230 réponses à ce sujet

[BatmanTurian]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Honestly, you've been just as passive-aggressive, to the point of saying I am calling those who disagree mentally challenged

So you think that "mentally disadvantaged" is not an accurate summany of  "out of their minds in denial.", "you have to do mental gymnastics to ignore it" and "people don't think that deeply about things" Fair enough, withdrawn.

I'd love to discuss the detail of each of the assertions that Indoctrination "Theory" relies on as mostly they are examples of comfirmation bias and/or begging the question, but this isn't the thread for it.

Then let's just agree to disagree and cease to be uncivil.

[dreman9999]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Honestly, you've been just as passive-aggressive, to the point of saying I am calling those who disagree mentally challenged

So you think that "mentally disadvantaged" is not an accurate summany of  "out of their minds in denial.", "you have to do mental gymnastics to ignore it" and "people don't think that deeply about things" Fair enough, withdrawn.

I'd love to discuss the detail of each of the assertions that Indoctrination "Theory" relies on as mostly they are examples of comfirmation bias and/or begging the question, but this isn't the thread for it.

Then let's just agree to disagree and cease to be uncivil.

But way don't you understand your dealing with a race of machines with a history of deception?

[DJBare]

Jayleia wrote...
Though, I must admit, the idea of being headfaked like that is...a bit annoying, but if they pull it off, it'll be BLEEPING awesome.

See, I like the idea of being headfaked, though I much prefer it if the clues are not too obvious, the movie 6th sense did this well with very very subtle clues, I admit to not picking up on the biggest clue "I see dead people"; but that only made the ending more enjoyable for me.
About the only downside to IT for me personally, if it turns out to be the case I'm going to be slightly deflated because of all this speculation, I'm not saying the speculation is a bad thing, but each of us will play EC with certain expectations that are hard to avoid.

Modifié par DJBare, 30 avril 2012 - 04:34 .

[BatmanTurian]

dreman9999 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Mobius-Silent wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Honestly, you've been just as passive-aggressive, to the point of saying I am calling those who disagree mentally challenged

So you think that "mentally disadvantaged" is not an accurate summany of  "out of their minds in denial.", "you have to do mental gymnastics to ignore it" and "people don't think that deeply about things" Fair enough, withdrawn.

I'd love to discuss the detail of each of the assertions that Indoctrination "Theory" relies on as mostly they are examples of comfirmation bias and/or begging the question, but this isn't the thread for it.

Then let's just agree to disagree and cease to be uncivil.

But way don't you understand your dealing with a race of machines with a history of deception?

You must be talking to Mobius. Lost cause, my friend.

[Mobius-Silent]

dreman9999 wrote...
A race of machines with a history of deception?

A race of organic-machine hybrids, supposedly controlled by something we have minimal information about, to be precise. But yes that is true, however that does not lend weight to any specific hypothesis 

The Reapers deceive: this is true. It lends no credance to the specific hypothesis that Shepard is indoctrinated post-Harbinger weapon and that the events protrayed are entirely mental in nature.

If I.T. is "true and intended" then this fact does not contradict it, that is all that can be said about it in this instance

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 30 avril 2012 - 05:01 .

[Edorian27]

Another thought on IT: If I were Bioware Programmer and want to achieve the following:

- Actually let Shep get indoctrinated, without the player recognizing it instantly
- Giving a lot of people the chance to think about it by themselves, try to figure it out, get it.. 
- Not anger my customers who don't get it forever

what would I do?

-They can't plant "proof" into the game, just strong hints. If there was proof, people would see it and it would "rob" others the chance to figure out by themselves or make a wrong decision in the final scene.-
-They can't confirm or deny the theory right out front, cause it would "rob" peolpe who just recently bought the game the chance to think and figure out.
-So they have to stay silent and vague. To those who need closure they promise a free DLC in the near future, but they can't rewrite everything because the theory should be the climax of the whole series.

So, isn't BW doing all this? Seems perfectly logical to me.

[dreman9999]

Edorian27 wrote...

Another thought on IT: If I were Bioware Programmer and want to achieve the following:

- Actually let Shep get indoctrinated, without the player recognizing it instantly
- Giving a lot of people the chance to think about it by themselves, try to figure it out, get it.. 
- Not anger my customers who don't get it forever

what would I do?

-They can't plant "proof" into the game, just strong hints. If there was proof, people would see it and it would "rob" others the chance to figure out by themselves or make a wrong decision in the final scene.-
-They can't confirm or deny the theory right out front, cause it would "rob" peolpe who just recently bought the game the chance to think and figure out.
-So they have to stay silent and vague. To those who need closure they promise a free DLC in the near future, but they can't rewrite everything because the theory should be the climax of the whole series.

So, isn't BW doing all this? Seems perfectly logical to me.

Indoctrination is subtle. If there signs, and  there are, we would not note it to be  signs of indoctrination at the time...Based on IT the dreams are signs of indoctination.

[dreman9999]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
A race of machines with a history of deception?

A race of organic-machine hybrids, supposedly controlled by something we have minimal information about, to be precise. But yes that is true, however that does not lend weight to any specific hypothesis 

The Reapers deceive: this is true. It lends no credance to the specific hypothesis that Shepard is indoctrinated post-Harbinger weapon and that the events protrayed are entirely mental in nature.

If I.T. is "true and intended" then this fact does not contradict it, that is all that can be said about it in this instance

But the reaper are capible of it and it's cause by high ammout of contact with reapers and reaper tech fo rone to be indoctrinated....
Shepard has been near reaper tech since eden prime in ME1....That mean he has been exposed to 3 years of on and off contacted with indoctrination waves. Added to that every thing on arriaval. Saren was also indoctrinated through on and off contact with reaper tech over years....
You have to note that the reapers have a chance to do so.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 mai 2012 - 10:56 .

[XXIceColdXX]

Good read OP, I agree with you and am hopeful the EC be promising.

[RukiaKuchki]

Really thorough, interesting opening post. This is the kind of discussion these forums should be for - not the silly name calling and arguing!!! Thanks for that! To be honest, I really don't know what was happening in those 10 or so minutes...but if the ending is literal or IT, I'll still be pretty content. Just a couple of IT questions though that maybe some folk here can answer...

1) How was Shepherd indoctrinated? Don't you have to be near some kind of Reaper technology for it to happen? If this is the case, then why were none of his squad mates affected? Or were they effected too and we don't know it? Or...do the Reapers only need to sow some little seed in your mind?

2) When did the indoctrination really begin? Was it when he was in proximity to Harbinger, or way before then (really relates to the 'how' in question 1)? The thing about the little boy...I see him as purely a symbol of Shepherd's guilt for the people he has been unable to save. The Catalyst takes his form because he should be a sympathetic image that he will listen to. I think the boy is a bit cack-handed really, and he didn't invoke the reaction in me that I think the writer's intended. I think if the Catalyst was real, then Shepherd's dead squadmates would have made for more sympathetic (and interesting) avatars.

3) Why is is that when you have a very low EMS, you only get the destroy option (if you decided to destroy the Collector homeworld)? If destroy was the decision they didn't want you to make, why would they only give you this one? I know that the outcome from this is bad - Earth is destroyed and Shepherd dies...but this point is the one that provides my niggles of doubt for the IT.

[dreman9999]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

Really thorough, interesting opening post. This is the kind of discussion these forums should be for - not the silly name calling and arguing!!! Thanks for that! To be honest, I really don't know what was happening in those 10 or so minutes...but if the ending is literal or IT, I'll still be pretty content. Just a couple of IT questions though that maybe some folk here can answer...

1) How was Shepherd indoctrinated? Don't you have to be near some kind of Reaper technology for it to happen? If this is the case, then why were none of his squad mates affected? Or were they effected too and we don't know it? Or...do the Reapers only need to sow some little seed in your mind?

2) When did the indoctrination really begin? Was it when he was in proximity to Harbinger, or way before then (really relates to the 'how' in question 1)? The thing about the little boy...I see him as purely a symbol of Shepherd's guilt for the people he has been unable to save. The Catalyst takes his form because he should be a sympathetic image that he will listen to. I think the boy is a bit cack-handed really, and he didn't invoke the reaction in me that I think the writer's intended. I think if the Catalyst was real, then Shepherd's dead squadmates would have made for more sympathetic (and interesting) avatars.

3) Why is is that when you have a very low EMS, you only get the destroy option (if you decided to destroy the Collector homeworld)? If destroy was the decision they didn't want you to make, why would they only give you this one? I know that the outcome from this is bad - Earth is destroyed and Shepherd dies...but this point is the one that provides my niggles of doubt for the IT.

1. He has 3 years worth of on and off contacted, plus reaperagents and husk give off indoctrination waves. This mean Shepard has been in indoctrination waves since eden prime in ME1...

2. Theindoctrination hasn't really begin...He still in the process of it. The reapers are trying to indoctrinate shepard.

3.With, ems it's a quetion of time that deturmins what way the reapers try to indoctrinate you. At low ems he star kidis nice and tries to talk you into Synthesis. At low ems, he is meaner  and doesn't  bother with is"Together wecan make it happen speech". The reason why is that the reapers don't need to trick you into indoctrination, they have the time to force it on Shepard because they have more time to do so be the allied force have a smaller fleet and can't sparet he ships to attack harbinger as quickly. High ems can spareships and thus mean Harbingr has less time to finish indoctrinating Shepard.

[RukiaKuchki]

@dremmen9999 Thanks. It'll be interesting to see if the DLC answers all our questions!

[Edorian27]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

Really thorough, interesting opening post. This is the kind of discussion these forums should be for - not the silly name calling and arguing!!! Thanks for that! To be honest, I really don't know what was happening in those 10 or so minutes...but if the ending is literal or IT, I'll still be pretty content. Just a couple of IT questions though that maybe some folk here can answer...

1) How was Shepherd indoctrinated? Don't you have to be near some kind of Reaper technology for it to happen? If this is the case, then why were none of his squad mates affected? Or were they effected too and we don't know it? Or...do the Reapers only need to sow some little seed in your mind?

2) When did the indoctrination really begin? Was it when he was in proximity to Harbinger, or way before then (really relates to the 'how' in question 1)? The thing about the little boy...I see him as purely a symbol of Shepherd's guilt for the people he has been unable to save. The Catalyst takes his form because he should be a sympathetic image that he will listen to. I think the boy is a bit cack-handed really, and he didn't invoke the reaction in me that I think the writer's intended. I think if the Catalyst was real, then Shepherd's dead squadmates would have made for more sympathetic (and interesting) avatars.

3) Why is is that when you have a very low EMS, you only get the destroy option (if you decided to destroy the Collector homeworld)? If destroy was the decision they didn't want you to make, why would they only give you this one? I know that the outcome from this is bad - Earth is destroyed and Shepherd dies...but this point is the one that provides my niggles of doubt for the IT.

1) Don't really know. I think the fact that Shep has contact with reapers throughout the whole series is enough for me.  I couldn't see any sign of indoctrination on the companions. The question is indeed interesting. A theory for that: Shep is nearing the crucible and cannot be stopped by regular means by the reapers, so they throw in the final attempt to stop him that way. So the companions are not involved.

2) This is difficult as well. The vision seem to point at it that shep is in the process of being indoctrinated beginning ME3, but I don't understand the prothean beacons then ("Indoctrinated presence detected"). Either they can only detect people who are fully indoctrinated and not people in the process, or Sheps Indoc actually starts at the end of ME3.

3) Since it is in Sheps mind, I guess he/she can't imagine another outcome. He went down the right road in destroying the collector base, and his military force is too weak for him to belive in his strength to control or synthesis. So all he can do is going on the way he planned. A bit thin, I admit, but it works for me.

I have to admit though, the questions are good and I can't answer them without doubt. 

[Makrys]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

Really thorough, interesting opening post. This is the kind of discussion these forums should be for - not the silly name calling and arguing!!! Thanks for that! To be honest, I really don't know what was happening in those 10 or so minutes...but if the ending is literal or IT, I'll still be pretty content. Just a couple of IT questions though that maybe some folk here can answer...

1) How was Shepherd indoctrinated? Don't you have to be near some kind of Reaper technology for it to happen? If this is the case, then why were none of his squad mates affected? Or were they effected too and we don't know it? Or...do the Reapers only need to sow some little seed in your mind?

2) When did the indoctrination really begin? Was it when he was in proximity to Harbinger, or way before then (really relates to the 'how' in question 1)? The thing about the little boy...I see him as purely a symbol of Shepherd's guilt for the people he has been unable to save. The Catalyst takes his form because he should be a sympathetic image that he will listen to. I think the boy is a bit cack-handed really, and he didn't invoke the reaction in me that I think the writer's intended. I think if the Catalyst was real, then Shepherd's dead squadmates would have made for more sympathetic (and interesting) avatars.

3) Why is is that when you have a very low EMS, you only get the destroy option (if you decided to destroy the Collector homeworld)? If destroy was the decision they didn't want you to make, why would they only give you this one? I know that the outcome from this is bad - Earth is destroyed and Shepherd dies...but this point is the one that provides my niggles of doubt for the IT.

Very good questions, my friend! And thanks for taking the time to read and comment!

I'll attempt to answer them as best I can.

1. Shepard has been exposed to Reaper tech ever since ME1. Remember Sovereign? Shepard spoke to him. Saren? In the codex it says the Reapers can use indoctrinated slaves (Saren) to 'boost' their signal. So, technically, through Saren Sovereign could have had an effect on Shepard as well. Same can be said of TIM. Also, Shepard has been fighting indoctrinated agents throughout the entire series, ie. husks, collectors etc. And let's not forget Arrival, which may be the most direct hint at Shepard's indoctrination. Now, I think besides saving the galaxy from a back door Reaper invasion and having Shepard court martialed for wiping out the Batarians, there was an underlying theme of Arrival. To be honest, I think Bioware directly used it as a 'hint' towards Shepard being indoctrinated. NOTE: for anyone who did not play Arrival, this DOES NOT imply that you had to play that DLC in order to be indoctrinated, instead it could have just been an extra hint from Bioware for anyone who did play it. 

In Arrival, Shepard encounters a Reaper artifact. And not long after is 'knocked out' by it. The last thing he sees is an indoctrinated Kaylee Sanders (was that her name?) and troopers standing over him. Shepard was knocked out for 2 days. 2 days! By a Reaper artifact! And he had indoctrinated scientists all around him! That seems a little suspiscious to me. I mean who knows what happened to Shepard during those 2 days. Did the scientists do something to him? The artifact? Was his indoctrination strengthened? Personally, I don't necessarily believe anything plot conclusive happened, but instead it was just yet another hint that Shepard has indeed had much contact with Reaper artifacts/agents. So, it serves as a very strong hint towards the IT. Whether you played it or not, it doesn't decided whether Shepard is indoctrinated, but rather provides another slice of the argument for IT. This is of course speculation.

2. This is unknown. Anytime during the series really. It could have began during his conversation with Sovereign, his mission on the Reaper in ME2. There are lots of possibilities. No one knows yet. Assuming Bioware reveals that in the EC.

3. The common assumption is because your ems is so low, choosing destroy doesn't matter. No matter what you do Shepard cannot break free because he simply has no will (very low ems) and very little support. So essentially, it didn't matter what he picked. Its logical to think the Reapers just presented him with one option, that one option directly appealing to Shepard's beliefs. Because at this point it doesn't matter what he would choose, he most likely isn't waking up. And with a low ems, Shepard DOES NOT wake up. So it implies that Shepard has already lost... both his mind and the war. Controversial, but this is one way of looking at it. To be honest, I don't fully understand this aspect of the argument. And there are indeed a few aspects of the IT that don't make sense to me. But in the broad scheme, most of it does.

[Makrys]

Edorian27 wrote...

Another thought on IT: If I were Bioware Programmer and want to achieve the following:

- Actually let Shep get indoctrinated, without the player recognizing it instantly
- Giving a lot of people the chance to think about it by themselves, try to figure it out, get it.. 
- Not anger my customers who don't get it forever

what would I do?

-They can't plant "proof" into the game, just strong hints. If there was proof, people would see it and it would "rob" others the chance to figure out by themselves or make a wrong decision in the final scene.-
-They can't confirm or deny the theory right out front, cause it would "rob" peolpe who just recently bought the game the chance to think and figure out.
-So they have to stay silent and vague. To those who need closure they promise a free DLC in the near future, but they can't rewrite everything because the theory should be the climax of the whole series.

So, isn't BW doing all this? Seems perfectly logical to me.

Funny, this is exactly how I've always thought. Contrary to popular belief, their actions actually make sense to me if the IT is true. For all the reasons you stated. Their PR really makes sense. However, it could also swing the other way. But still, the whole 'leaving the end open for interpretation' seems to be the kicker. What is there to interpret about the endings without the IT? Without the IT, I don't see whats fascinating to discuss about the endings. "They're crap!"... "Yeah man, I agree."... Uh, discussion over. But the IT implies something deeper is going on and encourages fan discussion and insight into whether that is true or not. I personally believe Bioware would never screw their most beloved series over like this, so there simply must be answer. You can call that denial if you want. I call it logical thinking. They have no history of doing this, and it makes 0 sense to ruin your most famous franchise. Also, they've had the ending planned from the start. Its not like they wrote it at the last minute. The trilogy has been planned from the get go. Sure changes have been made, but I highly doubt a brilliant ending could have slowly morphed into what we got. Bioware can't really be that stupid as to think the endings are 'good'.

I think, based on comments they have said, that something big is coming. And as Gamble tweeted about the ending, "If fans knews what we had in store, the reaction would be different." Make of that what you will. Seems like the story isn't over yet, or atleast isn't fully fleshed out. Its possible their holding back a twist ending in order for as many people to play the game first.

We'll see.

[Bill Casey]

You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill, and you stay in wonderland. And I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

You take the green pill, and some other stuff from The Matrix happens.

Modifié par Bill Casey, 02 mai 2012 - 03:07 .

[liggy002]

Edorian27 wrote...

Another thought on IT: If I were Bioware Programmer and want to achieve the following:

- Actually let Shep get indoctrinated, without the player recognizing it instantly
- Giving a lot of people the chance to think about it by themselves, try to figure it out, get it.. 
- Not anger my customers who don't get it forever

what would I do?

-They can't plant "proof" into the game, just strong hints. If there was proof, people would see it and it would "rob" others the chance to figure out by themselves or make a wrong decision in the final scene.-
-They can't confirm or deny the theory right out front, cause it would "rob" peolpe who just recently bought the game the chance to think and figure out.
-So they have to stay silent and vague. To those who need closure they promise a free DLC in the near future, but they can't rewrite everything because the theory should be the climax of the whole series.

So, isn't BW doing all this? Seems perfectly logical to me.

These are my thoughts exactly.  It makes perfect sense.

[Makrys]

Bill Casey wrote...



You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill, and you stay in wonderland. And I show you how deep the rabbithole goes.

Actually, I'm pretty sure its switched around. Doesn't the red pill snap you out of it, and the blue further induce you? Also, good point. I believe it was Walters who referenced the Matrix when asked pre-release about ME3's ending. Liggy should get in here, because he knows more about that then I do.

EDIT: Ah! And you just came in! ^ 

Modifié par Makrys, 02 mai 2012 - 03:04 .

[liggy002]

Bill Casey wrote...



You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill, and you stay in wonderland. And I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Actually, scratch what I just said.

Modifié par liggy002, 02 mai 2012 - 03:07 .

[Bill Casey]

Makrys wrote...

Actually, I'm pretty sure its switched around. Doesn't the red pill snap you out of it, and the blue further induce you?

www.youtube.com/watch

[liggy002]

Makrys wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...



You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill, and you stay in wonderland. And I show you how deep the rabbithole goes.

Actually, I'm pretty sure its switched around. Doesn't the red pill snap you out of it, and the blue further induce you? Also, good point. I believe it was Walters who referenced the Matrix when asked pre-release about ME3's ending. Liggy should get in here, because he knows more about that then I do.

EDIT: Ah! And you just came in! ^^ haha

Yes, the blue pill will end Shepard's story.  He will never wake up from the dream.

The red pill that Neo takes will wake him up from the dreamworld of the Matrix.   Bioware will show us "how deep the rabbit hole goes." 

Modifié par liggy002, 02 mai 2012 - 03:05 .

[Makrys]

Bill Casey wrote...

Makrys wrote...

Actually, I'm pretty sure its switched around. Doesn't the red pill snap you out of it, and the blue further induce you?

www.youtube.com/watch

Ok, so you are right! Well, the colors might not mean anything. But the symbolism is still there, if Bioware intended it. One choice wakes you up, the other... nope.

[OdanUrr]

Hey, wasn't this originally called, "My fascination with IT" or something? That's cheating!

[Makrys]

liggy002 wrote...

Makrys wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...



You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill, and you stay in wonderland. And I show you how deep the rabbithole goes.

Actually, I'm pretty sure its switched around. Doesn't the red pill snap you out of it, and the blue further induce you? Also, good point. I believe it was Walters who referenced the Matrix when asked pre-release about ME3's ending. Liggy should get in here, because he knows more about that then I do.

EDIT: Ah! And you just came in! ^^ haha

Yes, the blue pill will end Shepard's story.  He will never wake up from the dream.

The red pill that Neo takes will wake him up from the dreamworld of the Matrix.   Bioware will show us "how deep the rabbit hole goes." 

Yeah, just different colors from the Matrix. Which could have been done on purpose so as not to draw a DIRECT COMPARISON. But the idea is still there if the IT is true. And I so hope you are right on this. If so, my Shepard is waking up!

[Jangocat]

Sorry, I know you put a lot of thought into this but I find IT reprehensible. Shepard has been an immovable, incorruptible rock the whole series and would do anything to get the job done. It was stated multiple times in all three games Shepard was the only one who could save the galaxy. I like to believe there was at least one person in the galaxy with an indomitable will to resist the Reapers and win the war.

Personally I'm hoping the ending turns out to be some vision or dream sequence, or Shepard gets some kind of second chance like when he died in ME2. In fiction there are endless possibilities, indoctrination would be the last thing I would want to see. It completely goes against the character they built up till the end of ME3.

Modifié par Jangocat, 02 mai 2012 - 03:13 .