470 réponses à ce sujet

[Jigokou]

aimlessgun wrote...

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

Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.

[phantomdasilva]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

Yeah I mainly agree with that. The Indoctrinated theory if intended by Bioware would be very problematic. Releasing a game without an ending, ot be release to another date.

Separating the ending at a later date has no artistic purpose either. If immediately after choosing control and syntesis we see shepard being indoctrinated or shepard being converted into a husk. Everyone will be shocked that they failed the puzzle and then think, wow bioware fooled me that was genious, or if they chose destroy and defeated the puzzle. We would feel clever taht we saw through the twist and then play through to the end.

However if the real ending is release 3-4 months later. The twist and shock is gone and they can't take back the foul taste in the mouth 

By the way, don't be too sure that " one of the end choices is 'correct'
A great writer could make a killer ending with Shepard being indoctrinated. you could have shepard be indoctrinated and working with illusive man and the remains of cerberus betraying the alliance for the first part of the new ending.

Then you meet up your squad mates and the LI and the roles are reverse of the shepard/saren and shepard/TIM scenario. your squad mates are trying to convince you are indoctrinated, if you complete all the dialogue conversation with the crew involved or your LI is there, you get a interrupt, break the indoctrination and sacrifice your life to save the day.

Lot of dramatic potential there especialyl the idea of your love interest pleading with you to break the indoctrination and trying to save you. Essentially taking the deleted Carth Onasi ending from KOTOR

So the game could have continued taking the wrong choice as well

[Lmaoboat]

Jigokou wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

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

Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.

If you choose destory, you're agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot get along.

[Thornquist]

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.

...thanks for proving my point.

[Lmaoboat]

phantomdasilva wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

Yeah I mainly agree with that. The Indoctrinated theory if intended by Bioware would be very problematic. Releasing a game without an ending, ot be release to another date.

Separating the ending at a later date has no artistic purpose either. If immediately after choosing control and syntesis we see shepard being indoctrinated or shepard being converted into a husk. Everyone will be shocked that they failed the puzzle and then think, wow bioware fooled me that was genious, or if they chose destroy and defeated the puzzle. We would feel clever taht we saw through the twist and then play through to the end.

However if the real ending is release 3-4 months later. The twist and shock is gone and they can't take back the foul taste in the mouth 

By the way, don't be too sure that " one of the end choices is 'correct'
A great writer could make a killer ending with Shepard being indoctrinated. you could have shepard be indoctrinated and working with illusive man and the remains of cerberus betraying the alliance for the first part of the new ending.

Then you meet up your squad mates and the LI and the roles are reverse of the shepard/saren and shepard/TIM scenario. your squad mates are trying to convince you are indoctrinated, if you complete all the dialogue conversation with the crew involved or your LI is there, you get a interrupt, break the indoctrination and sacrifice your life to save the day.

Lot of dramatic potential there especialyl the idea of your love interest pleading with you to break the indoctrination and trying to save you. Essentially taking the deleted Carth Onasi ending from KOTOR

So the game could have continued taking the wrong choice as well

I think STALKER did "fake" endings pretty well.

[Kanon777]

is there a tldr version of this OP? i believe IT is delusional but i wont waste the few brain cells i have left to read that thing...

[phyreblade74]

Ira Deorum wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

Eviscerator03 wrote...

Iwillbeback wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is mint, it has no flaws.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

It is true, at least it is the way I view the ending.
I can only view it from that angle because it makes sense and works.

That's the worst thing anyone can do. "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own."

This isn't reality we're talking about, though, is it?  This is a fictional tale we're trying to interpret.  And there's nothing "unrealistic" about calling it "indoctrination" in a tale where "indoctrination" occurs to even smart, brilliant and capable characters.  In light of that, yes, it does make sense.

[Kreid]

I don't want to offend anyone, and I respect everyone's opinions but it's pretty clear to me that the IT was an attempt to rationalize the bad ending by fans in denial.

I am not saying that it is just castles in the sky, while some of it's evidence seems (and might be) legitimate, the mere fact that BioWare wouldn't release a product with a dream ending pretty much debunks it by default.

Modifié par Creid-X, 31 mars 2012 - 01:46 .

[Jigokou]

[quote]Lmaoboat wrote...
[/quote]If you choose destory, you're agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot get along.
[/quote]

So does control. And if you choose Synthesis, well, machines don't have DNA. If you merge the two, you get Saren, Husks and Reapers. The message of Mass Effect is that diversity makes you strong. If IT is true, then the Starchild could have been lying his ass off about Destroy also killing the Geth. It's the only reason it makes Destroy unappealing.

[Astrogenesis]

OP is beating around the bush.

He has not dispoven the single most important peice of evidence that proves the Incodtrination theory to be true.

Shepard breaths at the end,
- After Harbinger fires on him with a death ray that can destroy starhips.
- After the Catalyst told him ALL synthectic life, including the parts in Shepard would be distroyed.
- After Shepard shoots the tube and gets consumed by flames.
- After Shepard falls hundreds of miles, burning up in the atmospher, to land on rubble.

At this point, Ockham's Razor say that Indoctrination is the impleist theory than all the bull***t that I just said.

[Eviscerator03]

tobito113 wrote...

is there a tldr version of this OP? i believe IT is delusional but i wont waste the few brain cells i have left to read that thing...

Part six onwards is putting together everythign discussed in the previous parts.

[Kanon777]

Thornquist wrote...

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.

...thanks for proving my point.

IT Fanatics:



Casey/Walters better be carefull with the crazy ones at PAX :unsure:

Modifié par tobito113, 31 mars 2012 - 01:47 .

[No Snakes Alive]

I'm not getting why people think the game ends abruptly at the foot of the beacon up to the Citadel, and the rest is a dream?

It was obvious to me that everything up until the ascension to the starchild was probably real, and that that very last sequence was triggered by Shepard's exposure to TIM, who blatantly displayed the powers of Indoctrination. He was a living, breathing, bull****ting, human beacon of Indoctrination the starchild/reapers straight up said were under their control.

And watch the ending again if you don't think starchild and the reapers are one and the same. He slips up at one point. He's clearly their voice of persuasion. But the idea that the game never ends if you fight off Indoctrination isn't even necessarily the case. I never once thought I never actually made it up to the Citadel...

[AnsinJung]

While true that IT takes some evidence on a "want to believe" basis, you actually didn't disprove the theory. Nice try though. A red herring makes use of things like Occam's Razor. Deception isn't supposed to be obvious.

Your bias is laid bare in Part nine, where it's just what you want to believe. Nothing is proven either way.

[aimlessgun]

Jigokou wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

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

Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.

First off, if Bioware wanted to trick us into thinking this was the 'real' ending, they can't show Shep alive after the first two choices. That would spoil their trick. So if IT was mostly true, and they wanted to give a clue about it without blowing the whole thing open, they can only put Shepard's last breath after destroy. 

Secondly, the idea that the other two options are "surrendering to the reapers" is a forced interpretation by IT theorists seeing what they want to see. IT must be true, thus you're going to interpret Control and Synthesis in a way that supports IT. 

The idea that Shepard's mindset in "Control" has anything to do with "surrendering" is bull****. Sorry, but it is. The people who choose control are no less determined to defeat the Reapers than those who choose Destroy. Many people chose control because they wanted to order the Reapers to fly into a black hole, and thus kill them without the negative genocidal consequences of Destroy. Basically, IT theorists are forcing an assumed mindset on people who chose the Control or Synthesis, a mindset that those people don't actually have. Thus it fails. 

Also, IT theory selectively interprets the choices as the Child steering you away from Destroy and towards it's "preferred" choices of Control and Synthesis.
-IT theory ignores the fact that you are shown Anderson choosing destroy. The man you respect most in the galaxy is shown picking the option the Star Child doesn't want?
-IT ignores the fact that Destroy is the only option where there is a chance to keep your physical body (a reason many people actually chose Destroy). Destroy is the only option where the Star Child doesn't explicitly say you will die.
-IT theory ignores the fact that the Star Child can convincingly omit the part about the relays being destroyed in Synthesis and Control: in fact it only makes sense that the relays are blown up in Destroy, because you're destroying tech. Why attach this nonsensical, repellant condition to choices that he theoretically wants you to pick?

Finally, by choosing Destroy, you are SHOOTING YOUR OWN SUPERWEAPON. If that's not symbolic of something, I don't know what is. 

EDIT: Oh, and from a meta perspective, to think that Bioware would make an ending that looks legit, except two of the choices are wrong, is completely ridiculous. What, so you can only play the ending DLC if you chose Destroy? Please. 

Modifié par aimlessgun, 31 mars 2012 - 01:56 .

[dreman9999]

Eviscerator03 wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Sigh....Shepard isn't "indoctrinated". He is fighting it off.

Still doesn't make sense.

What make no sense about the reapers trying to sabatge the crucible or the fact they used indoctrination to stop it before?

[MaximizedAction]

Astrogenesis wrote...

OP is beating around the bush.

He has not dispoven the single most important peice of evidence that proves the Incodtrination theory to be true.

Shepard breaths at the end,
- After Harbinger fires on him with a death ray that can destroy starhips.
- After the Catalyst told him ALL synthectic life, including the parts in Shepard would be distroyed.
- After Shepard shoots the tube and gets consumed by flames.
- After Shepard falls hundreds of miles, burning up in the atmospher, to land on rubble.

At this point, Ockham's Razor say that Indoctrination is the impleist theory than all the bull***t that I just said.

Good! Though, might the second point be answered by: in the time (ME2 beginning -> ME3 ending) his wounds were healed and so his body didn't rely on the synthetics anymore?

[Mycrus Ironfist]

occam's razor = bioware just screwed up.

[phantomdasilva]

AnsinJung wrote...

While true that IT takes some evidence on a "want to believe" basis, you actually didn't disprove the theory. Nice try though. A red herring makes use of things like Occam's Razor. Deception isn't supposed to be obvious.

Your bias is laid bare in Part nine, where it's just what you want to believe. Nothing is proven either way.

The point of the article wasn't to prove that indoctrination theory is wrong. Rather to disprove that indoctrination theory is an objective fact

Lot of his points on the article was, that indoctrinated theory interpret the events this way, well I intepret this event differently.

Does this proove the indoctrination theory wrong.
Well no, but it puts the question whether any of the interpretation can be objectively right. Objective fact has to be that no other interpretation can fit.

Now I admit  the author really should have reworded this essay to make the distinction more clear and removed some of the disrespectful tone there.

Modifié par phantomdasilva, 31 mars 2012 - 01:56 .

[dreman9999]

Lmaoboat wrote...

Jigokou wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

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

Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.

If you choose destory, you're agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot get along.

You don't see any thing similiar to the synthesis choice in all of ME?
Not Sarens argument, the collector, and the reapers themselve?
You can't see that it's a trick?

[BlackAlpha]

Yes! Thank you for posting that article. It explains the fundamental problem of the indoctrination theory: The indoctrinated theory teaches people how to use flawed logic that basically brain washes them. People are very much indoctrinated into the whole theory. Now, this is just about a video, so some people will be thinking it's not a big deal, right? Wrong! The logic people are taught here, they will use in real life and that's a horrible, horrible thing for all of us.

So now that the article has pointed out some ways how you've been indoctrinated, remember that knowledge, so that it won't happen a second time in the real world!

[aimlessgun]

dreman9999 wrote...

Lmaoboat wrote...

Jigokou wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

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

Well, destroy is the only option where we see Shepard alive and the other two options have you basically surrender to the Reapers.

If you choose destory, you're agreeing with the Catalyst that organics and synthetics cannot get along.

You don't see any thing similiar to the synthesis choice in all of ME?
Not Sarens argument, the collector, and the reapers themselve?
You can't see that it's a trick?

You know what sounds like a trick? Star Child saying "Hey, uh, if you shoot your own superweapon that will totally destroy us. Yup. Anderson would totally shoot his own superweapon, look I'll show you a vision of it. The man you respect most, why don't you do what he would do. Oh and the two other choices will kill you for sure. So why don't you go ahead and just shoot your superweapon."

Yeah, I see the trick here, and it's not what standard IT theory thinks it is. 

Modifié par aimlessgun, 31 mars 2012 - 02:38 .

[JesseLee202]

How bout we do this... I keep indoc theory (with very little plot holes), and you can keep your space magic filled ending, with plot holes the size of our galaxy...

[Huyai]

OP I am not saying you are wrong and that indoctrination theory is correct. However, I can't help feeling that much of your argument could fall foul of your own premise.

Modifié par Huyai, 31 mars 2012 - 02:00 .

[BlackAlpha]

BlackAlpha wrote...

Yes! Thank you for posting that article. It explains the fundamental problem of the indoctrination theory: The indoctrinated theory teaches people how to use flawed logic which basically brain washes them. People are very much indoctrinated into the whole theory. Now, this is just about a video game, so some people will be thinking that it's not a big deal, right? Wrong! The logic people are taught here, they will use in real life and that's a horrible, horrible thing for all of us.

So now that the article has pointed out some ways how you've been indoctrinated, remember that knowledge, so that it won't happen a second time in the real world!

Modifié par BlackAlpha, 31 mars 2012 - 02:00 .