whole controversy over the ending is that they didn't make things clearer. Even if it's a crappy explanation or not the Indoctrination Theory, they didn't explain, for example, why your companions pop out of the Normandy, how one moment you're storming the front with your allies and then in the next you're on a battlefield full of dead, even though one of their twitter accounts already implied they had an explanation for your companions. (Of course some people brushed that off as 'PR crap', but I think there's a fine line between cynicism and pessimism.)

Even if it is the indoctrination theory, that still doesn't make the ending of the original good. Maybe it gives BioWare the potential to make it good, but the ending is still too inconclusive and rather nonsensical for it to stand on its own.

[No Snakes Alive]

@Fisto

For me, personally, things were clear enough. I don't know how much time passed or what occurred elsewhere during the entire time I was transported up to the Citadel, faced down TIM, and fought off Indoctrination. The explanation of why so and so ended up here or there during or after all of that just doesn't matter at all to me. I know I'm in the vast minority there but those just aren't crucial elements to the story for me. Whatever occurred during the evac process on Earth that led to the crash landing on planet x matters as much to me as exactly what Vega was doing while Ashley, myself and Liara were on Mars. All that matters is it led him to crash-landing on Eva's face. Same goes for the ending, again, to me personally.

[KingArthur129]

Just because you write a 10k word thing with big words dosn't mean your view point is right either.

Modifié par KingArthur129, 31 mars 2012 - 04:42 .

[eran5005]

Not only did i read it in one sitting, i also thoroughly enjoyed it!
I can't stand this so called "indoctrination theory" and all the lemmings out there propagating this silly useless idea - and to all of you who support this theory and may take offense from my words or this article, though luck to you! It's not my fault you bought in to this silly fantasy in contrary to all reason, logic and evidence.
The only merit i can think of this "theory" may posses is that maybe (not likely at all but still), BioWare will decide to go along with it in order to make ME4, and i'm definitely in favor of that
But, and it's a very big fat BUT - if it will only mean some "true ending" DLC then i plan to boycott BioWare from that day on, developing a whole new game is fine and dandy and it's more than fair to charge a full retail price for it, whether making a 25 minutes DLC and charging players 10 ADDITIONAL dollars in order to experience the true ending to a game they bought for full (or more) price is an outrage that should not (and will not, at least by me) be tolerated.
The ball is now in BioWare's hands.

[ChuckieRoberts]

The ending was bad, we can all agree on that. People are attempting to deal with it anyway they can, Indoc Theory is one way. Believing that it was just bad writing is another.

Until Bioware specifies, nobody is absolutely correct, or incorrect. This entire thread is 'here's why I think I'm right' followed by 'no, you're wrong, here's why I'm right' and so on. It's a bit depressing.

If BW wanted to spark discussion and speculation about the ending, they've hit the nail on the head - but I don't think fans wanted discussion and speculation, they wanted closure, you know, an *ending*. And I think that is why this thread is less about fair debate and more about beating the opinion of others relentlessly until they give in. Everybody is just going round in circles.

Until BW makes a definitive statement (which I think they really need to do soon to avoid risking their future as a company) threads like this, full of ad-hominem attacks on opinion (from both sides) are pointless and rather pathetic.

I don't doubt somebody will want to argue my opinion, but I'm afraid I probably won't reply - I've spent too much time on here already, I'm prone to depression as it is.

[No Snakes Alive]

eran5005 wrote...

Not only did i read it in one sitting, i also thoroughly enjoyed it!
I can't stand this so called "indoctrination theory" and all the lemmings out there propagating this silly useless idea - and to all of you who support this theory and may take offense from my words or this article, though luck to you! It's not my fault you bought in to this silly fantasy in contrary to all reason, logic and evidence.
The only merit i can think of this "theory" may posses is that maybe (not likely at all but still), BioWare will decide to go along with it in order to make ME4, and i'm definitely in favor of that
But, and it's a very big fat BUT - if it will only mean some "true ending" DLC then i plan to boycott BioWare from that day on, developing a whole new game is fine and dandy and it's more than fair to charge a full retail price for it, whether making a 25 minutes DLC and charging players 10 ADDITIONAL dollars in order to experience the true ending to a game they bought for full (or more) price is an outrage that should not (and will not, at least by me) be tolerated.
The ball is now in BioWare's hands.

TROLLOLOLOL!!!!

[eran5005]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

Funny, I remember being fairly detached from the ending of Mass Effect 3. I'm not as invested in the series as some others might be, yet I find the indoctrination theory plausible. Maybe I'm emotionally devastated and don't know it yet?

You don't need to name your dog Shepard and your kids Liara and Garrus in order to buy in to a theory presented to you, he noted that fans tend to accept it because it is convinient to them, but it does not mean those are the ONLY reasons someone might accept it.
What you are doing now, knowingley or otherwise is called a "Straw man argument" - where you take something someone said, distort or misrepresent it and then proceed to "refute" it, and lo and behold i have slayed the dragon.
No you didn't.

Modifié par eran5005, 31 mars 2012 - 04:55 .

[Militarized]

No offense but you wrote all that when you could just say "humans create patterns, it's how our brains works, even when they're not really there?"

They're going to continue to believe it, IMO, despite what you say.

Besides, I actually hope their rigth... the ending is awful I'd prefer Indoc Theory. 

Modifié par Militarized, 31 mars 2012 - 04:55 .

[Liber320]

Very few IT subscribers believe that it was intended by Bioware. We are simply suggesting it (some more adamantly than others) as a tool to have a second chance with the endings

[sinatron]

ChuckieRoberts wrote...

The ending was bad, we can all agree on that. People are attempting to deal with it anyway they can, Indoc Theory is one way. Believing that it was just bad writing is another.

Until Bioware specifies, nobody is absolutely correct, or incorrect. This entire thread is 'here's why I think I'm right' followed by 'no, you're wrong, here's why I'm right' and so on. It's a bit depressing.

If BW wanted to spark discussion and speculation about the ending, they've hit the nail on the head - but I don't think fans wanted discussion and speculation, they wanted closure, you know, an *ending*. And I think that is why this thread is less about fair debate and more about beating the opinion of others relentlessly until they give in. Everybody is just going round in circles.

Until BW makes a definitive statement (which I think they really need to do soon to avoid risking their future as a company) threads like this, full of ad-hominem attacks on opinion (from both sides) are pointless and rather pathetic.

I don't doubt somebody will want to argue my opinion, but I'm afraid I probably won't reply - I've spent too much time on here already, I'm prone to depression as it is.

I was actually writing something along the lines of your post.

I just find it amusing that the OP is actually putting himself on the same level of the people he looks down upon in his last sentence. He acts as if he has to teach other people how to rationally think and see logical fallacies.
In fact, he is acting as superior to Indoctrination Theory "fans" as he claims they are to others.
It's just somewhat amusing.

For the record, I don't think the Indoctrination theory is real, but it's the best thing that came out of an ending so... wrong. They managed to complete their goal of "speculation for everybody" and that's exactly what either side of the fence is doing in this discussion. There's no absolute proof that denies the existence or chance of the other theory being real.
I hope that the DLC they are working on either explains stuff in a way so the ending does make sense or in a way that you realize something else is or was going on.

Modifié par sinatron, 31 mars 2012 - 04:58 .

[Dendio1]

Begging the question: It is dependant on the evidence relying on the conclusion.
IT does not fit this and so your arguement falls apart.

Here is an example of begging the question:
Alice says she is honest.
If an honest person says something, it must be true.
Therefore Alice is an honest person, because an honest person says so.

Indoctrination theory evidence is not dependent on whether or not you believe IT to be correct.
It is not a form of begging the question.

Lets use the rachni example you gave
"No. We... I do not know what happened in the war. We only heard discordance. Songs the colour of oily shadows."
Discordance is another word for conflict. The oily shadows represent struggle.
These are facts that exist regardless of whether or not you believe in IT.


We can take shepards dreams and compare the oily shadows he experiences to what the rachni went through. Regardless of whether or not you believe in IT, shepard is under discordance chasing that kid through his dream with voices everywhere and reapers blearing. He is also experiencing oily shadows.

Lets go further:
"A tone from space hushed one voice after another. It forced the singers to resonate with its own sour yellow note. "

This clearly suggests the reapers forced the rachni in to submission one by one.

Whether you believe in IT or not this is canon dialogue in game. Now were in the game would we find the color yellow followed by submission?
Perhaps the meme *ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL*. Kenson during the arrival dlc, glows yellow at the apex of her betrayal. She is controlled by a reaper and has yellow light pouring from her eyes. This is canon regardless of IT theory

Now how about rachni interpreting reality differently than humans?

The geth interface merges with shepard and uses his mind to create a platform he can interpret. This is canon regardless of your belief in IT.
Its also proof that it is possible for a mind state to interpret forms it would not be able to understand during normal circumstances. If the geth can share their vision with shepard it is not unreasonable to see a scenario where the reapers mind visions would look similar to races with different methods of scensory output.

Now from all of this we can put two and two together. We can speculate that shepard under reaper influence had conflict in his mind, manfesting itself as many things, including oily shadows. We can speculate that perhaps if shepard fully gave in the oily shadows would become sour yellow. We can also speculate that the rachni queen interpreted reaper control in an identifiable way to shepard, since both cases were in the mind. The evidence behind this speculation is canon and not dependant on whether or not you believe in IT.

IT theory is not a law, it is actually closer to a hypothesis. it is also not a form of begging the question. The supporting evidence is present regardless of your belief in IT.

Modifié par Dendio1, 01 avril 2012 - 12:55 .

[Aurvant]

It's a shame you wrote something so long that is so very wrong.

You can't just pop in and smugly claim "I'm right, you're wrong, and here's a crap load of words why". Doesn't really work that way.

Also, because of the mangled mess that is the ending, the fans are doing EXACTLY WHAT WALTERS WANTED WHEN HE SCRIBBLED IT DOWN ON A PIECE OF PAPER.

They are "speculating". They are trying to piece together a jumbled mess of images in a way to try and figure what was going on with the end. The plot holes, the surreal conversations and actions, and the degeneration of narrative -could- be explained away by something as complex and interesting as the indoctrination theory. It would be a longshot to implement, but I'd be pretty damn cool if they did. This is why this kind of speculation is just so very wrong.

Speculation can be a marvelous thing when used properly. Example: Flemeth.

Flemeth's actions in Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 aren't very speculative because we see and understand what she does.

We see her perform various examples of wondrous power, she continuously plots against her daughter, and she even turns in to a dragon and tries to eat your face. It is because we are given these examples of her character that we don't find it hard to believe that she can do exactly what she does.

We only speculate her motivations or what she actually is and it's done beautifully. Is she a dragon? Is she an archdeacon in human form? Why is she so interested in the Hawke or The Warden? What is her purpose in all of these stories? What is Flemeth's deal?

These are things that someone can freely speculate because those things are secondary parts of the already established foundation of "mysterious old hag who clearly has way to much power to throw around".

The endings of Mass Effect 3, however, are speculative for the wrong reasons. The events are shoved in our faces with no rational basis to go by. We're given the crucible but we don't know what it is. We're shown the catalyst and we don't know why. We're given a choice that doesn't make any sense and we're given a reason that's completely out of left field. Something...happens...and it destroys the relays, but magically does something else even though we don't understand how. We see friends abandon Shepard and flee from...something...but we don't know why or where they went. We're shown a creepy old guy and a kid in the woods and there isn't any indication of why it's important. And finally were given a small scene of Shepard breathing back to life...somewhere...and WE DON'T KNOW HOW OR WHY.

These aren't coherent events. They're just set pieces put together with no base for them to stand on, and because their foundation is weak they just topple over like dominos and create a huge mess on the floor.

The indoctrination theory, among other explanations, are attempts at trying to make sense of speculation born of confusion. It doesn't matter if EA planned anything for a different ending or not. They wanted speculation and they got it.

[VvAndromedavV]

FoxShadowblade wrote...

Hey China called, they want their wall back.

[Kawamura]

Hngh. Was there a tl;dr list of logical fallacies? I don't want to read all that.

[balance5050]

Wow, people are still hating on I.T. huh? Do you want a good ending or not? cause I.T. is the only hope for that.

[Dendio1]

Kawamura wrote...

Hngh. Was there a tl;dr list of logical fallacies? I don't want to read all that.

The TL;DR is OP incorrectly believes Indoctrination Theory is a form of circular logic called begging the question.

Everything else is just padding on top of that belief.

I prove that IT is *not* begging the question a few posts above you.

[wheelierdan]

im feeling left out, wheres my "INTOXICATION THEORY REBUTTAL" thread?