1057 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirian Thorn]

EpyonX3 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

if the dreams were signs of indoctrination, the signs would not disappear upon waking. He can't be being indoctrinated, then not, then being indoctrinated, etc. It would be continuous. Which is why people just give in.

This is even in the very definition of Indoctrination. You need prolonged exposure before you start feeling its effects. Benezia and Rana repeat this to you in ME1.

It's the part of the definition that theorists overlook.

And Shepard didn't have prolonged exposure to Reaper tech?

Contact with Soverign.
Contact with the derelict reaper in ME2. 
Contact with the proto reaper in ME2. 
Two days exposure to Object Rho in Arrival DLC. 
EDI is part reaper tech.  (maybe not enough for Indoc, I don't know)
Contact with Reapers throughout ME2.  Ronnoch, The planet where you find the Rachni is full of Reaper tech)

How much exposure does it take?  I don't know.  They don't give exact figures as to how long.  But Shepard has seen a fair amount of it.  At least enough for it to be a possibility in my opinion. 

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

the 1M1 signs are not reversed. They are inverted because the structure it's printed on is upside down. If you look at a couple that aren't the 1M1 are not reversed.

Also, if he were dreaming, everything would be in slow motion all the way to the end.

Unless you're going to suggest that indoctrination dreams allow this, even though we've yet to see anyone experience this in the games before.

The way I see it is it's a multi layer inception type thing, The first part right after Harby's beam, you have to be subtle, is he moving slow because he's hurt? Well then why are all the enemies in slow motion to?

In the second layer, we use his memories and thoughts against him to make him feel a certain way. The collector ship reference, The shadow broker ship reference. and in the TIM and Anderson scene it looks like business as usual on the arms, car lights moving in an orderly fashion and what not.

The final layer, you are "plugged in" to Harbingers mainframe, he tries to manipulate you to use the crucble in the way he sees fit.

What a masterclass in overanalysis!

[NM_Che56]

SubAstris wrote...

Master Che wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Master Che wrote...

It's not a mechanic.  It's a twist to the story. 

In dramatic irony, the reader knows what's going on but the character doesn't.  That removes you from the character.  this is a role playing game.

the kind of irony (can't recall the name) here is the kind like you experience when you see the 6th sense for the first time; neither YOU nor BRUCE WILLS knows that he's a ghost.  A total WTF moment for both you, the audience, and the character.

I haven't actually seen that movie, but I assume that once it is revealed, it is clear that all those things which didn't really make sense before suddenly made sense, yes? Now, that didn't happen in ME, people were completely confused by the ending, and it is certainly not due to people being less intelligent. It is due to BW's incompotence, assuming IT, on the matter and that is why it failed. Instead people had to resort to forums and youtube vids to establish the "truth", a good ending does not do that.

Did you see fight club?

DAMN! Sorry to ruin the movie, but when you find out then you start going through all of the *signs* from throughout the movie that tie it together.  In the beginning, you think him and his wife were just not talking to each other and that she was pissed at him. She was actually in mourning! She can't see dead people like Halley Joel Osmit or however you spell it.

Check it out


The only difference with ME is that there's no big reveal ... yet.  They either planned on letting people mull it over before releasing stuff later OR they just wanted it to be coffee talk.  That could have been a mistake in retrospect on their end.  It doesn't invalidate the theory, though.  It just argues that it wasn't rolled out correctly.

Yes because EA love p***ing off their loyal fanbase when they could have easily released the "gotcha!" moment at the ending. Why EA would ever pursue such sales tactic is beyond me...they could have made a killing by selling DLC and giving fans a complete ending, it would have made happy customers. Now they have to back peddle and concede; why would EA take the risk? Furthermore, as time goes on, the less likely it is that IT is right; it really needs a quick reveal to work.

Maybe they didn't think you would be pissed?  they probably were trying something new.  Something never done in videogames before.  Innovation.


Did it work? Only time will tell...we'll have to see when the DLC comes out.

[SubAstris]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

if the dreams were signs of indoctrination, the signs would not disappear upon waking. He can't be being indoctrinated, then not, then being indoctrinated, etc. It would be continuous. Which is why people just give in.

This is even in the very definition of Indoctrination. You need prolonged exposure before you start feeling its effects. Benezia and Rana repeat this to you in ME1.

It's the part of the definition that theorists overlook.

And Shepard didn't have prolonged exposure to Reaper tech?

Contact with Soverign.
Contact with the derelict reaper in ME2. 
Contact with the proto reaper in ME2. 
Two days exposure to Object Rho in Arrival DLC. 
EDI is part reaper tech.  (maybe not enough for Indoc, I don't know)
Contact with Reapers throughout ME2.  Ronnoch, The planet where you find the Rachni is full of Reaper tech)

How much exposure does it take?  I don't know.  They don't give exact figures as to how long.  But Shepard has seen a fair amount of it.  At least enough for it to be a possibility in my opinion. 

Admittedly, these are all for short times (except for Arrival), but regardless there is actually little narrative evidence for Shephard's indoctrination. Remember also that he knows the threats of indoctrination better than most people

[jijeebo]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

if the dreams were signs of indoctrination, the signs would not disappear upon waking. He can't be being indoctrinated, then not, then being indoctrinated, etc. It would be continuous. Which is why people just give in.

This is even in the very definition of Indoctrination. You need prolonged exposure before you start feeling its effects. Benezia and Rana repeat this to you in ME1.

It's the part of the definition that theorists overlook.

And Shepard didn't have prolonged exposure to Reaper tech?

Contact with Soverign.
Contact with the derelict reaper in ME2. 
Contact with the proto reaper in ME2. 
Two days exposure to Object Rho in Arrival DLC. 
EDI is part reaper tech.  (maybe not enough for Indoc, I don't know)
Contact with Reapers throughout ME2.  Ronnoch, The planet where you find the Rachni is full of Reaper tech)

How much exposure does it take?  I don't know.  They don't give exact figures as to how long.  But Shepard has seen a fair amount of it.  At least enough for it to be a possibility in my opinion. 

I think I read at some point that you CAN get indoctrinated hella fast with litle exposure, but you will degenerate rapidly as a result of the more aggressive approach.

[Tirian Thorn]

SubAstris wrote...

What a masterclass in overanalysis!

Please, enlighten us all oh most wise and all-knowing SubAstris.  You seem to have the "correct" answers and the rest of us IT supporters are just too stupid to figure it out. 

All I've seen you do so far is point at what people are saying and basically say "well, that's dumb."  Yet you offer nothing of value to the discussion. 

[rachellouise]

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

if the dreams were signs of indoctrination, the signs would not disappear upon waking. He can't be being indoctrinated, then not, then being indoctrinated, etc. It would be continuous. Which is why people just give in.

This is even in the very definition of Indoctrination. You need prolonged exposure before you start feeling its effects. Benezia and Rana repeat this to you in ME1.

It's the part of the definition that theorists overlook.

Rana herself is proof tha indoctrination is accumalative and can lay doramant.

http://masseffect.wi.../Rana_Thanoptis 

O.o  I don't get how this shows indoctrination is not continuous. Rana was already indoctrinated, when she heard the voices.
Plus there are a load of datapads, and accounts etc. saying there is no peace. 

Modifié par rachellouise, 13 avril 2012 - 08:01 .

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

the 1M1 signs are not reversed. They are inverted because the structure it's printed on is upside down. If you look at a couple that aren't the 1M1 are not reversed.

Also, if he were dreaming, everything would be in slow motion all the way to the end.

Unless you're going to suggest that indoctrination dreams allow this, even though we've yet to see anyone experience this in the games before.

The way I see it is it's a multi layer inception type thing, The first part right after Harby's beam, you have to be subtle, is he moving slow because he's hurt? Well then why are all the enemies in slow motion to?

In the second layer, we use his memories and thoughts against him to make him feel a certain way. The collector ship reference, The shadow broker ship reference. and in the TIM and Anderson scene it looks like business as usual on the arms, car lights moving in an orderly fashion and what not.

The final layer, you are "plugged in" to Harbingers mainframe, he tries to manipulate you to use the crucble in the way he sees fit.

What a masterclass in overanalysis! speculation!  

Fixed that for ya.

[SubAstris]

Master Che wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Master Che wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Master Che wrote...

It's not a mechanic.  It's a twist to the story. 

In dramatic irony, the reader knows what's going on but the character doesn't.  That removes you from the character.  this is a role playing game.

the kind of irony (can't recall the name) here is the kind like you experience when you see the 6th sense for the first time; neither YOU nor BRUCE WILLS knows that he's a ghost.  A total WTF moment for both you, the audience, and the character.

I haven't actually seen that movie, but I assume that once it is revealed, it is clear that all those things which didn't really make sense before suddenly made sense, yes? Now, that didn't happen in ME, people were completely confused by the ending, and it is certainly not due to people being less intelligent. It is due to BW's incompotence, assuming IT, on the matter and that is why it failed. Instead people had to resort to forums and youtube vids to establish the "truth", a good ending does not do that.

Did you see fight club?

DAMN! Sorry to ruin the movie, but when you find out then you start going through all of the *signs* from throughout the movie that tie it together.  In the beginning, you think him and his wife were just not talking to each other and that she was pissed at him. She was actually in mourning! She can't see dead people like Halley Joel Osmit or however you spell it.

Check it out


The only difference with ME is that there's no big reveal ... yet.  They either planned on letting people mull it over before releasing stuff later OR they just wanted it to be coffee talk.  That could have been a mistake in retrospect on their end.  It doesn't invalidate the theory, though.  It just argues that it wasn't rolled out correctly.

Yes because EA love p***ing off their loyal fanbase when they could have easily released the "gotcha!" moment at the ending. Why EA would ever pursue such sales tactic is beyond me...they could have made a killing by selling DLC and giving fans a complete ending, it would have made happy customers. Now they have to back peddle and concede; why would EA take the risk? Furthermore, as time goes on, the less likely it is that IT is right; it really needs a quick reveal to work.

Maybe they didn't think you would be pissed?  they probably were trying something new.  Something never done in videogames before.  Innovation.


Did it work? Only time will tell...we'll have to see when the DLC comes out.

Yes because EA, the company who bought you games such as the ever creative FIFA series, just love innovation. No, they love the money!

[KevShep]

SubAstris wrote...


Admittedly, these are all for short times (except for Arrival), but regardless there is actually little narrative evidence for Shephard's indoctrination. Remember also that he knows the threats of indoctrination better than most people

How do you know this? ITs clear that this is I.T. with things like the dreams and shepards voice along side the catalyst's voice.

[EpyonX3]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

the 1M1 signs are not reversed. They are inverted because the structure it's printed on is upside down. If you look at a couple that aren't the 1M1 are not reversed.

Also, if he were dreaming, everything would be in slow motion all the way to the end.

Unless you're going to suggest that indoctrination dreams allow this, even though we've yet to see anyone experience this in the games before.

No it wouldn't.
You don't notice being indoctrinated, do you?

This is looking like a troll attempt at this point. I'd put up some pics but I'd rather just end it here.

That's a valid point - you don't notice being indoctrinated.  It's subtle, devious, etc. 

And just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll.    estebanus has been involved in discussions on this forum. 

The problem is that what I said before contradicts it being a dream. If everything in a dream is reversed, why are some things reversed and some aren't? Why do you walk in slow motion in one scene but normally in the next all the way to the finish?

You can't have the rules of the dream changed up randomly just to satisfy a theory. This makes the story even less comprehensive.

[NM_Che56]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

if the dreams were signs of indoctrination, the signs would not disappear upon waking. He can't be being indoctrinated, then not, then being indoctrinated, etc. It would be continuous. Which is why people just give in.

This is even in the very definition of Indoctrination. You need prolonged exposure before you start feeling its effects. Benezia and Rana repeat this to you in ME1.

It's the part of the definition that theorists overlook.

And Shepard didn't have prolonged exposure to Reaper tech?

Contact with Soverign.
Contact with the derelict reaper in ME2. 
Contact with the proto reaper in ME2. 
Two days exposure to Object Rho in Arrival DLC. 
EDI is part reaper tech.  (maybe not enough for Indoc, I don't know)
Contact with Reapers throughout ME2.  Ronnoch, The planet where you find the Rachni is full of Reaper tech)

How much exposure does it take?  I don't know.  They don't give exact figures as to how long.  But Shepard has seen a fair amount of it.  At least enough for it to be a possibility in my opinion. 

I know the War Asset tally differs based on whether or not you did the Arrival.  If you didn't then the Alliance loses war assets because it went in to rescue the doctor.  In the process, the marines destroyed the relay.

HOWEVER! Mass Effect: Conviction seems to belie the argument that object rho isn't a factor because of this alternative.  Why? Here's a description of the comic:


Days after the events of Arrival, the galaxy is in turmoil over Commander Shepard's actions. While the Citadel Council denounces the Commander and Councilor Udina deflects blame from the Systems Alliance, the Batarian Hegemony calls for retribution for the apparent terrorist acts.

So you didn't do the "bridge" from ME 2 to 3 so it won't make sense.  This is the direction they're going with it.  SO, we have to conclude that he was, in fact, given a heavy dose of Reaper and thus it eliminate the "well, what if you brought Garrus with you in all of the other missions and didn't do Arrival"?

[Tirian Thorn]

SubAstris wrote...

Admittedly, these are all for short times (except for Arrival), but regardless there is actually little narrative evidence for Shephard's indoctrination. Remember also that he knows the threats of indoctrination better than most people

But can one prepare themselves to resist Indoctrination?  It's not like there's a litmus test for it. 

You can't press your thumb on a pad and it detects just how much exposure you have - like radiation. 

[Tirian Thorn]

I think EVERYONE should be baned from using words like:

Clear
Fact
Certain
etc

when discussing Indoctrination Theory - for or against.

Modifié par Tirian Thorn, 13 avril 2012 - 08:05 .

[NM_Che56]

SubAstris wrote...

Yes because EA, the company who bought you games such as the ever creative FIFA series, just love innovation. No, they love the money!

Ad hominem.  Show me a for profit company that doesn't like money.

They bought Bioware because of what it brings to the table.  If you can't do it, buy someone who can.  That's how it works.

In the industry I work in, if a smaller competitor offers something you don't have the ability to do, then you buy them.

Modifié par Master Che, 13 avril 2012 - 08:04 .

[rachellouise]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

if the dreams were signs of indoctrination, the signs would not disappear upon waking. He can't be being indoctrinated, then not, then being indoctrinated, etc. It would be continuous. Which is why people just give in.

This is even in the very definition of Indoctrination. You need prolonged exposure before you start feeling its effects. Benezia and Rana repeat this to you in ME1.

It's the part of the definition that theorists overlook.

And Shepard didn't have prolonged exposure to Reaper tech?

Contact with Soverign.
Contact with the derelict reaper in ME2. 
Contact with the proto reaper in ME2. 
Two days exposure to Object Rho in Arrival DLC. 
EDI is part reaper tech.  (maybe not enough for Indoc, I don't know)
Contact with Reapers throughout ME2.  Ronnoch, The planet where you find the Rachni is full of Reaper tech)

How much exposure does it take?  I don't know.  They don't give exact figures as to how long.  But Shepard has seen a fair amount of it.  At least enough for it to be a possibility in my opinion. 

Not talking about exposure to reaper tech. Talking about signs of indoctrination. Different.

[balance5050]

rachellouise wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

if the dreams were signs of indoctrination, the signs would not disappear upon waking. He can't be being indoctrinated, then not, then being indoctrinated, etc. It would be continuous. Which is why people just give in.

This is even in the very definition of Indoctrination. You need prolonged exposure before you start feeling its effects. Benezia and Rana repeat this to you in ME1.

It's the part of the definition that theorists overlook.

Rana herself is proof tha indoctrination is accumalative and can lay doramant.

http://masseffect.wi.../Rana_Thanoptis 

O.o  I don't get how this shows indoctrination is not continuous. Rana was already indoctrinated, when she heard the voices.

So, you're saying that she was indoctrinated while she was trying  to help Okeer make stronger Krogans.

[SubAstris]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

What a masterclass in overanalysis!

Please, enlighten us all oh most wise and all-knowing SubAstris.  You seem to have the "correct" answers and the rest of us IT supporters are just too stupid to figure it out. 

All I've seen you do so far is point at what people are saying and basically say "well, that's dumb."  Yet you offer nothing of value to the discussion. 

Yes, because all I have done is attack people on their intelligence... they are stupid so they believe in indoctrination....

I actually find IT interesting, just I don't personally believe it has enough evidence going for it and each piece of evidence can be explained without IT with fewer and less shaky assumptions. I don't think indoc. theorists are necessarily stupid, just wrong.

[NM_Che56]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I think everyone should be baned from using words like:

Clear
Fact
Certain
etc

when discussing Indoctrination Theory - for or against.

Add obvious and Over-Analyzing to that too, please.

[NM_Che56]

SubAstris wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

What a masterclass in overanalysis!

Please, enlighten us all oh most wise and all-knowing SubAstris.  You seem to have the "correct" answers and the rest of us IT supporters are just too stupid to figure it out. 

All I've seen you do so far is point at what people are saying and basically say "well, that's dumb."  Yet you offer nothing of value to the discussion. 

Yes, because all I have done is attack people on their intelligence... they are stupid so they believe in indoctrination....

I actually find IT interesting, just I don't personally believe it has enough evidence going for it and each piece of evidence can be explained without IT with fewer and less shaky assumptions. I don't think indoc. theorists are necessarily stupid, just wrong.

Please explain.  I mean no sarcasm.  That's why I made the thread.  Tell us your doubts. If you make good and compelling arguments then let them stand.

Modifié par Master Che, 13 avril 2012 - 08:06 .

[Tirian Thorn]

rachellouise wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

if the dreams were signs of indoctrination, the signs would not disappear upon waking. He can't be being indoctrinated, then not, then being indoctrinated, etc. It would be continuous. Which is why people just give in.

This is even in the very definition of Indoctrination. You need prolonged exposure before you start feeling its effects. Benezia and Rana repeat this to you in ME1.

It's the part of the definition that theorists overlook.

And Shepard didn't have prolonged exposure to Reaper tech?

Contact with Soverign.
Contact with the derelict reaper in ME2. 
Contact with the proto reaper in ME2. 
Two days exposure to Object Rho in Arrival DLC. 
EDI is part reaper tech.  (maybe not enough for Indoc, I don't know)
Contact with Reapers throughout ME2.  Ronnoch, The planet where you find the Rachni is full of Reaper tech)

How much exposure does it take?  I don't know.  They don't give exact figures as to how long.  But Shepard has seen a fair amount of it.  At least enough for it to be a possibility in my opinion. 

Not talking about exposure to reaper tech. Talking about signs of indoctrination. Different.

The only way to be indoctrinated is exposure to Reaper tech. 

EVERYONE in the series that is exposed to reaper tech goes through indoctrination.

I cite  - The Derelict Reaper and Object Rho as examples.  Everyone single person exposed to those were lost to indoctrination. 

[SubAstris]

KevShep wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


Admittedly, these are all for short times (except for Arrival), but regardless there is actually little narrative evidence for Shephard's indoctrination. Remember also that he knows the threats of indoctrination better than most people

How do you know this? ITs clear that this is I.T. with things like the dreams and shepards voice along side the catalyst's voice.

What exactly do the dreams show except for Shephard's guilt? They make perfect sense without resorting to IT

[Tirian Thorn]

SubAstris wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

What a masterclass in overanalysis!

Please, enlighten us all oh most wise and all-knowing SubAstris.  You seem to have the "correct" answers and the rest of us IT supporters are just too stupid to figure it out. 

All I've seen you do so far is point at what people are saying and basically say "well, that's dumb."  Yet you offer nothing of value to the discussion. 

Yes, because all I have done is attack people on their intelligence... they are stupid so they believe in indoctrination....

I actually find IT interesting, just I don't personally believe it has enough evidence going for it and each piece of evidence can be explained without IT with fewer and less shaky assumptions. I don't think indoc. theorists are necessarily stupid, just wrong.

You did have a good point after I called you "all-knowing"   

[secretagentbw]

TheTrueObelus wrote...


You pick destroy and escape being indoctrinated and wake up (because you have enough war assets). But that means you didn't actually witness the end of the game...you still have to defeat the Reapers. So this would also mean they gave us a totally unfinished game. This is beyond lame.

That is my problem!!! I picked the 'destroy' ending and got the cutscene where Shepard wakes up or whatever. But if the whole Citadel part was a hallucination/indoctrination attempt doesn't that mean that you still have to go up to the Citadel and defeat the Reapers??? So in fact the game isn't really over? Also I still don't understand how the whole Normandy crash scene fits into any of this, indoctrination or no...

[KevShep]

SubAstris wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

What a masterclass in overanalysis!

Please, enlighten us all oh most wise and all-knowing SubAstris.  You seem to have the "correct" answers and the rest of us IT supporters are just too stupid to figure it out. 

All I've seen you do so far is point at what people are saying and basically say "well, that's dumb."  Yet you offer nothing of value to the discussion. 

Yes, because all I have done is attack people on their intelligence... they are stupid so they believe in indoctrination....

I actually find IT interesting, just I don't personally believe it has enough evidence going for it and each piece of evidence can be explained without IT with fewer and less shaky assumptions. I don't think indoc. theorists are necessarily stupid, just wrong.

I think the biggest evidence (and the most strong point to IT) is shepards voice mimicking the catalyst's voice at the end. Why would Bioware do this if he/she is not indoctrinated?