470 réponses à ce sujet

[Iwillbeback]

I'm not bonkers, Shepard is Indoctrinated.
To deny that is just stupid and you should feel bad.

[DangerSandler]

I still think the IT makes sense. I don't see Bioware changing the ending any other way to be honest.

[No Snakes Alive]

Omfg even the title of this thread is pathetically TL;DR.

[Xrissie]

Both title and thread are tl;dr.

[Lmaoboat]

phantomdasilva wrote...

Lmaoboat wrote...

phantomdasilva wrote...

Yes it is fiction but I don't believe author intention superceres what is in the screen because whatever the author is intending, they have to demonstrate it by having the in-universe consistent with their intention.  If it's not, then the message of the movie/game is different than their intentions.

One of my earlier post I mention in this board mentions the difference between the literary method and suspension of disbelief method in analysing works of fiction

I'll just used an example
Data in Star trek makes a comment that is scientifically inaccurate.
Literary method -  The writer stuffed up and made a scientific error. The author didn't intend Data to make a scientific mistake. We'll just assume that Data didn't say it or just imagine that data said something that was scietntific accurate to replace it. So retcon the mistake
The suspension of disbelief- Data is an idiot This is shown by him making numerous scientific mistakes

The literary analysis goes through the author intent, the suspension of
disbelief goes through the consequences of the intent on the universe. If the author makes a mistake due to bad writing, the suspension of disbelief goes through the consequences of that mistake has on the character etc.

Now which one is a better way to interpret a story. Whatever suits you personally,.. I sometimes switch between teh two outlook but i'm not going to tell other people one way of interpreting the story is more wrong then another.

If Data is in idiot, it is because the writer intended him to be an idiot.  Trying to use the other method in an argument sounds like you're ignoring causality, as if the Mass Effect games just appeared out of nowhere one day.

No one is claiming that the writers didn't write the story and that the story exist independentedly from the creator

However the suspension of disbelief is a good test on how well the writer was able to express their intentions and points of view

isn't the job of the writer, is to be able to express their intentions and vision so that the universe matches up their intention.

If intent is everything, then well every artist intended to make a good story

If a writer wrote a movie that was intended to be non-racist and spread the issue of tolerance they manage to botch it up and offended everyone because what's on the screen didn't match their intended message but also spread the opposite message

Can you just dismiss the complaint as, well the author intended the movie to be non-racist and it was only his ignorance that made the message of the movie different to what turn out on the screen?

If we dismiss the suspension of disbelief interpretation, then Jar Jar binks is a lovable cute character, instead of annoying. After all we judge the character by how they behave on screen, not what the author  wanted the audience to feel.

If the writers wanted Data to be smart, they have to demonstrate that Data is smart by writing intelligent lines.

It's like the time where Worf was a laughing stock by the fans because he kept losing fights. The author itnended Worf to be bad arse, the audience reacted that he was hopeless in the fight because he loses fight because what on the screen didn't match the intention

All I see is that the author intended something, and simply failed. I only see using an in-universe interpretation when you can't determine the author's intent.

[MOAR-Ovaltinepls]

For example, let’s take two competing ideas for the birth of the world and life. On one side, we have a fundamentalist young earth creationist, who believes that the world was made in six days a few thousand years ago. On the other a scientists espousing the idea of the solar nebular model, nucleation, geological process and evolution (it’s more complex than that but if you want it accurate go and read a journal). The scientist (who for the sake of a face we shall say is Brian Cox, because Brian Cox is awesome), begins to explain about gravitational attraction, fusion, the birth of the Sun, the accretion of matter into planets via gravity, geological theory, possible explanations for the origins of life itself, and of course the evolution of said life forms (Cox is a physicist but sue me, he’s still awesome).

The process takes six hours. He skipped the intricate bits.

Then the young earth creationist then declares “God made the world in six days, as it is now. He did it 6,000 years ago.”

There is silence.

On the surface of it, Ockham’s razor appears to support the young earth creationism theory. As any good scientist is, Cox is very open about what he knows for almost certain and what he suspects but cannot yet prove. As such it sounds like he is making many assumptions, whereas the young earth creationist is only making one- God did it.

However Ockham’s razor in fact supports Cox. Why? Because there’s a really big pile of stuff that the young earth creationist is applying that one assumption to. Dinosaurs- god put them there to test the faithful (assumption as he can provide no evidence). What about carbon dating- God did it. Can you actually prove God in that case? And so forth. While Cox has made many assumptions during his lecture once reaching the limits of scientific knowledge, he has also accounted for- and explained- far more of the observed facts and phenomena than the young earth creationist.

"Scientific explanations" are just as much circular logic as creationism theory is. Using a "scientist" and a "young creationist" to articulate your view doesn't change that and should not even be discussed here.

Carbon dating works on things that are dead, but doesn't work on things that are alive, therefore carbon dating clearly works because it works when we want it to.

We can date the age of the earth because of fossil index and the geologic column, yet in order to find the fossil's age you have to check the geologic column, but in order to establish the geologic time scale you rely on fossils. There is no geologic column IRL, it is circular logic theory and unproven.

Creation to me doesn't matter because it doesn't further our society. I don't need an explanation for the origin to the earth because it doesn't help us produce anything to improve our lives. It doesn't matter whether we came from pre-organic slop or if a god put us on earth 10,000 years ago. It just doesn't matter.

It also doesn't have any place in a discussion like this.

[flexxdk]

Iwillbeback wrote...

I'm not bonkers, Shepard is Indoctrinated.
To deny that is just stupid and you should feel bad.

You owe me a new keyboard. There's coffee all over it!

P.S.: I feel soooo bad now... All I want to do is sit in a corner and cry for days and suck on my thumb.

...No wait, I do not. Sorry.

Modifié par Whacka, 31 mars 2012 - 01:14 .

[Lmaoboat]

Iwillbeback wrote...

I'm not bonkers, Shepard is Indoctrinated.
To deny that is just stupid and you should feel bad.

That's nice. The orderlies will be there to pick you up shortly. Please don't make them sedate you.

Modifié par Lmaoboat, 31 mars 2012 - 01:12 .

[Kanon777]

[img]https://whyweprotest.net/asset-proxy/d192fb88ebb441704b09ddbf62e973107b4a234b/687474703a2f2f693334342e70686f746f6275636b65742e636f6d2f616c62756d732f703335372f426c6f6f2d546f6f662f57414c4c5f4f465f544558542e6a7067/http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p357/Bloo-Toof/WALL_OF_TEXT.jpg[/img]

[AcesRedd]

Oh I just remembered there was also a mission in ME2 where some miners were turned into husks (indoctrinated) by some artifact they found. So that plus the one from the TIM Comic and the two mentioned by the ....OP makes 4 non Reaper artifacts that can indoctrinate.

[MaximizedAction]

First of all, thanks to the OP for investing so much time and effort into a seemingly careful analysis.

This reminded me of an anecdote my prof once told: He once read a philosophical paper on why the expression for kinetic energy (E=1/2 m v^2) had a 1/2 in it. It took the author a few hundred pages. For a physicist it takes just a few lines.

Anyway, the amount of words that have already been spent into speculations from everyone just speaks for Bioware's inginious initial intention "SPECULATIONS FROM EVERYONE", no matter how eloquent. Everyone's invited, from fan to Forbes.

Now let me comment on your post.

The problem with analysis of fiction literature is, you'll never get rid of the knock-out criterion "It was all an error of the author". In general, this remains possible. In terms of pure logic, it's always there. In terms of nature, it has a probability between 0% and 100%, but not equal.
Therefore, when analysing ficitonal literature, one tends to not assume this. Or at least, this was my experience in school. Because, otherwise you would require another basic source of information, you instead need to assume to be absolutely true, or else you're wasting time.

Now what you did was use philosphical analysis on the errors of the author. Care to consider this article in for publication in a philosophical journal? Just add a few more citations here and there.

[PuppiesOfDeath2]

It appears that the "hardest ending to achieve" (the one that requires the most War Assets) is the one that allows Shepard to survive and requires the Renegade (kill the Reapers and Spaceboy) option.  That supports the Indoctrination Theory it would seem.  Tell me if I am wrong about that.  I have not tried to play the game poorly to find out but I think that this is the suggestion in the Collectors Edition guide.

Also, when Shepard "ascends" to meet Spaceboy for the first time, his "body" remains on the ground, below the white platform carrying him upward from the control panel on the Citadel.  This is quite clear and suggests some disembodied part of Shepard is being lifted up.  Now that doesn't necessarily support the Indoctrination Theory as there would be no need to have an out of body experience if you were already in a dream (a "dream within a dream," although I suppose the IT theorists would argue that is itself part of the Reapers' deception).  [The phrase reminds me of the minister's speech on "marriage" in The Princess Bride" which was hilarious, but now my head is hurting.]

I really liked this game and I appreciate the art of the ending.  The Crucible putting the stem on the Citadel flower to pollinate the galaxy with Shepard.  The name of our hero as a metaphor.  Adam and Eva.  It is creative. 

What I didn't like is that it makes the game less replayable for the same reasons Mass Effect 2 was so replayable.  The whole experience is about making hard decisions that forge a bond with your closest allies, friends and teammates.  It may be true in life that, at the end, we are all just alone to face whatever demons or struggles the end brings.  But people loved this franchise for the escape of fighting against impossible odds with your closest friends.  And if you were smart about it and stuck together you could win.  If you cared enough, together you could do more than you could ever accomplish alone.

I just found the ending gave all of that away.  You can experience all of the tribulation and isolation you want without ever picking up an XBox controller.  This franchise gave us the chance to find friends, embrace their strengths and weaknesses, bring them together and do something righteous.  The ending lacked those things.  And that makes the game less replayable.  Because now I know, that no matter how much I struggle over the choices in the war and do everything for and with my friends, at the end, I am alone.

[Yubz]

*sigh* this again. I'll admit I didn' even read half of it but I don't have to.
Is the Indoctrination theory perfect? No, but it doesn't have to be. The point is even with all of its flaws it still makes more sense than the real end and more importantly it has the potential to be a lot MORE FUN than the real ending. And that's what games are about - fun. This is isn't a science project where only one answer is the right one, nobody is right or wrong.

[iamthedave3]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
However, it baffles me that there are so many people that believe that not only is the IT 100% true, but that Bioware actually intended it - that Bioware chose to release ME3 without its ending purely for the sake of a 'surprise'.

It's more that assuming Bioware intended it allows for the illusion that Bioware are amazing writers. In other words, what people want to believe about Bioware anyway.

It's all part of the 'reject the evidence that Bioware screwed up monumentally' response.

[Cazlee]

Marta Rio II wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

@Marta Rio II: The concept of Shepard falling into the same trap as Saren or TIM is really a neat idea, and it's something that Bioware will never confirm or deny because the whole point of having those three options were to encourage fan speculation.

Right, I agree with that.  I mean, I'd say that the indoc theory is a valid interpretation of the ending, as it nixes a lot of the plotholes and logical issues that exist in the current ending.  It just has this sort of weird conspiracy theory angle attached to it, that arose due to things that Bioware said in the early days of the ending backlash.

I think the problem is that Bioware underestimated how literally that proponents of this theory would take their social media statements.  And it's partly because of those statements that we now have a large number of people clinging to the idea that the indoc theory is the Truth, rather than just one of many ways to interpret the ending.

That's where we disagree - although the overall concept of indoctrination, or deceit from catalyst is a plaustible point of speculation, I feel that the IT takes things too far. The core of the IT involves a complete rejection of the game's ending by interpreting the entire end sequence as a dream. It gives fans that are disenchanted with the current ending hope for a new ending, but if you look at it from a "what happens next?" perspective the theory all falls apart.

Once Bioware are given a chance to pull off the ending they mean to (before the game got rushed out) I think the movement will die down b/c right now the IT just represents hope for a new ending to disenchanted fans. Even if the new endings fail to impress, it will have squashed any hope left in them. 

Modifié par Cazlee, 31 mars 2012 - 01:23 .

[phantomdasilva]

Lmaoboat wrote...

All I see is that the author intended something, and simply failed. I only see using an in-universe interpretation when you can't determine the author's intent.

When they fail to deliver the intent. What impact does that have when you analyse the narrative, the characters and story?

If you don't want the answer to that question, that's fine but there are plenty people who would want to go and analyse it.

Let's just go back to the racist movie example. The author intended not to be racist. However people reacted what they see on the screen and called it a racist movie. Now we both accept that the author failed to deliver the intent. However all the people complaining this movie is racist, are they wrong ? After all they are only reacting to what is on the screen and only using in-universe example to justify their point of view rather than the author intent.

[Candidate 88766]

iamthedave3 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
However, it baffles me that there are so many people that believe that not only is the IT 100% true, but that Bioware actually intended it - that Bioware chose to release ME3 without its ending purely for the sake of a 'surprise'.

It's more that assuming Bioware intended it allows for the illusion that Bioware are amazing writers. In other words, what people want to believe about Bioware anyway.

It's all part of the 'reject the evidence that Bioware screwed up monumentally' response.

You only have to look at stuff like the Genophage plot or the Rannoch plot to see that Bioware can be fantastic writers. Mordin's sacrifice for example was one of the best moments in the trilogy imo.

And if the IT somehow turns out to be true, that doesn't make the writers better. If anything, the theory makes the endings worse:

-No actual closure included with the game
-In a game of choice, only one of the end choices is 'correct'
-you have to play MP to get the 'true' ending

I find it more likely that the writers messed up the endings - pretty much the worst ten minutes they could've messed up - than the idea that they simply shipped ME3 without its ending, and will later give out a 'true' ending that, despite the series being about choice, only works for one choice and only if you played MP.

[MassFrank]

@ OP
Adopting academic constructs give your argument the appearance of legitimacy doesn't in the end make an opinion any more legitimate. What you have created is elaborate and lengthy speculation, but no more valid or invalid than any other speculation. Framing it as a thesis, does not give one greater insight into the author's intent.

[supermaan]

Cazlee wrote...

The core of the IT involves a complete rejection of the game's ending by interpreting the entire end sequence as a dream.

The core of the IT involves a complete rejection of embracing the game's ending by interpreting the entire end sequence as a dream (indoctrination).

Bold text - Fixed it for ya

[Lmaoboat]

phantomdasilva wrote...

Lmaoboat wrote...

All I see is that the author intended something, and simply failed. I only see using an in-universe interpretation when you can't determine the author's intent.

When they fail to deliver the intent. What impact does that have when you analyse the narrative, the characters and story?

If you don't want the answer to that question, that's fine but there are plenty people who would want to go and analyse it.

Let's just go back to the racist movie example. The author intended not to be racist. However people reacted what they see on the screen and called it a racist movie. Now we both accept that the author failed to deliver the intent. However all the people complaining this movie is racist, are they wrong ? After all they are only reacting to what is on the screen and only using in-universe example to justify their point of view rather than the author intent.

One might argue the the author is racist, at least by the common broad definition that includes having stereotypical views of other races, because that movie is a reflection of his views. If, say, a couple of robots seem to be racist caricatures, that is because made those stereotypes himself.

Modifié par Lmaoboat, 31 mars 2012 - 01:34 .

[Fat Head]

Most of what I skimmed through looked enough like opinion and speculation enough that I'm not investing time in reading that wall of text. I do think it's pretty darn funny that this is being presented as fact though, while the OP blasts the people presenting Indoctrination Theory for "presenting it as fact".


Here's a fact. Neither side is right or has any actual FACTS until Bioware addresses the issue.


For the record, I believe IT is FAR more likely than Bioware dropping the ball on EVERYTHING in the last 10 minutes of the game.

[Jigokou]

Marta Rio II wrote...

Cazlee wrote...

@Marta Rio II: The concept of Shepard falling into the same trap as Saren or TIM is really a neat idea, and it's something that Bioware will never confirm or deny because the whole point of having those three options were to encourage fan speculation.

Right, I agree with that.  I mean, I'd say that the indoc theory is a valid interpretation of the ending, as it nixes a lot of the plotholes and logical issues that exist in the current ending.  It just has this sort of weird conspiracy theory angle attached to it, that arose due to things that Bioware said in the early days of the ending backlash.

I think the problem is that Bioware underestimated how literally proponents of this theory would take their social media statements.  And it's partly because of those statements that we now have a large number of people clinging to the idea that the indoc theory is the Truth, rather than just one of many ways to interpret the ending.

Honest question, what are the other interpretations? I know Indoctrination Theory is the most popular one. Then we have taking the endings at face value and most agreeing that it make no sense and is just a bad way to end an otherwise awesome Trilogy.

[No Snakes Alive]

I just read like a thousand paragraphs that have nothing to do with what I think happened. Maybe you DID address my theory on the ending somewhere in there but it would be like finding a needle in a pile of horsecrap, and I did try and fail.

I firmly believe the ending sequence (beginning with the ascension and fade-out to white and appearance of the ghostly child you've dreamt of on multiple occasions) is Shepard's chance to fight off the persuasive last attempt of the reapers to stop him from destroying them.

You know, the part that occurs directly after the game blatantly portrays the effects of indoctrination in ten different ways. When TIM comes out fully mind-controlled and looking reaperized, and your screen adopts the same effects, and there's that loud hum, and you struggle to control your own movements, and you're made to shoot Anderson, and... See where I'm going here?

If you've refuted the idea that the reapers sent TIM to the Citadel as a human beacon of indoctrination in one last ditch effort attempt to stop Shepard from destroying them, please summarize that for me here. The rest of what you wrote was entirely smoke and mirrors about the reasoning behind the theory's existence and the "disproving" of assumptions made about the theory that aren't true, at least in my case.

The fact of the matter is that I didn't think the ending was your last chance to destroy the reapers in the face of a confusingly persuasive coercion attempt because I didn't want to believe Bioware could **** up the ending; I did because Indoctrination was shoved down my throat prior to the decent in every way, shape, and form imaginable and then suddenly an image that's been deliberately linked to within Shepard's mind is telling me that destroying the reapers is a pretty wack idea but embracing either of the beliefs of my good, reaper-controlled buddies Saren and TIM would be preferable, though I'd die.

"Yeah ****ing right. It'd take an idiot to fall for that." That's what I said to myself as I played the game and shot that place to hell. And any speculation on what happened elsewhere is just that: speculation. There's no telling how or when who, from the Normandy to your crew, got where and why. It's offscreen and there's no telling how long the failed Infoctrination attempt took.


This is what I believe, and have from the moment the ending sunk in. I'm open for clear evidence suggesting I'm wrong, but ten pages of horsecrap about 9/11 and "begging the question" won't do it.

Modifié par No Snakes Alive, 31 mars 2012 - 01:39 .

[aimlessgun]

IT theory is interesting and unoffensive, until the part about Destroy being the "correct" choice. That part is clearly ridiculous.

[Devos]

Great post. I've been in the process of writing something similar (errily similar in some ways, I was making similar parallels to conspiracy theory logic, must be indoctrination!). it was still in a very rough form and needed a lot of tidying up. Overall I was leaning on not posting it to avoid the headaches. Now I definitely won't but I will pull out one section which is similar but makes a couple of slightly different arguments.

...

I'm going to try and list every occurrence of Shepard encountering a reaper I might miss one or two minor ones but the overall trend should still be made clear

-Attack on Eden prime, Sovereign present part of this time. Likely under an hour of exposure
-Virmire, maybe several hours of exposure at most
-Meets Vigil on Ilos, confirms no indoctrination
-Battle of the Citadel, again maybe several hours
-Derelict Reaper, Several Hours
-Collector's base and Embryonic Human Reaper
-The Arrival, Two days in the presence of a reaper artefact
-Invasion of earth, several hours
-Tuchanka, limited exposure through most of time briefly in presence of reaper
-Ranoch, limited exposure through most of time briefly in presence of reaper
-Invasion of Thessia, Several hours. Prothean VI detects no indoctrination
-Battle for Earth

First of all lets discount most of the time on Rannoch and Tuchanka. If merely being on the same planet as a destroyer allows indoctrination then every Krogan on Tuchanka is indoctrinated. This leaves his exposure during the arrival as the most significant at two days. Everything else adds up to another day at most if we assume they were actively taking the opportunity to indoctrinate on all these occasions. Is that enough time for indoctrination?
When you meet Rana Thanoptis in Saren's Base on Virmire she gives the figure of about a week for indoctrination to begin. Three days isn't wildly off that figure but this means the length of exposures allow only for the most rapid of indoctrinations which would mean a fast degeneration. This is ruled out by the VI on Thessia which detects no overt indoctrination.

Rather perversely the VI on Thessia to support the theory because it can't detect sleeper agents. As shown above there hasn't been time for Shepard to have that kind of indoctrination. Secondly it doesn't make sense Shepard is a sleeper agent.  If Shepard was a sleeper agent when did the Reapers plan to activate them? Before they unified what by all accounts is the strongest defence the reapers have faced? Before they made access to citadel possible? The point is there are multiple occasions where Shepard could have been activated and utterly undermined the efforts to defend against the Reapers but that didn't happen.

Also people in the universe are not completely unaware of the mechanics of indoctrination. It is likely possible to check for the neurological damage associated with rapid indoctrination and in playing a particularly important role Shepard, with so much potential to sabotage the war was likely checked. Further his exposure would probably be monitored. Ignoring that requires quite a hefty suspension of disbelief there would be no safeguards in place

Lets consider the time scales involved in Indoctrinating their highest level operatives. The Illusive Man was first exposed to a Reaper artefact in 2157 (Evolution), between then and the events of ME3 he sought out Reaper technology giving potentially near three decades for Indoctrination.  TIM is kind of an odd case with a lot of unknowns, the circumstances of his first encounter with Reaper technology was unusual and we don't know how much of that time he was actually exposed to indoctrination. Saren was first exposed in 2165 (Revelation), the event of ME1 took place in 2183. Sovereign had nearly 20 years available to indoctrinate Saren. As previously mentioned there are lot of unknowns with TIM but Saren is a pretty straight foward example. However what both cases show is time scale of decades of opportunity , not days.

Further we know not all Reaper technology is capable of indoctrinating. Most notably the Citadel and Mass Relays don't indoctrinate people.

Overall we have no reason to think Sheppard has had opportunity to be indoctrinated.

...

I'm also going to pull out a few paragraphs from why it makes no sense from a story perspective

...

Hallucination is a cheap explanation, it lets you throw out anything doesn't fit and use everything from continuity errors, plot holes, suspension of disbelief  to stylistic choices to support it. Hallucination can be used to explain anything because it removes the need for internal consistency. It is exactly because hallucinations can be used explain anything in and of itself they explains nothing. There has to be some pay off.

...

Think of any story, a film, a book, a video game, a TV series where at some point the protagonist falls unconscious or falls asleep ideally in  the last act. Now assume that the rest of the story beyond that point is the protagonists hallucination or dream. How does this change the story? It breaks it because the story abruptly halts at that point. Any resolution that happens beyond that point is rendered moot. There are stories which use dreams or hallucinations which you are mislead into thinking are real as a device but they eventually reveal this and pay off the deception, though they may do so well or badly. It may even ambiguous what is real but that it is ambiguous is made clear. None of that happens in ME3. Indoctrination Theory doesn't posit an ambiguous ending, the ending is outright fake.

...

Under Indoctrination Theory the Mass Effect saga ends abruptly when Shepard is running towards the conduit. But, it argues, you resist indoctrination or you don't depending on whether you are tricked by the false options. The problem with this is that we see the result of our choice and in most cases we see the result beyond Shepard's death. at that point its grossly reaching to hold onto the concept of hallucination. The internal logic isn't merely bad or broken down (like if you take the ending literally) it has completely vanished. The point of seeing a characters hallucination is that it is in some sense first person, if the person having the hallucination is absent then it makes no sense. We are now experiencing what happens in the world of Shepard hallucination after they should have finished hallucinating, seeing the consequence of the hallucinated action from the perspective of a third party observer within the hallucination... Wha? Frankly I'd take the three colours of explosion over that. The best case scenario for hallucination at this point is that everything you see beyond that point isn't just a lie but a meaningless lie. Even if we accept everything about Indoctrination Theory up until that final choice we only have assertion which is out right contradicted by the game as to the meaning of the choice. The thing is the choice is the most important moment in Indoctrination theory and it is utterly contradicted by how that moment is actually presented.

Modifié par Devos, 31 mars 2012 - 01:43 .