55528 réponses à ce sujet

[chidingewe8036]

Destroy is the canon option, all of you put your hands down lol. But its all good with me my wriiten fan fiction for my Shepard is so freakin epic, The Indoctrination Theory stands firm in my fan fiction, bioware can do and say whatever they want it wont change my Shep's ending.

The fans not bioware helped me accept both of bioware's crap endings the original and this waste of time extended cut which was so half ***** and cheap it had to be a freakin dream except for the Normandy extraction part even though I figured that was what happened to begin with before the EC actually showed it. But I thank the fans for the Indoctrination Theory it gave me hope, closure, peace of mind.

[HellishFiend]

Reposting for new page (click):

[Starbuck8]

HellishFiend wrote...

Reposting for new page (click):

Oh yes, saw this, very sneaky BW
And I subbed u too.

[liggy002]

Go vote on this please:



http://social.biowar...42/polls/35904/

Modifié par liggy002, 28 juin 2012 - 05:34 .

[Lethys1]

This entire thread could really be used as a sociological microcosm for how religions persist in the face of evidence that disproves them. The endings came out already, yet somehow we still are talking about how the indoctrination theory still can be valid.

I know the evidence is going to be the dumb voice change at the refusal, which isn't indicative of anything at all. How about we just start a Total Recall argument and say that nothing starting from Shep's death is actually real, he's just plugged into a machine in an asylum in the Citadel.

[HellishFiend]

Starbuck8 wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Reposting for new page (click):

Oh yes, saw this, very sneaky BW
And I subbed u too.

Thanks. 

[hippojoe]

Pavs719 wrote...

we all play shep, so if he/she is not the main character in 4. I WILL NOT BE BUYING IT.

unless the main character is a krogan, then this is true for me

couldnt go through an ME w/o maleshep/femsheps voice, no way

also, to  people saying no me4....come on, of course there will be, guaranteed money for bioware

just bc they say its a trilogy or end of sheps story doesn't mean anything

bungie said no more halo after 3, end of master chief's story

and yet....

[Spartas Husky]

We said it before, we say it again.

Saren= Synthesis... didn't work

TIM= control. How many times do people need to be told. If you think you can contorl the reapers thats because they already control you. OR you really think 1 human brain can overpower thousands of skycraper size sentient warships... seriously. Its simply processing power. Like a matchstick going up against the sun.

[HellishFiend]

Lethys1 wrote...

This entire thread could really be used as a sociological microcosm for how religions persist in the face of evidence that disproves them. The endings came out already, yet somehow we still are talking about how the indoctrination theory still can be valid.

I know the evidence is going to be the dumb voice change at the refusal, which isn't indicative of anything at all. How about we just start a Total Recall argument and say that nothing starting from Shep's death is actually real, he's just plugged into a machine in an asylum in the Citadel.

Demographic for IT fans/speculators: People who enjoy mysteries, literary analysis, speculation, and applying Mass Effect lore to the events of the ME3 ending.

Demographic for people coming into the IT thread and bashing them: ??????

[agmrpink]

Don't know if this had already been addressed, but I'm curious for y'alls opionions:

For me (IT believer), the Reapers believe themselves to be the one race to rule them all, using indoctrination to enslave everybody else/gobble them up for batteries.

But for you Literalists out there, if Starchild is the controlling the Reapers simply as a mechanism to wipe out advanced organics to avoid war and mass destruction with synthetics, what does Reaper indoctrination, as a whole, accomplish if their end-goal is Hungry-Hungry-Hippos for brain food?

[Bacteriophage]

I may have a... maybe not unique, but unusual opinion.

I was not a fan of indoctrination theory before, but I am now. Previously, IT was a ham-handed attempt to obviate the blue and green options in service to the red and hopefully future content. Now with the Reject ending, I think it is a form of fridge brilliance specific to that ending. (OK fine, I guess it still works for Red, if you insist...)

People forget that Bioware practices a kind of reverse form of narrative causality in their stories. Because they give the player control of certain decisions, and said stories feature flashbacks or ambiguity in the past or present, player decisions in the narrative future actually establish the plot of events in the narrative past.

I can think of three examples of this of the top of my head. In Star Wars:KOTOR, the flashback/reveal of the main character as Reven changes based on what the player gender is. In KOTOR 2 (Obsidian with Bioware input) the player gender determines which of two squad mates join up. And in Dragon Age:Origins, The player decision of what race to play as determines some of the back story of a second character (Duncan) such that the character will always meet the player.

I suspect that's what's going on with the endings in ME3 writ large. No matter what your decision is, it is always 'the best' one because as soon as you choose it, narrative causality kicks in and the nasty implications of the other options become true. If in your playthrough you choose blue, then the Illusive Man was retroactively correct, green and the starkid was retroactively telling the truth, and red, the IM was wrong and the starkid was lying through his teeth.

But now we have a fourth option.

It's a perfect fit for the Indoctrination Theory because it gives us the option to say NO! without messing up what was the authors original vision. The fact that it kicks you in the nuts a moment later is immaterial because an IT fan thinks its all a dream anyway. And you're STILL left wanting to see the 'real' ending. And I think Bioware may
have deliberately thrown the IT fans a bone right here. Anyone else think that sounded like infra-sound?

[Simon_Says]

Andromidius wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

I remember that someone brought it up earlier that Harbinger letting the Normandy go might have been so that it would have leverage so that Shepard wouldn't want to choose Destroy since EDI would still be alive.

That's the first plausible explaination I've heard.  Kudos to whoever thought that up

Though quite why they couldn't do it before or after the beam run...  Still seems...  Unclear...

Goodness me, speculation for everyone indeed.

Thanks for dem kudos.

Also I'd like to share another thought about rejection.

Think of it from Starbinger's perspective. Shep is offered the three choices. Shepard rejects all of them. "Oh well" thinks Starbinger. They could have indoctrinated Shepard, but he/she resisted. But at least Shepard isn't willing to even destroy them. So how to make certai-ahh.

"SO BE IT!"

Shepard is totally not going to be scared stiff about picking any of the choices now. Remember, shocking reveals or changes in demeanour are viable tools for manipulating people.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 28 juin 2012 - 05:46 .

[Maffers]

 Child: The created will always destroy the creators. It is innevitable.
 

*After explaining synthesis*

Child: The created and creators will live in peace and harmony. It is innevitable.
 

[FellishBeast]

agmrpink wrote...

Don't know if this had already been addressed, but I'm curious for y'alls opionions:

For me (IT believer), the Reapers believe themselves to be the one race to rule them all, using indoctrination to enslave everybody else/gobble them up for batteries.

But for you Literalists out there, if Starchild is the controlling the Reapers simply as a mechanism to wipe out advanced organics to avoid war and mass destruction with synthetics, what does Reaper indoctrination, as a whole, accomplish if their end-goal is Hungry-Hungry-Hippos for brain food?

Good question. Someone suggested it was merely a side-effect of their...don't remember the term. But I don't know if there's anything to back that up.

I guess you could say it just makes their harvest a lot easier and more clean. Heck, it could even be enlightenment, since they are the "good guys" in the literal interpretation.

[Andromidius]

Main problem with a literalist view is that the Reapers still have no actual reason for killing organics to further their goals. The reason why they do it is never explained, only that they do it.

The only literal explaination is that they are too stupid to go against their core programming. Which deminishes them as antagonists, and goes against what we know about them already.

[HellishFiend]

Maffers wrote...

 Child: The created will always destroy the creators. It is innevitable.
 

*After explaining synthesis*

Child: The created and creators will live in peace and harmony. It is innevitable.
 

Yep, all the EC does for Starbinger is give him more opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. Which he does. Many times. 

[HellishFiend]

Bacteriophage wrote...

I may have a... maybe not unique, but unusual opinion.

I was not a fan of indoctrination theory before, but I am now. Previously, IT was a ham-handed attempt to obviate the blue and green options in service to the red and hopefully future content. Now with the Reject ending, I think it is a form of fridge brilliance specific to that ending. (OK fine, I guess it still works for Red, if you insist...)

People forget that Bioware practices a kind of reverse form of narrative causality in their stories. Because they give the player control of certain decisions, and said stories feature flashbacks or ambiguity in the past or present, player decisions in the narrative future actually establish the plot of events in the narrative past.

I can think of three examples of this of the top of my head. In Star Wars:KOTOR, the flashback/reveal of the main character as Reven changes based on what the player gender is. In KOTOR 2 (Obsidian with Bioware input) the player gender determines which of two squad mates join up. And in Dragon Age:Origins, The player decision of what race to play as determines some of the back story of a second character (Duncan) such that the character will always meet the player.

I suspect that's what's going on with the endings in ME3 writ large. No matter what your decision is, it is always 'the best' one because as soon as you choose it, narrative causality kicks in and the nasty implications of the other options become true. If in your playthrough you choose blue, then the Illusive Man was retroactively correct, green and the starkid was retroactively telling the truth, and red, the IM was wrong and the starkid was lying through his teeth.

But now we have a fourth option.

It's a perfect fit for the Indoctrination Theory because it gives us the option to say NO! without messing up what was the authors original vision. The fact that it kicks you in the nuts a moment later is immaterial because an IT fan thinks its all a dream anyway. And you're STILL left wanting to see the 'real' ending. And I think Bioware may
have deliberately thrown the IT fans a bone right here. Anyone else think that sounded like infra-sound?

Sure, its possible, but I hope you're wrong. Why? Because even when invoking "retroactive lore" by picking Synthesis or Control, that still contemptuously spits in the face of the established themes of the entire trilogy. I will still lose respect for BW as storytellers if they go that route, even if it allows for IT to be true in one of the choices. 

[Simon_Says]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Catalyst: "The Crucible will not discriminate..."

Yet, how does it discriminate in Synthesis and Control? Only Reapers and Reaper units are affected in Control. In Synthesis, the reaction is so precise as to allow species and machines to maintain their original form, while still providing the necessary balance of machine/biological material.

Clearly there is something else that is not being told here; clearly some part of the reactionary part of the Citadel/Crucible can determine what is being effected on an astounding scale.

Either that or the devs just got caught in a logical fallacy, utilizing it in the name of providing a tragic ending...

Quoted because this deserves to be examined.

[Wowky]

agmrpink wrote...

Don't know if this had already been addressed, but I'm curious for y'alls opionions:

For me (IT believer), the Reapers believe themselves to be the one race to rule them all, using indoctrination to enslave everybody else/gobble them up for batteries.

But for you Literalists out there, if Starchild is the controlling the Reapers simply as a mechanism to wipe out advanced organics to avoid war and mass destruction with synthetics, what does Reaper indoctrination, as a whole, accomplish if their end-goal is Hungry-Hungry-Hippos for brain food?

I'd say it's simply to make the harvesting go more smoothly - given the option between people willingly subjugating themselves and eventually becoming brain batteries or having to actually explode everything and fight a war with them, I'd imagine the Reapers would rather the easy way.

As for the IT - I posted before that I think the EC shows it's just too "out there". After reading the thread some more and watching Hellishfiend's video, I'd say that I still entertain it as a possibility. I guess what frustrates me most is the non-commitment to one side or the other in terms of the actual story/writing on BW's behalf. I get it, speculating/mysteries are fun, and I had lots of fun following the IT before the EC came out, but there's a point where I feel like an answer should be given, whether it's that IT is true or it's false. That "up in the air" feeling gets irritating after a while - mystery is one thing, Twin Peaks is another.

[FellishBeast]

Bacteriophage wrote...

I may have a... maybe not unique, but unusual opinion.

I was not a fan of indoctrination theory before, but I am now. Previously, IT was a ham-handed attempt to obviate the blue and green options in service to the red and hopefully future content. Now with the Reject ending, I think it is a form of fridge brilliance specific to that ending. (OK fine, I guess it still works for Red, if you insist...)

People forget that Bioware practices a kind of reverse form of narrative causality in their stories. Because they give the player control of certain decisions, and said stories feature flashbacks or ambiguity in the past or present, player decisions in the narrative future actually establish the plot of events in the narrative past.

I can think of three examples of this of the top of my head. In Star Wars:KOTOR, the flashback/reveal of the main character as Reven changes based on what the player gender is. In KOTOR 2 (Obsidian with Bioware input) the player gender determines which of two squad mates join up. And in Dragon Age:Origins, The player decision of what race to play as determines some of the back story of a second character (Duncan) such that the character will always meet the player.

I suspect that's what's going on with the endings in ME3 writ large. No matter what your decision is, it is always 'the best' one because as soon as you choose it, narrative causality kicks in and the nasty implications of the other options become true. If in your playthrough you choose blue, then the Illusive Man was retroactively correct, green and the starkid was retroactively telling the truth, and red, the IM was wrong and the starkid was lying through his teeth.

But now we have a fourth option.

It's a perfect fit for the Indoctrination Theory because it gives us the option to say NO! without messing up what was the authors original vision. The fact that it kicks you in the nuts a moment later is immaterial because an IT fan thinks its all a dream anyway. And you're STILL left wanting to see the 'real' ending. And I think Bioware may
have deliberately thrown the IT fans a bone right here. Anyone else think that sounded like infra-sound?

That is a very intersting take, thank you for sharing. 

I thought you couldn't hear infrasound, though. 

[agmrpink]

FellishBeast wrote...

agmrpink wrote...

Don't know if this had already been addressed, but I'm curious for y'alls opionions:

For me (IT believer), the Reapers believe themselves to be the one race to rule them all, using indoctrination to enslave everybody else/gobble them up for batteries.

But for you Literalists out there, if Starchild is the controlling the Reapers simply as a mechanism to wipe out advanced organics to avoid war and mass destruction with synthetics, what does Reaper indoctrination, as a whole, accomplish if their end-goal is Hungry-Hungry-Hippos for brain food?

Good question. Someone suggested it was merely a side-effect of their...don't remember the term. But I don't know if there's anything to back that up.

I guess you could say it just makes their harvest a lot easier and more clean. Heck, it could even be enlightenment, since they are the "good guys" in the literal interpretation.

I can see that, but on a more fundamental level, does that mean they were created by the Starchildren with a mind control ability from the get-go? They sure planned ahead.

[FellishBeast]

HellishFiend wrote...

Bacteriophage wrote...

I may have a... maybe not unique, but unusual opinion.

I was not a fan of indoctrination theory before, but I am now. Previously, IT was a ham-handed attempt to obviate the blue and green options in service to the red and hopefully future content. Now with the Reject ending, I think it is a form of fridge brilliance specific to that ending. (OK fine, I guess it still works for Red, if you insist...)

People forget that Bioware practices a kind of reverse form of narrative causality in their stories. Because they give the player control of certain decisions, and said stories feature flashbacks or ambiguity in the past or present, player decisions in the narrative future actually establish the plot of events in the narrative past.

I can think of three examples of this of the top of my head. In Star Wars:KOTOR, the flashback/reveal of the main character as Reven changes based on what the player gender is. In KOTOR 2 (Obsidian with Bioware input) the player gender determines which of two squad mates join up. And in Dragon Age:Origins, The player decision of what race to play as determines some of the back story of a second character (Duncan) such that the character will always meet the player.

I suspect that's what's going on with the endings in ME3 writ large. No matter what your decision is, it is always 'the best' one because as soon as you choose it, narrative causality kicks in and the nasty implications of the other options become true. If in your playthrough you choose blue, then the Illusive Man was retroactively correct, green and the starkid was retroactively telling the truth, and red, the IM was wrong and the starkid was lying through his teeth.

But now we have a fourth option.

It's a perfect fit for the Indoctrination Theory because it gives us the option to say NO! without messing up what was the authors original vision. The fact that it kicks you in the nuts a moment later is immaterial because an IT fan thinks its all a dream anyway. And you're STILL left wanting to see the 'real' ending. And I think Bioware may
have deliberately thrown the IT fans a bone right here. Anyone else think that sounded like infra-sound?

Sure, its possible, but I hope you're wrong. Why? Because even when invoking "retroactive lore" by picking Synthesis or Control, that still contemptuously spits in the face of the established themes of the entire trilogy. I will still lose respect for BW as storytellers if they go that route, even if it allows for IT to be true in one of the choices. 

Yeah, my issue is that it really makes everything we fight for through the first two games feel pointless. Saren was right. TIM was right. Shep is just a stubborn a**hole.