2. Yes, he did. You sent the collectors after him. Hire the Shadow broker to get Shepard's body...And when he didn't get him, made 3traps to get Shepard. He even tells you he wants you when you fight collectswho are directly controled.
Why not just "assuming direct control" of TIM?
You can only do that with the huskified creature like collectors
Dr. Amanda Kenson is huskified creature?
Just cause she had yellow eyes doesn't mean someone was "assuming direct control"
Really?
Then I will say this. If your eyes glow blue, it does not mean that you are indoctrinated.
Right, but it's a strong indicator....
How is that a strong indicator? Shepards eyes can get the same design as TIM but with red, what's that an indicator of? Space magic?
Here's the thing with that video: It takes over an hour to explain what happens in less than 30 minutes. Ask yourself; when you're lying, do you give succinct respones, or elaborate responses to convince yourself your lie covers every hole in your argument?
Right.
But, here are my responses as I go along (the numbers do not correspond to a specific time in the video, but they do correspond as I move through the video):
1) The very first piece of evidence - "Why does Harbinger leave?" is not actually argued. Its counterpoint is not asked. Why would Harbinger stay? It actually says "Our entire force was decimated" in the captions as Harbinger is leaving. Why would Harbinger stay to fight if the opposition is dead?
2) The narrator: "Why does Shepard die when he's shot by the enemies? Obviously this would be a dead giveaway to the theory if Shepard survives when he shouldn't."
Flawed argument. We cannot know BioWare's intentions (it is literally pure speculation unless they explicitly say otherwise). This argument relies on BioWare intentionally fooling the player when there isn't any other evidence of them taking steps to do so (where else are we fooled like this in BioWare games? Can you think of any?), making it highly uncharacteristic of them to do so, and thus improbable.
Given the low plausibility of this evidence, it's not worth wasting breath on. Indoctrination Theory should be evident from the game content alone, not outside assumptions and knowledge unless it directly supports it.
3) "The background sounds are almost exactly the same." Not samey enough for them to be analogs. I'm not an expert, but I've listened to enough movie soundtracks to know when purposefuly implementation of themes is happening. Yes, both scenes have a sort of "static-y" quality, but other than that - they are very distinct. Since ME3 is scored like a movie (and even has a professional composer that works on mostly movies), it'd be easier and cheaper to simply impose the dream sound on the post-Harbinger sequence than create and record another 30-second sound. What's odd is that the narrator seems to never acknowledge the possibility that the "background noise" is the teleport beam itself, and not actually background music. He actually dismisses it outright - "There's no reason for anything to be making those noises...." Uh, except the giant beam of light in front of you? Also, given Western audible preferences, neither of the sounds presented are "sour". Both bits of sound are on-key for Western ears.
4) The narrator says Shepard never hears a Reaper growl before the dream sequence.
Except when Shepard totally does 12 minutes into the very first mission when the boy is killed. That's why it's paired with the dream. That's the noise associated with the boy's death.
5) "It makes no sense to see a bright white light after being annihilated by a giant red laser." - Narrator
Well, real lasers are only a single color because that's the only wavelength emitted. Harbinger's is clearly both a white core surrounded by a red halo effect. So, it's not really a laser. The guy doesn't seem to understand that intensity and wavelength are different.
He also makes some deal about "lingering effect" versus "instantaneous" - which doesn't make sense to start with. It's a dissolve. A transition. He said so himself that it's mostly lazy work by the artists - but here he's critiquing the length of the dissolve, almost as if he expected it to be different if IT wasn't true.
the entire premise for the dissolve is bunk, though. He picks the one dissolve which supports IT, and lays the others to rest because of laziness on BioWare's part. You can't do that; it's called cherry picking.
6) "Why is the surrounding area pulsating? The teleport beam isn't causing it."
Yeah, well it's pulsating before Harbinger hits Shepard, so... not really evidence if the IT theory starts after Harbinger's beam. Seriously, the entire time you're dodging Harby the ground is pulsating with the same rhythmic white light.
Busted.
I'm beginning to wonder if this guy does his homework.
7) "Shepard moves forward after the Harbinger-beam dissolve." - Narrator
The guy admits either it's sloppy work by BioWare, or it's on purpose to support IT.
Notice how a lot of these arguments he's making (and I'm only 15 minutes in for Pete's sake) go the same way?
"It's either sloppy work, or it's totally intentional to support a theory not explicitly shown by the game."
We're working with probability here. What's more likely - that people who are rushed in crunch time make a few mistakes, or that BioWare intended to mislead the vast majority of their audience with Kubrick-esque feats of anal-retentive detail during the most intense period of game development?
Also, this guy has no concept of physics. "Physics wouldn't allow him to fall fowards and land on his back..."
Sure it does. It's called "twisting." In fact, it's a reflex. Go ahead, try falling forwards and not twisting to fall on your side or back. We reflexively fall on our backs because our backs are less vulnerable than our soft, soft, organ-filled fronts.
Not even 20 minutes in... Friggin' save me...
8) "Why does the armor change? It couldn't have been done for developmental reasons." - Narrator
Does this guy know anything about graphic engines? At all? It's sooooooooooooooo much easier to force everybody into the single armor at the end than create new "armless and charred" versions of every single armor in the game.
Also, the fact that the armor is different from the dream sequences should be a big point for this guy to address. This is the guy who points out the length of a common dissolve animation as possible support for IT, but completely glides over the differences in armor between the two. You'd think he'd want to tie the two together as tightly as possible.
Also: "I'll go ahead and mark this one with a plausible [support for I.T.], just due to the lack of an explanation..."
Freaking LOGIC FAIL. No, if it doesn't have an explanation, it is not support for your point.
Also, another "Either BioWare is lazy or it's totally intentional" piece of evidence.
9) "The piles of bodies, which weren't there before, are wearing the armors of Kaidan and Ashley on Virmire. It's haunted Shepard, and shows it's a dream."
Well, the armors were pretty standard military issue from what I understand. They weren't unique. Ashley was a Gunnery Chief when you find her in Phoenix armor.
He may have me with the sudden appearance of the bodies, but again - it's either "BioWare's being lazy, or it's all intentional."
10) "There's no way [Anderson] ended up on a different area of the Citadel after following him in because that was a clear Point A to Point B type of warp."
Was it? No, I'm seriously asking - is it? The last time I jumped into a giant pillar of light that teleported me somewhere, it was on Ilos - and that wasn't exactly precise. If this beam is different, how is it different? The guy's just ascribing whatever attributes he wants to the beam, and not using evidence provided by the game. I could just as easily say the beam rotates rooms based on the time of day, and be just as correct.
"Where Shepard awoke was obviously the landing pad because it has a back wall and a control panel."
I know is getting very snarky, but come on... The Citadel is huge, and symmetrical. Having just "one room" for something on the Citadel makes even less sense.
11) "Anderson's name changes to Admiral Anderson. Weird." - Narrator
Yeah, and pointless.
"Anderson describes the walls moving, but we don't see anything like that, ever. Why is Anderson seeing it?" - Narrator
What's the purpose of pointing this out? How does it support IT?
I mean, if the Harbinger-beam sequence evidence can be summed up as "BioWare is either being lazy or fanatically intricate," then the evidence this guy is presenting after beaming up can thus far be put down as, "Weird stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with my argument."
12) "Anderson would have called for backup before entering the beam after Shepard."
Well, Shepard was apparently dumb enough to enter the beam without calling for backup. Why should Anderson be any different?
13) "The room with Anderson and the control panel looks exactly like TIM's command room."
In that they're both round and have both a ceiling and a floor. The oval office is the same way, I hear. I mean, I could point out that TIM's room is completely covered in mirrored surfaces with a glass-paned view into outerspace without a gangplank into the center, while the room you meet Anderson in does have a gangplank, isn't reflective, and the ceiling looks like the inside of a turbine... but then again, I'm just commenting on what I see with my eyes.
Also, the reason why the similarity is important? The narrator thinks that the room you meet Anderson in is a synthesis of the Shadow Broker's ship on Helgaz and TIM's command room. Why? Because screw you, you don't need a reason, it's in Shepard's head and deeply symbolic of something!
14) The 1M1 thing.
The narrator points out the connection to the end with some optics equation. Cool. Then he says it wasn't intentional, and completely coincidence because BioWare hadn't intended the RGB options to be the original ending. Then points out it was far more likely that they spent significantly more effort working on the hints for the IT theory than simply modifying a few textures as a last ditch effort to redeem themselves. Such a last ditch effort that they had time to intentionally place a transition effect, have the VA for Anderson record additional lines, purposefully import the Phoenix armor into ME3, modify the pre-Citadel landscape in completely baffling/subtle ways, modify the sound files, and purposefully re-design the entire interior of the Citadel... instead of, you know, putting wavy lines on the screen. Like they did when the Indoctrinated TIM was around.
28 minutes into the video? Out of 84? DAG NABBIT.
15) "The control panel we use [to activate the elevator] is the wrong one. The real control panel is in the Presidium when, where we defeated Saren... it doesn't make any sense for there to be a second control panel... It must be Shepard trying to recreate a place he thought he knew. If the Indoctrination Theory turns out not to be true, then this makes absolutely no sense at all." - Narrator.
If you can't see why this argument is stupid, given that just about everything we use today has multiple redundant safety systems, then you have my sympathies.
Oh, right. He's "...proud of himself..." for pointing out that it wouldn't make sense to install two control panels, because %#!@ nothing could ever happen that would damage the first one or cause it to malfunction. EVER.
16) "If it's supposed to be the Citadel, it sure doesn't look like the Citadel from ME1 when we fought Saren..."
You're on the ass-end of it, Sherlock. It's going to look different.
17) "Why doesn't the gun run out of ammo? Never before in the entire Mass Effect series have we had unlimited ammo that you didn't need to reload." - Narrator
Yeah, well, I guess you can ignore the entirety Mass Effect 1. Not sure you want to do that, though.
I mean, for a guy who's nitpicking the codex for the definition of "Indoctrination," you'd think he could at least stumble onto the bit that says it's not actually ammo, but heatsinks that are ejected.
Or that, hell, you'd think he'd argue that if you don't carry a pistol to the final battle, you still mysteriously end up with one to fire. That seems like more compelling evidence. Or would be if it didn't happen pretty often (and not because BioWare is trying to rewrite the story).
18) Oh, almost forgot:
At like 15 minutes: "Why are all these bodies piled like this on the Citadel? Somebody had to have put them there." - Narrator
At like 29 minutes: "What is this Keeper doing in the hallway? It's not using a console or anything." - Narrator
.... 2+2 = ???
19) "Anderson and TIM are representations of Shepard's struggle for consciousness and against indoctrination." - Narrator
The Narrator makes it seem like a big deal that they're symbolic of Shepard's internal struggle. Unfortunately their symbolism isn't exclusive to the IT. They are very obvious metaphors for Shepard's internal struggles, and all the IT does is add "... and consciousness" onto the end of the pre-existing material.
As for the bit right after about how Shepard receives the same wound as Anderson, effectively implying that it was self-inflicted... I'm actually cool with that. That's neat to notice, and I'm not positive I have an explanation for why Shepard suddenly starts bleeding.
However, the bit about the camera "being used as a story-telling device" so that the focus on the similar wound was "intentional evidence for the IT" is sort of hollow. Yeah, the camera is used to tell the story... like the music, the voice acting, the captions, the graphics... It's cinematic use is not proof of IT. Especially when they did the same thing throughout the series.
20) This is getting silly now. The guy just used the Reaper growl Shepard heard when trying to save the kid as evidence for IT, when 25 minutes ago he was saying "How could this be in the dream if he'd never heard it before?"
Consistency.
Now he's saying the little boy is a Reaper incarnation sent to mess with Shepard... I guess. Not sure how the narrator concludes that the conversation between TIM, Anderson, and Shepard is fake because there's a Reaper growl heard during TIM's Indoctrination attempt of Shepard. It's a motif meant to imply Reaper influence, and it's not clear whether Shepard hears it or not. It's like asking why Shepard doesn't hear the soundtrack playing all the time. If Shepard does hear it, why is it proof that IT is true? The assumption is that Shepard would only hear the noise in his head, and it cannotpossibly be generated another way - but earlier on in the definition of Indoctrination, it literally states auditory illusions as one of the side-effects, and the "oily black" lines during Shepard's confrontation with TIM are an attempted Indoctrination effect.
So isn't it perfectly correct to assume that during TIM's attempted Indoctrination that Shepard would hear noises that aren't really there?
This narrator sucks some royal nuts when it comes to making sure his argument is sticking together.
21) "What's with TIM's new powers? Why didn't the Reapers try to Indoctrinate Shepard before?" - Narrator
Indoctrination works over weeks or days. I'm not positive Shepard has had consistent, constant exposure to Reaper tech to become Indoctrinated the traditional way before.
As for TIM's new powers, doesn't he have new implants by that point? Saren had the same deal. By the end he was markedly more poweful than before because he'd been upgraded.
22) "How does Admiral Hackett know Shepard's alive and on the Citadel so Shepard can push the button?" - Narrator
Shepard's armor has both GPS and biometric sensors. Done. Heck, the OmniTool has biometric sensors.
"Why doesn't Hackett send help?" - Narrator
Shepard never called for help. You can't criticize one character's plot hole while forgetting others.
23) "TIM's suicide isn't bloody, and doesn't leave a puddle."
Chalk up another for "BioWare is either lazy or makes fabrige eggs in their spare time."
24) "Why can Shepard move in the Catalyst seen when he's competely limp on the elevator on the way up?" - Narrator
Uhh... actually, the narrator answers his own question: "Adrenaline, maybe..."
And then disregards it: "But there really is no solid explanation for this one..."
No dude, it's adrenaline. You considered it yourself.
25) "The ghost kid is obviously a manifestation of Shepard's imagination, regardless of whether it's a dream or not. But because this is true, so to can we assume that it lends to the Indoctrination Theory at least a little bit." - Narrator
This isn't how logic works. How does it contribute? Because it exists? Wouldn't that be true regardless of which ending is true? Shouldn't it, then, lend itself equally to all endings, effectively making it useless as support for the Indoctrination Theory? It seems more like support that the game ends rather than ends in a particular way.
26) "These dream sequences, or rather, Reaper Indoctrination attempts are there to break Shepard in his most vulnerable state of mind - sleeping." - Narrator
How are they attempting Indoctrination when Shepard is about as far away as you can possibly get from Reaper tech, since the dreams take place on the Normandy? Hello? Hello?
Not going to answer that, are you...
27) "The little boy is always shown [outside of the dreams] with a 'caution' sign in the background. This isn't done with any other character." - Narrator
Well, ya know, except when he's in the air duct. Then he's not.
28) "Why is the Catalyst's voice the combination of the child, male shep, and fem shep when all they were trying to do was go for the echo-y omniscient effect? All they had to do was just add an echo effect..."
Was that all they were going for? How do you know that? Where do they say that? Is it in the special edition? Where are you getting this?
Not going to answer that, too, right? Right...
No, wait a second, the narrator openly admits there's no connection between the voice layering and IT. Why is it plausible support, then? Does this guy know what plausible mens? Did he just hear it on Mythbusters a lot and decided to use it? Argh...
29) "Why isn't Shepard asking more questions during the conversation with the Catalyst?" - Narrator
Say with me dear reader: "Either BioWare is lazy, or they spent dozens of man-hours and thousands of dollars implanting subtle hints to an entirely alternate ending they hadn't planned in the first place."
30) "...for the purposes of this video, the Catalyst is a sentient-slash-synthetic being, even though we know he's just an illusion." - Narrator
Okay. Why? Wouldn't that caveat sort of invalidate whatever comes after? I mean, you're dramatically changing the Catalyst character. Why don't we argue IT with the Catalyst as an illusion since by this point the assumption is all the prior evidence should make it painfully clear that it's an illusion, and we have been mentally prepared to accept any further arguments based on the prior ones? This is a huge point.
You can't try to base further arguments proving IT is real if you're working under the assumption that it's not. Either it exists or it doesn't, and either the game supports it or it doesn't. There's no, "Well if we assume the Catalyst is really the synthetic A.I., then this sequence totally supports IT - even though IT states the Catalyst is a hallucination." Does not follow.
Unless that didn't happen. It's not even compare/contrast at this point, which would be the real way to stack up IT against the ending as-is.
31) "Shepard never questions the Catalyst about what he means by 'ascend'..." - Narrator
Because he knows. See ME2.
32) The narrator goes through stating the logical flaws of each ending. Geth and Quarian resolution, Synthesis is an abomination, etc. etc. etc.
Not sure how the flaws in the endings support the IT instead of just being flawed endings.
Also, the Narrator asks the viewer if they understood "all that" stuff he just said about the endings being not real because they're flawed and it's really the Reapers trying to Indoctrinate Shepard, because "...it makes for a pretty solid case for Indoctrination Theory."
If IT is so obviously correct then why ask? To be honest, no, I didn't understand, and I rewatched it several times. Probably because he bases his argument on already-flawed logic.
33) "Why give a file in the game the name 'dream foliage' if it's used in Synthesis instead of just 'foliage' or 'new planet foliage'... directly stating the Synthesis ending is a dream." - Narrator
Because things change a lot during development, and if you start renaming files to fit their actual usage all the time you'll be spending a few dozen hours doing that instead of working on the game. This isn't even BioWare being lazy... this is a really common practice. I'd actually say "standard practice" as far as development goes. As things change, you can repurpose resources without renaming them. It's more efficient than going through every single file and renaming it "foliage_only_seen_on_Presidium."
34) "...the players have never been given a green option before, it's always been Red or Blue, making the Synthesis option more appealing." - Narrator
10 minutes earlier: "...the Synthesis option is obviously the Neutral option between the traditional Paragon and Renegade options." - Narrator
Consistency!
35) "Traditionally, humming is a big indication of being Indoctrinated... and while you're with the Catalyst, there's a constant humming in the background." - Narrator
That may have something to do with the whole "I'm standing next to a giant power source/generator" thing. Ya know. Kind of like how electrical wires sort of... hum.
Whatever. I'm sure that didn't even cross the narrator's mind at this point.
36) Reversed Paragade/Renegade options.
Yup, that's sort of weird, right? Probably the best evidence I've ever seen for IT.
37) "Shepard gets 'Indoctrinated eyes' choosing Control or Synthesis." - Narrator
What are Indoctrinated eyes again? "They begin to glow and have two little orbs on the lower left and right-hand corners of the iris, along with another orb in the front creating a little bit of a triangle." - Narrator
I'm 98% sure the narrator is attempting to make lens reflections and the iris into a trait of someone who's indoctrinated. Anime?
And I'm pretty sure if you looked into an intense column of light while being run through with 1.81 Gigawatts, your eyes woud look like they're glowing, too.
38) The narrator uses the Catalyst's use of "we" to imply that the Catalyst is really a Reaper (or possibly all the Reapers).
Even without IT, the Catalyst is clearly (at the very least) the creator of the Reapers. So what difference does it make? When you ask a person who's part of the family what they're doing over the weekend, it's not uncommon for them to use 'we' implying that the previously defined group is acting together, despite being discrete organisms with a clear hierarchy from parent to child.
Why does it support IT instead of the normal ending? It's another bit that's as strong an evidence 'for' as 'against.' If you can't articulate the reason the evidence is actually evidence for your conclusion and not others, then it's probably not. Just sayin'.
39) "Because we command Shepard [he's talking about how we use a controller, as-in Shepard is an avatar for the player] we are able to enact our own personalities into him. We are Commander Shepard, therefor we are being Indonctrinated. The whole point behind Indoctrination is that you don't knowyou're being indoctrinated. It happens subtlely over a period of time... And all of [the symptoms of Indoctrination] have been happening to Commander Shepard [and us] throughout the entire game. This means that all of these subtle clues are actually true. The Developers had to have been going that route and it completely went over 99% of players' heads. If they came out and openly stated [Shepard is Indoctrinated] then it wouldn't make any sense because we've never had any narration in the series thus far when we were in control of Commander Shepard. It's not BioWare's style." - Narrator
Can anybody explain to me what the guy means by "narration"? I typed that sentence directly from the video at about 1hr 11 minutes in. I have no idea what's referring to, and since it's a big feather in IT's cap, I'd really like to understand it.
Also: 1hr 14 minutes - "This is where stuff gets really confusing. Wait, wasn't it confusing already?" - Narrator
Pointing it out doesn't discredit the counter-argument. Twice... Twice so far the Narrator has made a joke about how complicated and convoluted Indoctrination Theory is. That's exactly two times too many to be taken seriously. Even the mechanisms of DNA elongation are relatively simple given enough background information. I'm 1hr and 14 minutes into this freaking video, why would it still be confusing?
40) "How did the squadmates teleport onto the Normandy?" - Narrator
Good question. Let me guess, either it's writing that outright blows or it's totally on purpose and all in Shepard's head.
Question: Why doesn't Shepard immediately wake up after choosing? Why does it even show the Normandy crashing? What purpose does continuing the dream have?
41) "No way Shepard could survive the Destroy ending when he's at the source of it [unless it was a dream]." - Narrator
It's not the fall from orbit. That's survivable because, as history has taught us, humans have a terminal velocity that's not fast enough to cause death with 100% certainty. Also, explosions don't work in space the same way they work on a planet. Without an atmosphere the energy is dissipated as heat/light, and not a compression wave since there aren't particles in space to knock up against each other.
So if people can survive both falls from terminal velocity and being burned, Shepard can survive what occurs on the Presidium's butt.
Conclusion: This is a horrible analysis. Really obvious counter-arguments are addressed, he's factually wrong on several occasions, most of his argument consists of "But BioWare couldn't be that bad, so it must be here on purpose" - implying he's never played DA2 and ran through the same freaking dungeon 8 times, or noticed all of the other cut-corners BioWare routinely uses.
Call me cynical, but I'm far more willing to believe that, under massive pressure, people will simply make more mistakes than they regularly do instead of putting multiple times that effort and money into a conclusion you can only understand if you happen to freeze frame through the scenes.
I won't argue that the ending - as presented in the game - is good. I just think that IT essentially takes a bad ending and tries to patch it up with bad logic, creating one massive ball of "Well you can't prove me wrong!" because [/i]there simply isn't enough[/b] coherency to prove a good ending exists. All of the endings have issues, and IT simply trades the issues the endings present for issues in how you're supposed to know Shepard is dreaming/hallucinating/whatever. Both are deeply flawed, but one is more probably based upon human nature.
And it's not IT.
Sorry kid, I watched the video through beginning to end, and there just isn't the proof to support IT. As I said at the beginning - if you have to take 84 minutes to explain a theory that [i]clarifies the ending, it probably doesn't.
[b]Edit: Almost forgot - like every other IT thread/video I've ever seen, he still doesn't address the Stargazer or the ending title card. What's with those?
Edit: Almost forgot - like every other IT thread/video I've ever seen, he still doesn't address the Stargazer or the ending title card. What's with those?
Bioware has always had an eye for detail, that's why it takes so long to anylyze the clues he presents.
The Stargazer scene concept was taken from a seventh grade student from Berlin who sent a letter to Casey Hudson. The boy stated that "It would be cool if Shepard had a child and this child was roaming around a cave and found a prophecy and knew what to do about it because he's Shepard's son."
Casey Hudson stitched that letter to his office door as a reminder that everybody should get at least, one piece of the ending which was the same for every player.
"the ending title card" is the equivalent of a "Now try the game on a harder difficaulty setting." message, except with a "buy our DLC" spin to it.
Bioware has always had an eye for detail, that's why it takes so long to anylyze the clues he presents.
Except his analysis is riddled with faulty argument. He practically ignores counter-arguments, and doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of the production stage of games. If BioWare completely changed the ending in a few months prior to going Gold, it would take monumental amounts of effort to purposefully construct the clues leading up to IT.
What detail does he present in the documentary must be from careful planning and not haste?
The Stargazer scene concept was taken from a seventh grade student from Berlin who sent a letter to Casey Hudson. The boy stated that "It would be cool if Shepard had a child and this child was roaming around a cave and found a prophecy and knew what to do about it because he's Shepard's son."
Casey Hudson stitched that letter to his office door as a reminder that everybody should get at least, one piece of the ending which was the same for every player.
Neato.
"the ending title card" is the equivalent of a "Now try the game on a harder difficaulty setting." message, except with a "buy our DLC" spin to it.
It also says Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat - which isn't really possible if you subscribe to IT and choose Control or Synthesis, since those are supposedly the options which result in failure to regain consciousness / resist Indoctrination.
Bioware has always had an eye for detail, that's why it takes so long to anylyze the clues he presents.
Except his analysis is riddled with faulty argument. He practically ignores counter-arguments, and doesn't seem to have a clear understanding of the production stage of games. If BioWare completely changed the ending in a few months prior to going Gold, it would take monumental amounts of effort to purposefully construct the clues leading up to IT.
What detail does he present in the documentary must be from careful planning and not haste?
The Stargazer scene concept was taken from a seventh grade student from Berlin who sent a letter to Casey Hudson. The boy stated that "It would be cool if Shepard had a child and this child was roaming around a cave and found a prophecy and knew what to do about it because he's Shepard's son."
Casey Hudson stitched that letter to his office door as a reminder that everybody should get at least, one piece of the ending which was the same for every player.
Neato.
"the ending title card" is the equivalent of a "Now try the game on a harder difficaulty setting." message, except with a "buy our DLC" spin to it.
It also says Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat - which isn't really possible if you subscribe to IT and choose Control or Synthesis, since those are supposedly the options which result in failure to regain consciousness / resist Indoctrination.
Can't become a legend if you're dead.
I agree, he makes a lot of mistakes and is also pretty biased during some sequences.
"Can't become a legend if you're dead"
uhm... yes you can? Otherwise you are known as what's called a "Living Legend"
I agree, he makes a lot of mistakes and is also pretty biased during some sequences.
"Can't become a legend if you're dead"
uhm... yes you can? Otherwise you are known as what's called a "Living Legend"
Okay.
Can't defeat the Reapers if you're indoctrinated and can't fight back.
I'm going to be as kind as possible when I say this becasue I don't want to seem condescending, and I understand if you simply think that this has no merit.
It will again devaolve into a circular argument and no one is going to convince anyone of anything.
But if you must take that message as a canon story piece (even though it says the word DLC) then in all 3 endings you do end the reaper threat... in your mind. Only in the destroy ending do you get a clue that it actually wasn't the IRL threat, but the threat in Shepards head.
Yes but no matter what, all of them call for screwing over other players who didn't pick destroy.
Argue all you want putting a trick question in your game and having only 1 option be the way out is bull****, and it really is an example of removing choice from players.
For the sake of argument, hear me out now, what if after waking up, the 3 color choices are still present, but only after we watch a few clarifying cinematics?
Would that allow for a more acceptable situation?
The fans DID NOT mess this up, Bioware did, so give us a little credit for innovative curtain pulling ok?
But if you must take that message as a canon story piece (even though it says the word DLC) then in all 3 endings you do end the reaper threat... in your mind. Only in the destroy ending do you get a clue that it actually wasn't the IRL threat, but the threat in Shepards head.
I'm sorry and I understand if you hate me.
I don't hate you.
You gave the answer I expected someone in support of IT to give: It's in Shepard's head (somehow).
That's the response that's always given. It doesn't need explanation, because you're still locked inside Shepard's noggin' and the mind is a freaky place. See anything out of place? Well it should be, because it's in Shepard's head. Hear anything strange? What do you want - it's inside Shepard's head. Find a plothole? You would, memory is imperfect. Etc. etc. etc.
It's the catch-all phrase of the entire theory. It can't really be "disproven" because the game doesn't show what happens to Shepard in the intervening period between Harbinger's beam and waking up. Could have been 30 seconds, could have been 5 hours. So why not have the game dramatically and suddenly shift into an internal struggle for control held entirely inside Shepard? Then you go looking for evidence to support the hypothetical situation, find a few tidbits, and then - spurned by a success here or there - start stating every anomoly is completely intentional thanks to BioWare's hardworking ME3 team.
Watch the video again... The narrator spends several minutes explaining how a single dissolve effect seen many times outside of the final mission is potential proof for IT because of when it's used and how long it lasts (which is, to say, no longer/shorter than any other time it's used).
There's no arguing with that. There's no logic in that, and since you can't make a rational case against someone who refuses to acknowledge rational arguments, it's pointless to expect otherwise. In the video the guy states how proud he is that he found a massive flaw - that there are two control panels which can operate the Citadel's opening and closing. He says it doesn't make sense for there to be two panels because why would the Reapers risk the possibility of two people trying to do opposite things at the same time, but refuses to acknowledge that even city buses have redundant systems in case of an emergency.
Again, there's not just a lack of logic, but a complete refusal of basic practices that exist today, much less 250 years in the future.
I acknowledged bits where I thought the video made good points. I honestly can't explain a few occurrences as they happen. What's been a continuous trend, though, is that IT is made up of 5% evidence and 95% arguments (which may or may not be deeply flawed to begin with). It seems like 75% of the video is the guy going, "See this bit here? Yeah, that's there on purpose because BioWare would never be that sloppy."
So what happens if it turns out BioWare really can be that sloppy? Well, pretty much all of IT falls into shambles. That's what I got from the video. He's relying on BioWare to put in a lot of effort into obscure clues during the final months of preparation so that 1% of the people that buy the game notice what's going on and refuse to comment on their plan.
You tell me which one is more likely. BioWare possibly being sloppy, or BioWare purposefully making a conclusion to their largest hit series ever so obtuse/subtle that they knew 90%+ of the people playing it would never understand.
Most peopel miss this due to the fact that one of the three are the most popular commented on. Let's go over all 3.
1. Dream theory. This is the most popular one that everyone know. It the one that stated everything is an indoctriantion dream...This one stands ou by having Shepard still on earth.
2. Hallucination Theory. This is the second more know theory. It's one where Shepard is awake but is theoried that every thing he sees before him is an illusion or soon end up being in his head only. This one can have Shepard on the citadel but has the entire converstion with TIM and Anderson an illusion of indoctrination as well as the Star child.
3. Inflence theory. This is the one that has everything as real but it one that the reaper are trying to subminally influence Shepards choices with indoctrination and warping his perpective. This is inflence by the idea how reaper are more convincing with indoctrination. This also can murge with Hallucination theory as well with the star child or have the scene that happen be real in away.(Meaning the star child can be an illusion but Shepard is at that place.)
All these version at the point of star child has varied directions of results of theries of the end. Being: The war is not over yet. And based on the choice Shepard makes he may or may not beat indoctination
It's a selecting of whether Sharperd activated the crucble or not. In reality.
It's a choice of ending the reapers or letting them use the crucible as they see fit.("You let them implant you? Are you insane! " Shepard...ME1)
They are all tricks to get you to kill yourself.
Reguardless of what theory is used, Shepard is in the process of indoctriation till he makes a choice. With that, it still means we don't know whats the results of the end reguardless. Cheers.
Brilliant, so now instead of one theory being spammed everywhere and forced on us spread like gospel in a bid to educate those of us who are too stupid to understand it... We have three.
People should just decide on one canon version of it, or stop calling it the Indoctrination Theory and start calling it the Indoctrination Theories.
What happens post being hit by the beam is pretty much the same, so having some of the events make sense under one version and not another devalues them all IMHO. There should be one canon version that explains the events.
But all events all makes sense in all versions of the theory.
So Shepard actually went aboard the Citadel but ended up back on Earth under a plie of concrete slabs. Waking up on Earth makes sense under 1 and not 3.
Shepard is in reality but his/her armor changed, trees sprouted and grew, Shepard has unlimited ammo. All the things people use to demonstrate a dream all of a sudden are still there in reality. 1 contradicts 3 just based on the fact that one is a dream and three is reality.
TIM man being able to kill Shepard "Critical Mission" Death makes sense if it's reality, but not if it's a dream. The Crucible being destroyed and Shepard failing makes sense in reality, but not in a dream.
Who said they all happen at once. But regardless of that, one must use the most stable evidence to the theory....There's a documantary that goes over this.
And it's chuck full of the same plotholes. It says the reapers added husks and a maruder to do everything possible to convince Shepard he/she is still in reality. But then they added piles of bodies, trees, and changed Shepard's armor. I thought they were trying to make Shepard believe it was reality, right?
Continuing on that point if new armor=dream, why does Shepard still have on the wrong armor when waking up on Earth, seeing that is supposed to be reality. Wouldn't Shepard be back in the armor he/she had on running down the hill.
It devotes a section and a check mark of proof based on the fact that the reapers don't want to kill Shepard, and does it in the scene with TIM and Anderson. But TIM will kill you in that very scene the creator is using to say that the reapers don't want Shepard dead.
They're more but I said my peace in that thread and don't feel like typing all of it out again.
Apparently you've never had a nightmare, where you find yourself in public, without clothing? Quite unnerving.
The armor changing isn't real, it's a symptom of trauma, "dreaming" about being injured in battle-looking down and saying to oneself, "well at least i'm still breathing"
as for waking up in the wrong armor, could it be the armor was burnt, beyond recognition?
How else would a carnifex have unlimited ammo, and NOT overheat?
This is not surprising. Most religions break down into several sub groups given enough time.
As do branches of science and theories of science.
Well most scientists can articulate the flaws in their theories better than priests can articulate the flaws in their religion.
What do you think this video is about...
It was certainly not about the flaws in indoctrination theory. In my opinion, he glosses over the biggest arguments against it, and doesn't really take contrary evidence seriously. Look, this video took a lot of time and effort to make, so I don't want to knock it too much. It's actually awesome to see people pick apart a video game they way people pick apart movies and books to find evidence in support of their interpretation of the story. I dig that and think it's cool.
But the discussions around IT on these forums is somewhere between annoying and venomous. In a thread a while ago, I tried to make a point about how IT wasn't actually an ending and got ripped apart for not understanding IT. It felt like I was talking to a religious robot instead of a literary analyst. That's when the disgusting turn of what IT has become became apparant to me. That's also why I can no longer support the theory.
WE aren't allowed to defend our position?
So the Pro-IT crowd, are just supposed to TAKE whatever YOU feed US?
Akin to "would you like it DRY, or lighty-lubed?
We are willing to answer questions and provide OPINIONS based on what is in game, but venom has flowed from both sets of flyin' fangs.
Could you stop freakin' referring to this as a religious sect? Witchcraft(J/K) maybe but religious, HARDLY!
2. Hallucination Theory. This is the second more know theory. It's one where Shepard is awake but is theoried that every thing he sees before him is an illusion or soon end up being in his head only. This one can have Shepard on the citadel but has the entire converstion with TIM and Anderson an illusion of indoctrination as well as the Star child.
What does this mean exactly? Are the surroundings real or partly real or fully fake?
Exactly, This is the most flexible theory. Shepard can be on earth still or on the citadel.
But you need evidence point either way, you can't just say he is possibly one place or another. If that is the case, you are probably going down the wrong route of interpretation. In a story, such a detail should be made clear
Or Shepard is still in the Geths Consensus.
OH sure, confuse us some more would ya? J/K
It has crossed my mind, but that would entail, so much more convolution than we already have.
2. Hallucination Theory. This is the second more know theory. It's one where Shepard is awake but is theoried that every thing he sees before him is an illusion or soon end up being in his head only. This one can have Shepard on the citadel but has the entire converstion with TIM and Anderson an illusion of indoctrination as well as the Star child.
What does this mean exactly? Are the surroundings real or partly real or fully fake?
Exactly, This is the most flexible theory. Shepard can be on earth still or on the citadel.
But you need evidence point either way, you can't just say he is possibly one place or another. If that is the case, you are probably going down the wrong route of interpretation. In a story, such a detail should be made clear
Or Shepard is still in the Geths Consensus.
Or unconscious in the med bay following Eden Prime.
The funny thing is that this has way more evidence for it than IT does
Well seeing as you've challenged our theory, maybe you could PROVE this?
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Retour en haut
