190 réponses à ce sujet

[TSA_383]

JohnZ117 wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

I've seen the low EMS dialogue when you have no choice but Destroy and StarBrat is full of pissed off knowing you can only destroy them. Of course he is trying to push you to the green ending. That is his goal. He only tries to make Destroy and Control look bad.

This is what destroys the Indoctrination "theory."  If IT was valid, why would there ever be a point when we aren't given either of the "bad" options?

Because it doesn't matter. Your military isn't strong enough, they've already won.
The catalyst actually says
"The cruicible has changed me, created new possibilities, but I can't make them happen, and I won't"
It doesn't matter, because they don't need you.

Shallyah wrote...

You know, what people do when they want you to feel special so that you buy something?

"Psst, psst! I got this, just for you, because you're special!".

Exactly.

Pretty
sure they indoctrinated TIM by making him believe something like "No
human could control the Reapers. But you are special..."

Exactly. TIM certainly seems pretty sure about it...

Pelle6666 wrote...

You get it wrong.
The sole purpose
of the color choice at the end (according to IT) is to give the PLAYER
the illusion of choice. Shepard is already being indoctrinated and the
scene only takes place in his mind. By choosing destroy he then brakes
free of the reapers influence over his mind. It is the player that is
being "indoctrinated" by being made to choose synthesis or control.
So
what the catalyst tells you doesn't matter, he is already using loads
of circular logic and the lies are spreading very thin. We are after all
assuming that he is not telling us the truth.

Yes exactly.
We know that he lies because you can survive destroy (and wake up on earth, as you can hear if you boost up the game volume).
And also because the writers have said so on multiple occasions.

Seboist wrote...

The IT theory discredits itself right off
the bat just on the fallacy that the same hack writers who came up with
the plot of humans being slurpeed into creating a space terminator or a
deux ex machina plot device that makes the Triforce in Zelda look
brilliant* would actually even attempt to do something so subtle let
alone actually pull it off. It's fanboy desperation and self-delusion at
it's LOL funniest.

*And I've only scratched the surface of the ineptitude of the writers.

Uh huh.
Yeah, sounds like you're a fan of the series and understand what's going on

kaisterbahn wrote...

Peytl wrote...

Since IT is using circular logic, lying, or demagogy, you can't discuss with them anything.

You sound retarded even when using a thesaurus.

+1

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Its my understanding that those who believe the IT assume the Catalyst is lying.

Although
if you have to assume that the game is either wrong or lying to you in
order for your theory to work, then that should be a sign that something
is wrong with it.

Would you trust it if, say, it took the holographic form of some random Marauder?
How about Harbinger?
Why would you trust something that tells you it controls the reapers, and refers to itself and the reapers as "us"?
Does that not strike you as a touch.... indoctrinated?

[Candidate 88766]

bahamutomega wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Its my understanding that those who believe the IT assume the Catalyst is lying.

Although if you have to assume that the game is either wrong or lying to you in order for your theory to work, then that should be a sign that something is wrong with it.

it's not an assumption.  it is actually pretty logical reasoning, if you figure the Reapers are fighting for survival.  it is a mistrust of the Catalyst.  assumption is the mother of all **** ups.

to quote one of the greatest characters BioWare ever created...  "how does it trust someone it hasn't met before?"

did you honestly trust the Illusive Man the first time you met him in ME2?  did you really think he was simply going to turn the Collector Base over to the Alliance?  oh, wait, he keeps it for himself - not for humanity, for his own personal gain.

yeah.  go ahead and keep trusting the Catalyst.  i will not believe a word it says.  i'm just trying to remove its purpose for existence, destroy its "solution."  it's only trying to survive.  no reason to lie to me.  really.

The Catalyst was merely an avatar through which Bioware could deliver exposition to the player - a way to tell them the Reapers' motivation and how the Crucible works. It makes no sense to introduce a new character right at the end and to then have this character give false information to the player. From a storytelling point of view thats just awful.

Plus, even if you don't believe the Catalyst the IT still has to assume that this is wrong:


If you take the endings as what they are (a pretty logical thing to do), then Shepard has indeed ended the Reaper threat. If you believe the IT is true, then Shepard hasn't ended the Reaper threat. 

The game directly and explicitly tells that player that the Reaper threat has been ended, by Shepard. Not that Shepard will go on to end the Reaper threat in DLC, or that someone else went on to end the Reaper threat, but that in what you just played and saw Shepard ended the Reaper threat. Therefore, its logical to assume that the endings were real and the IT is just that - a theory.

[Candidate 88766]

TSA_383 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Its my understanding that those who believe the IT assume the Catalyst is lying.

Although
if you have to assume that the game is either wrong or lying to you in
order for your theory to work, then that should be a sign that something
is wrong with it.

Would you trust it if, say, it took the holographic form of some random Marauder?
How about Harbinger?
Why would you trust something that tells you it controls the reapers, and refers to itself and the reapers as "us"?
Does that not strike you as a touch.... indoctrinated?

The Catalyst is just an exposition-delivering avatar. If Bioware had made it in the shape of a known villain, like Harbinger, then obviously you would question what it says. By basing it on the child, to which we're meant to have an emotional attachment (I personally didn't, but maybe there are people who did) we take the logical stance of listening to what it tells us rather than questioning. 

Assuming that the Catalyst is lying is like asusming that Vigil is lying. We have no way to know that Vigil wasn't infected with geth or Reaper programming when Saren went past. You take what it says at face value because it makes sense to - its a way for Bioware to explain thing to the player. Its the same with the Catalyst - it wouldn't make sense for the Reapers' motivation to be explained by something unconnected with the Reapers.

[Hyperion II]

Starbrat is full of paradox. you shouldn't belive anything he's saying.

[vixvicco]

It doesn't matter. Don't try to argue with these people. If they want to believe their delusions, let them. The rest of us will be laughing at them when the DLC comes out, disproving their theories and all the effort they put into the IT will be for nothing.

[Hogge87]

Sweawm wrote...

This thread does not appreciate the "Artistic Integrity" of the Indoctrination Theory.

That argument is starting to get OLD.

[Pride Demon]

hoodaticus wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

You seriously have no idea what IT and overall Reaper Indoctrination is do you? Did you know that In IT, Shepard was never Indoctrinated?

Unless he picked Control/Synthesis or you're talking about DreamIT.

That's the biggest problem for me, you have too many offshots...
IT supporters have to get their act together and finally decide on a "canon" for IT.

How is people supposed to debate a theory when each and every supporter does his/her own thing?
If the points behind IT shift constantly from person A to person B to person C it's absolutely impossible to come up with a proper counter argument.
So far I've encountered no less than 3-4 versions of what IT should be in the mind of several people.
I say, just pick one, that's IT, the others are something else...

[TSA_383]

Pride Demon wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

You seriously have no idea what IT and overall Reaper Indoctrination is do you? Did you know that In IT, Shepard was never Indoctrinated?

Unless he picked Control/Synthesis or you're talking about DreamIT.

That's the biggest problem for me, you have too many offshots...
IT supporters have to get their act together and finally decide on a "canon" for IT.

How is people supposed to debate a theory when each and every supporter does his/her own thing?
If the points behind IT shift constantly from person A to person B to person C it's absolutely impossible to come up with a proper counter argument.
So far I've encountered no less than 3-4 versions of what IT should be in the mind of several people.
I say, just pick one, that's IT, the others are something else...

Consensus seems to be:
-The child never "existed", it was something shepard saw because the reapers wanted him to, that was their way to manipulate him. You watch the progress of shepard's defenses failing through the dreams, and before the Liara (arguably "canon") romance, there's a scene with Shepard looking at his helmet - "I think I heard it crack in that last fight". Exposition for dummies, it's his own mental defences starting to break down.
-Shepard never makes it to the beam in the ending we have, he is knocked out by Harbinger's laser, and given his physical and mental weakness at this point the reapers try to convince him to give up fighting. If you went towards the beam initially planning to do anything other than "destroy the reapers" you're probably in a very tiny minority, but a lot of people changed their mind due to the Catalyst.
-Given that you wake up only after choosing "Destroy" on high EMS, and that you wake up on earth, it's logical to conclude that since that was the path the child obviously didn't want you to take, then by defying it you are showing that you are strong enough to beat indoctrination. What happens next I guess we'll find out when the EC's out.

There's argument over a lot of other stuff, such as whether or not the Crucible was a reaper trap, whether any other major characters might be indoctrinated in some fashion (particularly Major Coates & Hackett) and lots of minor stuff.

http://social.biowar...index/12008953/
^The child never lies to you directly, that's the truly interesting thing. 
He gives you a bunch of statements, then leaves you to make big sweeping assumptions that ultimately lead you to do what he wants, whilst feeling like it was your own decision.
It's exactly the sort of thing Mark Walters, with his psychology degree and wanting to do something a bit different with ME3, would think of. In fact on the subject of Walters, he lists as inspirations "Brave New World" and "The Matrix" - two very famous stories based on control achieved through subconscious suggestion and manipulation.

[UrgentArchengel]

TSA_383 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

hoodaticus wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

You seriously have no idea what IT and overall Reaper Indoctrination is do you? Did you know that In IT, Shepard was never Indoctrinated?

Unless he picked Control/Synthesis or you're talking about DreamIT.

That's the biggest problem for me, you have too many offshots...
IT supporters have to get their act together and finally decide on a "canon" for IT.

How is people supposed to debate a theory when each and every supporter does his/her own thing?
If the points behind IT shift constantly from person A to person B to person C it's absolutely impossible to come up with a proper counter argument.
So far I've encountered no less than 3-4 versions of what IT should be in the mind of several people.
I say, just pick one, that's IT, the others are something else...

Consensus seems to be:
-The child never "existed", it was something shepard saw because the reapers wanted him to, that was their way to manipulate him. You watch the progress of shepard's defenses failing through the dreams, and before the Liara (arguably "canon") romance, there's a scene with Shepard looking at his helmet - "I think I heard it crack in that last fight". Exposition for dummies, it's his own mental defences starting to break down.
-Shepard never makes it to the beam in the ending we have, he is knocked out by Harbinger's laser, and given his physical and mental weakness at this point the reapers try to convince him to give up fighting. If you went towards the beam initially planning to do anything other than "destroy the reapers" you're probably in a very tiny minority, but a lot of people changed their mind due to the Catalyst.
-Given that you wake up only after choosing "Destroy" on high EMS, and that you wake up on earth, it's logical to conclude that since that was the path the child obviously didn't want you to take, then by defying it you are showing that you are strong enough to beat indoctrination. What happens next I guess we'll find out when the EC's out.

There's argument over a lot of other stuff, such as whether or not the Crucible was a reaper trap, whether any other major characters might be indoctrinated in some fashion (particularly Major Coates & Hackett) and lots of minor stuff.

http://social.biowar...index/12008953/
^The child never lies to you directly, that's the truly interesting thing. 
He gives you a bunch of statements, then leaves you to make big sweeping assumptions that ultimately lead you to do what he wants, whilst feeling like it was your own decision.
It's exactly the sort of thing Mark Walters, with his psychology degree and wanting to do something a bit different with ME3, would think of. In fact on the subject of Walters, he lists as inspirations "Brave New World" and "The Matrix" - two very famous stories based on control achieved through subconscious suggestion and manipulation.

[Pride Demon]

TSA_383 wrote...

Consensus seems to be:
-The child never "existed", it was something shepard saw because the reapers wanted him to, that was their way to manipulate him. You watch the progress of shepard's defenses failing through the dreams, and before the Liara (arguably "canon") romance, there's a scene with Shepard looking at his helmet - "I think I heard it crack in that last fight". Exposition for dummies, it's his own mental defences starting to break down.
-Shepard never makes it to the beam in the ending we have, he is knocked out by Harbinger's laser, and given his physical and mental weakness at this point the reapers try to convince him to give up fighting. If you went towards the beam initially planning to do anything other than "destroy the reapers" you're probably in a very tiny minority, but a lot of people changed their mind due to the Catalyst.
-Given that you wake up only after choosing "Destroy" on high EMS, and that you wake up on earth, it's logical to conclude that since that was the path the child obviously didn't want you to take, then by defying it you are showing that you are strong enough to beat indoctrination. What happens next I guess we'll find out when the EC's out.

There's argument over a lot of other stuff, such as whether or not the Crucible was a reaper trap, whether any other major characters might be indoctrinated in some fashion (particularly Major Coates & Hackett) and lots of minor stuff.

http://social.biowar...index/12008953/
^The child never lies to you directly, that's the truly interesting thing. 
He gives you a bunch of statements, then leaves you to make big sweeping assumptions that ultimately lead you to do what he wants, whilst feeling like it was your own decision.
It's exactly the sort of thing Mark Walters, with his psychology degree and wanting to do something a bit different with ME3, would think of. In fact on the subject of Walters, he lists as inspirations "Brave New World" and "The Matrix" - two very famous stories based on control achieved through subconscious suggestion and manipulation.

If that's the consensus, and indeed it's the closest thing to what I originally read in the IT thread, then you should warn all supporters that's the "canonical" IT, because I saw a lot of different versions, several with points contradicting each other...

A few claiming the final scene is not a dream but it's still an attempt to indoctrinate; another pointing out that if you chose blue/green you flat out lose; another says that instead, with blue/gree, you don't lose, but, when Shep wakes up it will be difficult for him/her to actually win, because he is more under reaper sway.
A few saying Shep was being indoctrinated since Arrival; others saying that, no, the reapers aren't trying to indoctrinate hin/her till the last sequence; others still say he/she is going through indoctrination the whole game but not before (these last ones usually bring up James "hear that hum?" line).

Then of course there's the "gradations of grey", those that mix match one point and another...

I find it all very confusing, and it makes it difficult to lead a proper discussion, so please make your best to clarify to your peers what you said is the only true IT...

Also, as a side note, I believe a developer tweet pointed out Shep is still on the Citadel when he/she survives in destroy, not on Earth... But maybe I remember wrong...

Modifié par Pride Demon, 12 mai 2012 - 12:30 .

[Peytl]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

bahamutomega wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Its my understanding that those who believe the IT assume the Catalyst is lying.

Although if you have to assume that the game is either wrong or lying to you in order for your theory to work, then that should be a sign that something is wrong with it.

it's not an assumption.  it is actually pretty logical reasoning, if you figure the Reapers are fighting for survival.  it is a mistrust of the Catalyst.  assumption is the mother of all **** ups.

to quote one of the greatest characters BioWare ever created...  "how does it trust someone it hasn't met before?"

did you honestly trust the Illusive Man the first time you met him in ME2?  did you really think he was simply going to turn the Collector Base over to the Alliance?  oh, wait, he keeps it for himself - not for humanity, for his own personal gain.

yeah.  go ahead and keep trusting the Catalyst.  i will not believe a word it says.  i'm just trying to remove its purpose for existence, destroy its "solution."  it's only trying to survive.  no reason to lie to me.  really.

The Catalyst was merely an avatar through which Bioware could deliver exposition to the player - a way to tell them the Reapers' motivation and how the Crucible works. It makes no sense to introduce a new character right at the end and to then have this character give false information to the player. From a storytelling point of view thats just awful.

Plus, even if you don't believe the Catalyst the IT still has to assume that this is wrong:


If you take the endings as what they are (a pretty logical thing to do), then Shepard has indeed ended the Reaper threat. If you believe the IT is true, then Shepard hasn't ended the Reaper threat. 

The game directly and explicitly tells that player that the Reaper threat has been ended, by Shepard. Not that Shepard will go on to end the Reaper threat in DLC, or that someone else went on to end the Reaper threat, but that in what you just played and saw Shepard ended the Reaper threat. Therefore, its logical to assume that the endings were real and the IT is just that - a theory.

This picture always makes me laugh at IT. But really, no evidence, even this, can't shake their fanatic belief.

[Sebby]

vixvicco wrote...

It doesn't matter. Don't try to argue with these people. If they want to believe their delusions, let them. The rest of us will be laughing at them when the DLC comes out, disproving their theories and all the effort they put into the IT will be for nothing.

It's still fun to verbally slap them around though. The IT "theorists" remind me of 9/11 "truther" whackjobs and Resident Evil fanboys who take the quickly slapped together schlock that passes for that series' "story" seriously.

I took a peak into their IT thread and i saw them desperately trying to find meaning in rocks in that Shepard lives destroy ending... just lol. That thread is a gold mine for mental health researchers.

[UKJackMan]

Anything so open to interpretation and speculation has no integrity.

[Silhouett3]

Peytl wrote...
This picture always makes me laugh at IT. But really, no evidence, even this, can't shake their fanatic belief. 

Don't jump to conclusions:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10973597/1

Modifié par Silhouett3, 12 mai 2012 - 12:41 .

[Jayleia]

Candidate 88766 wrote...


Plus, even if you don't believe the Catalyst the IT still has to assume that this is wrong:

Except that in 3 out of 3 possible endings (barring easter egg), Shepard is dead.  Continue building a legend?

Shepard's not pinin'! 'E's passed on!
This Shepard is no more! She has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet
'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If they hadn't tacked on an easter egg 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now
'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil,
run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS
AN EX-SHEPARD!!

You can't continue to build her legend!

[Elyiia]

Jayleia wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...


Plus, even if you don't believe the Catalyst the IT still has to assume that this is wrong:

Except that in 3 out of 3 possible endings (barring easter egg), Shepard is dead.  Continue building a legend?

Shepard's not pinin'! 'E's passed on!
This Shepard is no more! She has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet
'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If they hadn't tacked on an easter egg 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now
'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil,
run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS
AN EX-SHEPARD!!

You can't continue to build her legend!

Doing stuff before the endings is not building the legend of Shepard?

[stysiaq]

Jayleia wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...


Plus, even if you don't believe the Catalyst the IT still has to assume that this is wrong:

Except that in 3 out of 3 possible endings (barring easter egg), Shepard is dead.  Continue building a legend?

Shepard's not pinin'! 'E's passed on!
This Shepard is no more! She has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet
'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If they hadn't tacked on an easter egg 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now
'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil,
run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS
AN EX-SHEPARD!!

You can't continue to build her legend!

I guess I'll just replace it for you then, so you can continue to build that legend through further gameplay and downloadable content.

Modifié par stysiaq, 12 mai 2012 - 12:41 .

[TSA_383]

Pride Demon wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

Consensus seems to be:
-The child never "existed", it was something shepard saw because the reapers wanted him to, that was their way to manipulate him. You watch the progress of shepard's defenses failing through the dreams, and before the Liara (arguably "canon") romance, there's a scene with Shepard looking at his helmet - "I think I heard it crack in that last fight". Exposition for dummies, it's his own mental defences starting to break down.
-Shepard never makes it to the beam in the ending we have, he is knocked out by Harbinger's laser, and given his physical and mental weakness at this point the reapers try to convince him to give up fighting. If you went towards the beam initially planning to do anything other than "destroy the reapers" you're probably in a very tiny minority, but a lot of people changed their mind due to the Catalyst.
-Given that you wake up only after choosing "Destroy" on high EMS, and that you wake up on earth, it's logical to conclude that since that was the path the child obviously didn't want you to take, then by defying it you are showing that you are strong enough to beat indoctrination. What happens next I guess we'll find out when the EC's out.

There's argument over a lot of other stuff, such as whether or not the Crucible was a reaper trap, whether any other major characters might be indoctrinated in some fashion (particularly Major Coates & Hackett) and lots of minor stuff.

http://social.biowar...index/12008953/
^The child never lies to you directly, that's the truly interesting thing. 
He gives you a bunch of statements, then leaves you to make big sweeping assumptions that ultimately lead you to do what he wants, whilst feeling like it was your own decision.
It's exactly the sort of thing Mark Walters, with his psychology degree and wanting to do something a bit different with ME3, would think of. In fact on the subject of Walters, he lists as inspirations "Brave New World" and "The Matrix" - two very famous stories based on control achieved through subconscious suggestion and manipulation.

If that's the consensus, and indeed it's the closest thing to what I originally read in the IT thread, then you should warn all supporters that's the "canonical" IT, because I saw a lot of different versions, several with points contradicting each other...

A few claiming the final scene is not a dream but it's still an attempt to indoctrinate; another pointing out that if you chose blue/green you flat out lose; another says that instead, with blue/gree, you don't lose, but, when Shep wakes up it will be difficult for him/her to actually win, because he is more under reaper sway.
A few saying Shep was being indoctrinated since Arrival; others saying that, no, the reapers aren't trying to indoctrinate hin/her till the last sequence; others still say he/she is going through indoctrination the whole game but not before (these last ones usually bring up James "hear that hum?" line).

Then of course there's the "gradations of grey", those that mix match one point and another...

I find it all very confusing, and it makes it difficult to lead a proper discussion, so please make your best to clarify to your peers what you said is the only true IT...

Also, as a side note, I believe a developer tweet pointed out Shep is still on the Citadel when he/she survives in destroy, not on Earth... But maybe I remember wrong...

The tweet thing was from Merizan, but that was before she said she'd seen any part of the EC and she has since refused to confirm any of that stuff and made clear that what was said previously was speculation on her part as she was not at that point privy to any information.

The indoctrination process is a slow one - the general idea in the IT thread seems to be that since shep is already seeing the child, then he is already beginning to fail at this point, and given that Arrival was sold to us as a "bridging" DLC that would lead into the events of ME3, and that shep was knocked out by a reaper artefact and kept unconscious in close proximity to it for days, I think there's every reason to believe that could have been when it started.

As for what happens when you choose blue/green, frankly that's all wild speculation - it's safe to say that's not going to be the "good" ending, but we won't know more until EC.

[Sebby]

UKJackMan wrote...

Anything so open to interpretation and speculation has no integrity.

That's the thing, it ISN'T open to interpretation and speclution. The endings are the clear result of an ill-concieved deus ex machina plot.

To put it into perspective how horrible the crucible is I'm going to have to once again compare it to the triforce in Zelda.

Triforce: Early on the narrative establishes this as a magical object created by the gods that grants it's user whatever wish they want. Link has a clear understanding of it and knows why he shouldn't allow Ganon to have it.

Crucible: a Deux Ex Machina that shows up half hour into the third game of a trilogy without any foreshadowing, nobody has a clue what it does or if it'll even work, not a single civilization in countless cycles has ever been able to finish it but hey let's have our grand coaliton funnel all these critical resources to this great unknown that might be as useful against the Reapers as sacrificing babies in a Volcano.

Then there's a plot hole of Shepard needing to have the cipher in order to translate a simple Prothean warning but this super weapon data is easily deciphered like nothing and is ready to assemble and was never mentioned by Vigil?

Bad writing + bad plot device = bad ending.

It's simple.

[UrgentArchengel]

Seboist wrote...

vixvicco wrote...

It doesn't matter. Don't try to argue with these people. If they want to believe their delusions, let them. The rest of us will be laughing at them when the DLC comes out, disproving their theories and all the effort they put into the IT will be for nothing.

It's still fun to verbally slap them around though. The IT "theorists" remind me of 9/11 "truther" whackjobs and Resident Evil fanboys who take the quickly slapped together schlock that passes for that series' "story" seriously.

I took a peak into their IT thread and i saw them desperately trying to find meaning in rocks in that Shepard lives destroy ending... just lol. That thread is a gold mine for mental health researchers.

Wow, do you get off on treating other people like trash?  Either way, reported.

[TSA_383]

Seboist wrote...

UKJackMan wrote...

Anything so open to interpretation and speculation has no integrity.

That's the thing, it ISN'T open to interpretation and speclution. The endings are the clear result of an ill-concieved deus ex machina plot.

To put it into perspective how horrible the crucible is I'm going to have to once again compare it to the triforce in Zelda.

Triforce: Early on the narrative establishes this as a magical object created by the gods that grants it's user whatever wish they want. Link has a clear understanding of it and knows why he shouldn't allow Ganon to have it.

Crucible: a Deux Ex Machina that shows up half hour into the third game of a trilogy without any foreshadowing, nobody has a clue what it does or if it'll even work, not a single civilization in countless cycles has ever been able to finish it but hey let's have our grand coaliton funnel all these critical resources to this great unknown that might be as useful against the Reapers as sacrificing babies in a Volcano.

Then there's a plot hole of Shepard needing to have the cipher in order to translate a simple Prothean warning but this super weapon data is easily deciphered like nothing and is ready to assemble and was never mentioned by Vigil?

Bad writing + bad plot device = bad ending.

It's simple.

Uh huh.
Because bioware aren't smart enough, right?

Zombie Chow wrote...

Like many of you, I did not find the
current ending of Mass Effect 3 entirely satisfactory. You likely know
what I mean and you feel as I do, so I won't get into that.

I've
been looking at the Indoctrination Theory thread and the video at
, where the ending is
basically a hallucination the Reapers created in Shepard's mind to fool
him into just giving up. The train of thought and supporting evidence
makes a lot of sense to me, at least more than taking the ending at face
value.

What struck me was that Bioware has already done
something like this, but almost a decade ago. It was in the game
Neverwinter Nights, in an expansion called Hordes of the Underdark.

It
was a Dungeons & Dragons fantasy RPG, where at one point you
confront an advanced civilisation of psychic Mind Flayers, ruled by a
giant Elder Brain. You can choose to negotiate with it, but if you try
to attack, it psychically creates an illusion that makes you think
you've won the war, ended up in a small idyllic forest, with a charming
hostess inviting you to a celebration (to my recollection, it's been
years since I played this). If you accept, the credits roll exactly as
if you completed the game.

The preferred solution against the
Elder Brain, of course, was to use your character's Wisdom score or just
common sense to break out of the psychic deception and fight back.

Edit
- Below, fellow player Ellychid32 pointed out something even I missed.
Bioware also used this mind trick idea in Dragon Age: Origins (during a
sequence where you enter the world of dreams). Again an enemy mentally
constructs a perfect scenario where your mentor congratulates you on
your victory and the only way out is to attack him. This trope just
seems to be something that Bioware likes to use, 10 years ago, 3 years
ago, and IMHO now.

Now back to ME3. I just found the secret
ending to keep Shepard alive. More importantly, it only applies if you
choose to destroy all synths, both Reaper and Geth according to the God
Child. I didn't choose that before as that seems too Renegade for my
previous Shepard alts, but now I know that exists, it maps closely to
the situation in Hordes of the Underdark. The "correct answer" is not
to make peace, not to control, not to even try to be a Paragon, but just
fight back to resist the illusion.

I believe the pieces of
evidence in the Indoctrination Theory are intentional clues left by
Bioware. The current endings are a deliberate and very convincing mind
trick not just on Shepard, but on us as players so that we're really
immersed. We totally fell for it, so well done, Bioware! Bioware wants
the fans to figure it out before they release a DLC that builds on
this. Well, clearly you did figure it out, with your beautiful
explanations, and soon the DLC with the true ending is coming.

I
just wanted to share this information to those that never played the
Neverwinter Nights series (as they're quite old), seeing that this is a
sort of mind trick Bioware used before, to show that hope is on the
way.

If you're really so confident we're wrong, I have a proposition.
We make a bet. Cash.

I have actually considered opening a prediction market for ME3's ending but that'd be open to abuse...

[Applepie_Svk]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

I don't see how people are still talking IT theory that I never believed. The StarBrat comments himself that TIM could never use the control method himself because he is indoctrinated. Obviously if Shepard is indoctrinated he can never control the Reapers. Also if he was indoctrinated, he would be a puppet. Why even give him the illusion of choice? StarBrat could just order him to do whatever. The IT theory logic is flawed even by the game itself.

Actualy it support little bit IT, he is trying to convince -Sheppard to choose Control over other endings ... 

[FOX216BC]

I have my doubts about the IT.
But unlike the OP i do understand it.

[Pride Demon]

TSA_383 wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

Consensus seems to be:
-The child never "existed", it was something shepard saw because the reapers wanted him to, that was their way to manipulate him. You watch the progress of shepard's defenses failing through the dreams, and before the Liara (arguably "canon") romance, there's a scene with Shepard looking at his helmet - "I think I heard it crack in that last fight". Exposition for dummies, it's his own mental defences starting to break down.
-Shepard never makes it to the beam in the ending we have, he is knocked out by Harbinger's laser, and given his physical and mental weakness at this point the reapers try to convince him to give up fighting. If you went towards the beam initially planning to do anything other than "destroy the reapers" you're probably in a very tiny minority, but a lot of people changed their mind due to the Catalyst.
-Given that you wake up only after choosing "Destroy" on high EMS, and that you wake up on earth, it's logical to conclude that since that was the path the child obviously didn't want you to take, then by defying it you are showing that you are strong enough to beat indoctrination. What happens next I guess we'll find out when the EC's out.

There's argument over a lot of other stuff, such as whether or not the Crucible was a reaper trap, whether any other major characters might be indoctrinated in some fashion (particularly Major Coates & Hackett) and lots of minor stuff.

http://social.biowar...index/12008953/
^The child never lies to you directly, that's the truly interesting thing. 
He gives you a bunch of statements, then leaves you to make big sweeping assumptions that ultimately lead you to do what he wants, whilst feeling like it was your own decision.
It's exactly the sort of thing Mark Walters, with his psychology degree and wanting to do something a bit different with ME3, would think of. In fact on the subject of Walters, he lists as inspirations "Brave New World" and "The Matrix" - two very famous stories based on control achieved through subconscious suggestion and manipulation.

If that's the consensus, and indeed it's the closest thing to what I originally read in the IT thread, then you should warn all supporters that's the "canonical" IT, because I saw a lot of different versions, several with points contradicting each other...

A few claiming the final scene is not a dream but it's still an attempt to indoctrinate; another pointing out that if you chose blue/green you flat out lose; another says that instead, with blue/gree, you don't lose, but, when Shep wakes up it will be difficult for him/her to actually win, because he is more under reaper sway.
A few saying Shep was being indoctrinated since Arrival; others saying that, no, the reapers aren't trying to indoctrinate hin/her till the last sequence; others still say he/she is going through indoctrination the whole game but not before (these last ones usually bring up James "hear that hum?" line).

Then of course there's the "gradations of grey", those that mix match one point and another...

I find it all very confusing, and it makes it difficult to lead a proper discussion, so please make your best to clarify to your peers what you said is the only true IT...

Also, as a side note, I believe a developer tweet pointed out Shep is still on the Citadel when he/she survives in destroy, not on Earth... But maybe I remember wrong...

The tweet thing was from Merizan, but that was before she said she'd seen any part of the EC and she has since refused to confirm any of that stuff and made clear that what was said previously was speculation on her part as she was not at that point privy to any information.

The indoctrination process is a slow one - the general idea in the IT thread seems to be that since shep is already seeing the child, then he is already beginning to fail at this point, and given that Arrival was sold to us as a "bridging" DLC that would lead into the events of ME3, and that shep was knocked out by a reaper artefact and kept unconscious in close proximity to it for days, I think there's every reason to believe that could have been when it started.

As for what happens when you choose blue/green, frankly that's all wild speculation - it's safe to say that's not going to be the "good" ending, but we won't know more until EC.

I always thought the denied tweet was the one saying the Normandy had crashlanded on Mars, which made little sense anyway, well I guess I was wrong...

Whatever the case, there's no need for you to specify IT to me anymore, you already clarified to me what is the actual point of IT, but you should clarify to those supporters that say things that differ from what you say, or a least make it more public that that's what IT is, because a few obviously don't agree on all the points you posted...

If everyone who includes indoctrination in his/her reasoning can claim his/her theory is part of IT even if that's not the case all you get is chaos...

[TSA_383]

Pride Demon wrote...
I always thought the denied tweet was the one saying the Normandy had crashlanded on Mars, which made little sense anyway, well I guess I was wrong...

Whatever the case, there's no need for you to specify IT to me anymore, you already clarified to me what is the actual point of IT, but you should clarify to those supporters that say things that differ from what you say, or a least make it more public that that's what IT is, because a few obviously don't agree on all the points you posted...

If everyone who includes indoctrination in his/her reasoning can claim his/her theory is part of IT even if that's not the case all you get is chaos...

It's not up to me to tell people what they should think. I will coherently and forcefully lay out what I (and many others) think is the truth on the subject, but it's better for people to go and try to find new information for themselves, because that way we find more stuff.