470 réponses à ce sujet

[Iwillbeback]

Thornquist wrote...

Great post OP. However, by the recent Bioware announcements like Rays, I do believe most IT-believers have gone from "IT is the truth" to "IT should be the truth"

In any case: People believe what they want to believe.

No after reading the OP is clear Shepard being Indoctrination is no longer a theory and is indeed fact.
The Indoctrination is now part of the canon, bioware can say what they like it doesn't change that.

[phantomdasilva]

Nyctyris wrote...

Just going to address one point. There's so much I could say about Occam's razor.

Like the fact that Indoc Theory is arguably the simplest explanation, within the Mass Effect universe (if not within our own, but that's arguable as well.) 
Being wary of overly complex theories is probably a good practice, but in relation to Indoc Theory I don't find it overly complex, so much as it is merely "subtle". The basic theory is in fact quite simple. 

Addittionally, Occam's Razor isn't immune to personal prejuidice. An explanation which fits with one person's world view will, by the person, be considered "more simplistic", whereas one which is at odds with their world view will be considered unnecessarily complicated. In relation to indoc theory, that's another way of saying, "John doesn't agree with indoc theory, so indoc theory seems unnecessarily complex to him; Bob does agree with indoc theory, so it seems quite natural to him". 

In any case, while an interesting guideline, "testing the razor" has often proved false, when it is solely relied on. It works well as a guideline for selecting theories, but as a methodological principle it is way too simple. The theory of aether was propounded as being the simplest explanation, but of course we know now that this is nonsense.Some explanations (such as how the human body functions at the molecular level) are just too complex to be addressed through a "go for the simplest approach". There is very little evidence that the world is simplistic; just the opposite.




Seems like (correct me if I'm wrong) the fundamental issue here is one of basic premise. Indoc theorists are working on the premise that, within the context of the Mass Effect universe, there is an explanation for the ending which makes more sense than what is presented on the surface. 

In contrast, your premise is that the explanation should make sense from the context of our universe, as the audience looking in. Therefore, indoc theory seems less likely from an outside, metagame perspective; it is much simpler to say that the endings were bungled. 

However, regardless of which turns out to be the case, the fact is that any epilogue or ending dlc which addresses or explains the ending must, if it is to be satisfactory, offer an explanation which DOES fit and make sense within the context of the Mass Effect universe. It isn't enough for Joker to turn to Liara in-game and say, "Hey, guess what, we died to plot holes. All good?" There has to be an ingame explanation (at some point) as well as, and independent from, the out-of-game explanation. Until we have more information from bioware, indoc theory goes a long way towards offering a fun and interesting in-game explanation, even though it admittedly doesn't cover every point or seeming plothole.

Great post, I agree 100% there.

A lot of opponents of indoctrination theory say this is due to bad writing.

This may well be true but then you still have to rationalised the bad ending that we were given to explain the game in universe. The indoctrination theory although not perfect, does a good job in doing that.

[Darth_Trethon]

leonia42 wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Holy mother of nonsense textwalls. If you can't compress a logical argument into a sequence of bulletpoints instead of jumping it through a thousand circular hoops it's no good.

Bottom line: The Indoctrination Theory cannot be disproven because absolutely anything can happen in a dream/hallucination.....hence nothing is inherently false. The end.

^^^See that.....whole OP mess dismantled with two lines.

Unless BioWare addresses it as false(and they'd be stupid to do so) the theory stands.

Really, that's your argument? You can't look at that and tell me what fallacy you just used? Being too lazy to read the article is one thing but don't extend that laziness to the foundation of your argument, you do yourself a great disservice.

And you just finished sanying absolutely nothing.

Point one exaple of something that is impossible in a dream or hallucination.....just one.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...



All points I refute in the above piece.

Yeah you can call them points but they have no evidence supporting.
It is merely speculation that was made by people who don't like the genius of IT.

I'm not going to waste my time any more if you're so indoctrinated into your theory that you are accusing me of not having any evidence without even skimming the post (which would reveal a plethora of evidence).

You keep saying it is evidence but all I see is Speculation.

Wilful disbelief- it's covered in part one. And if everything present to counter IT is just 'speculation' then everything to support it is also speculation as the same inconsistensies are used.

So your argument boils down to Mass Effect fans being so heartstruck that they want to believe in something -- anything? That doesn't even address the actual theory; it addresses those who think it's true in an effort to discredit it/them. There is no debate.

And everything you could've said about the indoctrination thing you could've said with fewer words.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 31 mars 2012 - 12:03 .

[HellishFiend]

phantomdasilva wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

You make a good point, but if that dissertation is directed at the
subset of believers in the indoctrionation theory that proclaim it as
undeniable fact, then that just makes it pointless instead of arrogant,
as it would never actually reach it's target audience in any meaningful
capacity.

I don't know, people write essays debunking conspiracy theorist all the time. Sometimes people write essays about pointless topics because it's fun, entertaining, intellectually stimulating or as a form of self-expression. It doesn't have to be related to convincing other people

although I will say that if people are willing to write 22 minute videos and a very lengthy essay supporting their subjective speculation of the indoctrination theory. Then i think it's ok to write a lengthy essay debunking it even if both accept it was speculation.

My only real problem with this essay is that the tone of it was pretty snarky and patronising and there didn't seem to be obvious distinguishment between the people who believed it as a good exlpanation of the ending and people who believe bioware were behind all of it. .

I find the tone and even to some extent the content of the entire dissertation to be against the spirit of what we, as mass effect fans, should be doing with our time before Bioware announces it's plans. The people who are making videos and writing essays on what they believe are the ones who have it right. They are analyzing the game itself and formulating conclusions based on their, or other's, interpretations. The people trying to portray their beliefs as fact and the pepole trying to shoot those people down have it wrong.  They're both misguided. 

[rachellouise]

I don't buy the IT.

Vigil detects no indoctrination. (people say it could have missed it)
The prothean vi on thessia (I forgot its name vengeance ?) detects no indoctrination. (people say it could have missed it) Yet it /is/ able to detect indoctrination when Leng walks in.

So shepard is not indoctrinated, at least up to that point. Using facts that are there, no "could have's".

Dreams are dreams, if people noticed, the number of shadows increase as the war goes on, and you hear lines from dead party members. Slow motion etc. a dream of guilt, and helplessness. Not being able to save everyone. Shepard has this convo with anderson, and tells liara they have been thinking of the dead.

In fact, I think the only point the reapers are getting to shepard, is when Shepard is with anderson, and TIM. Shepard holding holding their head, and sort of forced movements (trying to resist) and trying to stop the person who wants to destroy the reapers (anderson), but it seems shepard is able to regain control after that moment

[spz123]

I'm waiting till April before declaring something to be unequivocally true or false that I couldn't possibly know for sure to gain internet points.

[Darth_Trethon]

arthurhallam wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Holy mother of nonsense textwalls. If you can't compress a logical argument into a sequence of bulletpoints instead of jumping it through a thousand circular hoops it's no good.

Bottom line: The Indoctrination Theory cannot be disproven because absolutely anything can happen in a dream/hallucination.....hence nothing is inherently false. The end.

^^^See that.....whole OP mess dismantled with two lines.

Unless BioWare addresses it as false(and they'd be stupid to do so) the theory stands.

what dumb anti-intellectual horse****. 

Like it or not, it's fact. Nothing is impossible in a dream or hallucination.

But your attack and bad language sir are VERY intellecutal....hats off to you.

[Leonia]

Nyctyris wrote...

However, regardless of which turns out to be the case, the fact is that any epilogue or ending dlc which addresses or explains the ending must, if it is to be satisfactory, offer an explanation which DOES fit and make sense within the context of the Mass Effect universe. It isn't enough for Joker to turn to Liara in-game and say, "Hey, guess what, we died to plot holes. All good?" There has to be an ingame explanation (at some point) as well as, and independent from, the out-of-game explanation. Until we have more information from bioware, indoc theory goes a long way towards offering a fun and interesting in-game explanation, even though it admittedly doesn't cover every point or seeming plothole.

Re-quoting this now that I've looked back a few posts. This is generally where I sit on the argument.. we need more information before we can completely sure. I'm not convinced the ending was rushed though it might be a safe assumption to make, we've known for awhile that "more is coming" in terms of DLC and maybe something else (some like to infer it as "ending dlc" but I'm not so sure that is what we should call it yet).

That said, there are also different degrees of the IT floating around, some people postulate that indoctrination has been going on since ME1, others think the start of it later, others don't think indoctrination has even happened yet, and others think maybe Shepard is stuck in a VR world like Legion's. There's a lot to address and the devs DID say they wanted people to speculate about the endings.

I'd wait until PAX for any sort of announcements before we cling to anything, personally.

[Ira Deorum]

Samuel1323 wrote...

I just recently beat ME3 again. After you get hit by harbingers beam you wake up who knows how much time after. Your armor is burnt off lovically so would your radio. Mass effect 3 doesnt have 2d ****t textures for 3d objects. The corps near the make all are flattened in an unrealistic way, as are all the pitch black shrubs they are completely 2d. You have trees from your dream in the background near the beam. You move faster than you should be for limbing the stridee doesnt match the speed. You have a Pistol with unlimited ammo, you kill 3 husks While limping to the beam, keep in mind you arent bleeding from a wound in your side. Marauder shields shoots you in the right shoulder then you walk into the beam. You wake up again and that same flattened body texture is in the dark hallway, it also resembles the faces of the dead you knew like kaiden. Ashley, and thane. Anderson contacts you on yourcomm that should have been burned off from harbingers beam. He says that he followed you inside the beam, yet you never see anderson before you enter the beam, and he didnt tell the corporal or the admiral that you are still alive. Anderson is in a dak hallway and sais the place is shifting. He somehow beats you to the console and when you get into the room you realize there is only one way into the chamber. Anderson doesnt look wounded sny more than usual yet your armor got shredded by harbingers beam. Then the illusive man walks in outa nowhere and mind controlls you even though previous indoctinated victins couldnt control non indoctrinated beings. You argue with him and if you let him kill you he doesnt even turn to the console even though he just ranted about how the crucible cant let him controll the repears. If you go paragon he kills himself and you sit by anderson and watch the view as anderson bleeds out. Yet shepard. Clutches his side like he was shot too but he never got shot there then somehow admiral hackett contacts shepard even though everyone thinks hes dead. Then shepard passes out and wakes up again near the vod child and you know what happens there. The big hints are rhat the music. Changes in each path, the destroy sounds like hope. And when shepard does shnthesis or control his eyes change to look exactly like sarens or the illusive mans, and there is also no kinetic atkosphere near the presidium. Hence you had to wear a mask in mass effect 1 .

Shepard is indoctinated so dont pull that Everyone who doesnt believe what I believe is illogical an has flawed logic bull****.

Sorry for any typos typIng on ipod

There are plenty of 2D graphics in the game. They're called sprites. The flatten bodies is lazy/rushed developer work. Unlimited ammo is for gameplay reasons. We don't know how the Illusive Man is controlling Shepard and Anderson. Probably through some technology similar to biotics. Plus, indoctrination doesn't physically control the body, it only affects the mind.

[Iwillbeback]

rachellouise wrote...

I don't buy the IT.

Vigil detects no indoctrination. (people say it could have missed it)
The prothean vi on thessia (I forgot its name vengeance ?) detects no indoctrination. (people say it could have missed it) Yet it /is/ able to detect indoctrination when Leng walks in.

So shepard is not indoctrinated, at least up to that point. Using facts that are there, no "could have's".

Dreams are dreams, if people noticed, the number of shadows increase as the war goes on, and you hear lines from dead party members. Slow motion etc. a dream of guilt, and helplessness. Not being able to save everyone. Shepard has this convo with anderson, and tells liara they have been thinking of the dead.

In fact, I think the only point the reapers are getting to shepard, is when Shepard is with anderson, and TIM. Shepard holding holding their head, and sort of forced movements (trying to resist) and trying to stop the person who wants to destroy the reapers (anderson), but it seems shepard is able to regain control after that moment

This point has been adressed many times and was disproven.
Javik makes  it clear as light that Prothean VI's can not detect Reaper Sleeper Agents.

Modifié par Iwillbeback, 31 mars 2012 - 12:11 .

[SimKoning]

Anderson couldn’t reach the terminal before Shepard. There was only one path leading to that room.

Anderson states the citadel has been moving around and re arranging itself. We see it happening. This is just refusing to accept the obvious. Anderson has also been moving longer than Shepard has- he actually wakes Shepard up on the comms.[

Oh, you need to go back and edit this bit, because there is a far simpler explanation. If you walk out to the shifting mass effect plates, and turn around, it's OBVIOUS that there are many, many doors which are identical to the one you come out of. Anderson made it clear that he came up in a different location, most likely in the corridor adjacent to your own. When I walked out turned around after watching an IT video, I literally facepalmed. Confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty at its best. 

The whole point of the Citadel is that it's basically a big Reaper factory/command ship. It goes planet to planet and "sucks" up their population and spits out baby Reapers...

Modifié par SimKoning, 31 mars 2012 - 12:12 .

[Praetor Knight]

Well, one piece I saw missing was mention of the synthesis option, I wonder if it matters much in discussing this topic or not.


Also, I figure providing the Codex entry for Indoctrination seems relevant here:

The Reapers: Indoctrination

Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations.

Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable. Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years.

So if the underlined is to be believed, there could have been an attempt to indoctrinate Shepard near the end, and certainly after the run to the Conduit.

The question is; where does it actually begin and end, if there really was an attempt? I've figured that it has to begin after getting hit by that energy beam, and maybe end only with that special scene of Shepard breathing in the rubble. But to be fair, it can be argued that it's not until Shepard loses consciousness again on the Citadel (before taking the Space Elevator) that Shepard could actively be getting indoctrinated that modifies how Shepard perceives the world, accepting what is being told by the Catalyst. The problem is interpreting what's being seen in the scene.

And the Breath scene could also mean anything at this point.

But, I also have a problem with how Shepard's gut wound is so similar to Anderson's wound in this section. But I dunno how to take it in one direction or another, without further details as to the nature of their injuries at this point.

And there are some problems I have with what the Catalyst says to Shepard, regarding it's relationship to the Reapers, but I'm too tired to parse my issues accurately. And I mean that, off-hand, I can't tell if it's 'Oh I'm superior to you, we are unknowable' stuff in talking to Shepard, or really just bad logic by the Catalyst.

And then the Normandy scene in FTL and that crash afterwards raises questions for me as well. But some of that falls into trying to interpret what's being presented, but also in what is known about how FTL travel is supposed to work in-universe.

Where the ship should not have been able to survive intact after snapping back to sub-light speeds after getting hit by that energy wave, and then getting exposed to radiation strong enough to engulf the ship in Cherenkov radiation, meaning that even seeing them step out of the Normandy they would really soon die from radiation sickness, anyway, was a problem.



So at any rate, one of the most common themes with looking at the ending is that too much is simply stated at us, without sufficient explanation; and I personally hoped for a brief synopsis of the fates of the Homeworlds, especially after that energy field tore through the Galaxy, changing the Galactic dynamic and likely sending everyone into a dark age.

[phantomdasilva]

Iwillbeback wrote...

No after reading the OP is clear Shepard being Indoctrination is no longer a theory and is indeed fact.
The Indoctrination is now part of the canon, bioware can say what they like it doesn't change that.

Ok, is that a joke or what?

So if bioware say that they never plan IT and the follow up DLC did not used IT

It's still a fact and part of official canon
Can you clarify that?

[Fisto The Sexbot]

SimKoning wrote...

Anderson couldn’t reach the terminal before Shepard. There was only one path leading to that room.

Anderson states the citadel has been moving around and re arranging itself. We see it happening. This is just refusing to accept the obvious. Anderson has also been moving longer than Shepard has- he actually wakes Shepard up on the comms.[

Oh, you need to go back and edit this bit, because there is a far simpler explanation. If you walk out to the shifting mass effect plates, and turn around, it's OBVIOUS that there are many, many doors which are identical to the one you come out of. Anderson made it clear that he came up in a different location, most likely in the corridor adjacent to your own. When I walked out turned around after watching an IT video, I literally facepalmed. Confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty at its best. 

The whole point of the Citadel is that its a basically a big Reaper factory/command ship. It goes planet to planet and "sucks" up their population and spits out baby Reapers...

Yeah, we know that. I still don't get how Anderson reached the beam before Shepard; not to mention where he was at the time/why did he leave him behind.

Or if Anderson wasn't ahead at the time and went in after Shepard (I don't remember him stating that but I've heard it here), I'd like to know where he came from. Where was he before that? The battlefield was devastated; virtually no one survived. Why didn't he contact Shepard before reaching the beam, so they could go in together? So if it's 'bad writing' or no, he still appears out of nowhere.

I actually thought about the Citadel being a Reaper command ship also. How do you know this?!! I don't think it discounts the indoctrination theory though.

Modifié par Fisto The Sexbot, 31 mars 2012 - 12:18 .

[Verit]

I haven't read everything, but I never believed the IT so I don't need to be convinced anyway. The IT is what it is: a fan made theory that's trying to explain the ending without having to conclude that Bioware messed up big time. If people still want to believe it, I can't stop them, but I regret that it's dividing the part of the community that's asking for new endings, and therefore weakening our position. The IT is being used by some gaming media as an example to show that the ending actually works, while in my humble opinion it actually shows that the ending fails miserably. I mean, the fans are using it explain the ending by saying it never happened, that the ending makes so little sense that the only logical conclusion would be that it's all a dream. That's depressing. And I don't think Bioware intends to debunk the theory either, as I've said before it's in their best interest to keep the speculation going.

What's even worse is, I'm reading articles from certain game media that state Bioware shouldn't change the ending because it may invalidate certain people's theories about the ending, like the IT. They'd rather let people believe their own made up theories about the ending rather than having it make sense. It's just ridiculous.

[rachellouise]

so the VI can choose who they see indoctrination in?

[pharsti]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

pharsti wrote...

You cant convince the IT believers that its not true, the denial is too strong, just give up.

Even after BW tells them its not true, theyll still believe it , thou i see no need for them to say the obvious.

BioWare has been dead quiet....they wouldn't want to spoil their new DLC either way. But as far as belief goes the same goes for you.....no ammount of logical evidence will convince you because you WANT to believe the IT is false whereas you cannot prove it false no matter what beacause absolutely anything and everything is possible in a hallucination or a dream.....still there are piles and piles of convincing arguments as to why it is a hallucination or dream and nothing substantial to prove it real....mainly because it's a completely nonsensical mess that has no logic without a million assumptions....like a pink space angel unicorn that poops rainbows ressurected Shep's dead squad members and teleported them to the Normandy......I mean that's totally more believable than say....Shepard was hallucinating/dreaming that his squad members died and that the Normandy left.

Hm, i dont "believe" its false, its false because it is. Youre the one who chooses to believe in something, my choice has no "belief" put in it, i just accept what is, youre in denial.
I dont need to prove anything false ;; i dont care if you believe in it, all i care is that so many state it as fact, when its not. Its something you believe in, no matter how many flaws or convoluted hoops you had to throu, and thats fine by me.

After all, thats the point of this crappy ending, speculate and come up with your own ending\\epilogue\\outcome\\whatever, so your belief does apply.... but only to you.
If you believe Shepard was indoctrinated, then sure, she was, now all you have to do is imagine the rest of the game and youre done.

Stating it as fact is the only annoying part, and yes, you cant "convince" anyone to believe in the IT, because there is no convincing involved, there just has to be a whole lot of denial to refuse to accept what just happened (and i almost dont blame people who do! Wish i could bleach out my brain of that ending ).
On the other side, you cant convince an IT believer that its not true, as many have stated "no matter what BW says, its canon", that alone says everything.

Also, if BW said the IT was true, then itd be true, thou itd be one of the worst writting id ever seen, right up there next to Mr. Toriyama as far as crap goes XD

[Fulgrim88]

Iwillbeback wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

Great post OP. However, by the recent Bioware announcements like Rays, I do believe most IT-believers have gone from "IT is the truth" to "IT should be the truth"

In any case: People believe what they want to believe.

No after reading the OP is clear Shepard being Indoctrination is no longer a theory and is indeed fact.
The Indoctrination is now part of the canon, bioware can say what they like it doesn't change that.

so...wait...what you're saying is that 10000 words of proving you wrong, prove you right somehow and not even the company who makes the story can debunk your argument at this point?

I'm sorry dude. You've lost it

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 31 mars 2012 - 12:20 .

[Darth_Trethon]

pharsti wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

pharsti wrote...

You cant convince the IT believers that its not true, the denial is too strong, just give up.

Even after BW tells them its not true, theyll still believe it , thou i see no need for them to say the obvious.

BioWare has been dead quiet....they wouldn't want to spoil their new DLC either way. But as far as belief goes the same goes for you.....no ammount of logical evidence will convince you because you WANT to believe the IT is false whereas you cannot prove it false no matter what beacause absolutely anything and everything is possible in a hallucination or a dream.....still there are piles and piles of convincing arguments as to why it is a hallucination or dream and nothing substantial to prove it real....mainly because it's a completely nonsensical mess that has no logic without a million assumptions....like a pink space angel unicorn that poops rainbows ressurected Shep's dead squad members and teleported them to the Normandy......I mean that's totally more believable than say....Shepard was hallucinating/dreaming that his squad members died and that the Normandy left.

Hm, i dont "believe" its false, its false because it is. Youre the one who chooses to believe in something, my choice has no "belief" put in it, i just accept what is, youre in denial.
I dont need to prove anything false ;; i dont care if you believe in it, all i care is that so many state it as fact, when its not. Its something you believe in, no matter how many flaws or convoluted hoops you had to throu, and thats fine by me.

After all, thats the point of this crappy ending, speculate and come up with your own endingepilogueoutcomewhatever, so your belief does apply.... but only to you.
If you believe Shepard was indoctrinated, then sure, she was, now all you have to do is imagine the rest of the game and youre done.

Stating it as fact is the only annoying part, and yes, you cant "convince" anyone to believe in the IT, because there is no convincing involved, there just has to be a whole lot of denial to refuse to accept what just happened (and i almost dont blame people who do! Wish i could bleach out my brain of that ending ).
On the other side, you cant convince an IT believer that its not true, as many have stated "no matter what BW says, its canon", that alone says everything.

Also, if BW said the IT was true, then itd be true, thou itd be one of the worst writting id ever seen, right up there next to Mr. Toriyama as far as crap goes XD

Fact? How is dead people coming back to life a fact? Elaborate more.....

The "I'm right because I am" argument is fascinating....

You all are making this too easy.....if I can tear down everything you say in two lines you're doing it wrong.

Modifié par Darth_Trethon, 31 mars 2012 - 12:22 .

[Comsky159]

FoxShadowblade wrote...

Hey China called, they want their wall back.

Seriously, you put that much time into saying a theory that most know is wrong...is wrong?

...It's like a monumental shrine to time lost.

Hahaha so true. I mean its one thing to form a theory but honestly, this is ridiculous.

[Lmaoboat]

Iwillbeback wrote...


Everything used to support IT is in the game and can be easily undertsood.
Using outside elements that don't appear in the game is hardly evidence and doesn't support it because it is meaningless.

phantomdasilva wrote...



Great post, I agree 100% there.

A lot of opponents of indoctrination theory say this is due to bad writing.

This
may well be true but then you still have to rationalised the bad ending
that we were given to explain the game in universe. The indoctrination
theory although not perfect, does a good job in doing that.

You know Mass Effect is fiction, right? Somebody had to write it. That only explanation you need for anything in-universe is that Bioware wrote it, for whatever reason, that way. So unless all Bioware's PR damage control is actually fake, and just another layer of their ingenious plot in which they faked a horrible ending, only to come out with the real one, I'd say not only are outside elements important, but they completely supersede ingame "evidence".

[Ira Deorum]

Iwillbeback wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

Great post OP. However, by the recent Bioware announcements like Rays, I do believe most IT-believers have gone from "IT is the truth" to "IT should be the truth"

In any case: People believe what they want to believe.

No after reading the OP is clear Shepard being Indoctrination is no longer a theory and is indeed fact.
The Indoctrination is now part of the canon, bioware can say what they like it doesn't change that.

Yeah, and Santa Claus is real and the moon landing never happened.

Thank you for proving that you are one deluded freak.

[SimKoning]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

SimKoning wrote...

Anderson couldn’t reach the terminal before Shepard. There was only one path leading to that room.

Anderson states the citadel has been moving around and re arranging itself. We see it happening. This is just refusing to accept the obvious. Anderson has also been moving longer than Shepard has- he actually wakes Shepard up on the comms.[

Oh, you need to go back and edit this bit, because there is a far simpler explanation. If you walk out to the shifting mass effect plates, and turn around, it's OBVIOUS that there are many, many doors which are identical to the one you come out of. Anderson made it clear that he came up in a different location, most likely in the corridor adjacent to your own. When I walked out turned around after watching an IT video, I literally facepalmed. Confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty at its best. 

The whole point of the Citadel is that its a basically a big Reaper factory/command ship. It goes planet to planet and "sucks" up their population and spits out baby Reapers...

Yeah, we know that. I still don't get how Anderson reached the beam before Shepard; not to mention where he was at the time/why did they separate.

I actually thought about the Citadel being a Reaper command ship also. How do you know this?!! I don't think it discounts the indoctrination theory though.

Regarding the Citadel:

The Catalyst
"The Citadel is part of me"
"I control the Reapers"

Shepard/Anderson
"reminds me of your description of a Collector ship. Do you think they are making a Reaper in here?"
"Yeah, sure... they harvest the bodies and process them..."

Prothean VI

"The Citadel has moved to Sol to complete the harvesting process"

I can't believe so many people ask how I know this when it's made pretty obvious if you are paying attention.

Modifié par SimKoning, 31 mars 2012 - 12:23 .

[Leonia]

Now now, ad hominems don't help the cause.

I love how the term "canon" now has a subjective definition, however.

"Are we to allow dreams into evidence now? How can I defend myself against that."