Aller au contenu

Photo

Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark II!


55528 réponses à ce sujet

#35101
HellishFiend

HellishFiend
  • Members
  • 5 546 messages

Simon_Says wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

This seems appropriate given the current dialog:

Holy walls of text Batman!

;):P


This is what happens when I actually try to contribute meaningfully instead of either fantisizing about reaper snu-snu with GolferGuy or getting drunk and making insane theories about the nature of reapers. I really do apologize that I can't write anywhere nearly as consisely or elegantly as you guys deserve.


Hey, I was just joking! :( I actually responded to you.... Just needed a moment to read, is all. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 30 juin 2012 - 03:09 .


#35102
Simon_Says

Simon_Says
  • Members
  • 1 164 messages
I know you were joking. But my apology is still genuine.

#35103
Andromidius

Andromidius
  • Members
  • 2 997 messages

Simon_Says wrote...

TL:DR version (also known as the Rifneno version)

  • Whether the breath scene was on Earth or not is irrelevant now because the dream sequence hypothesis isn't necessary anymore.
  • The breath scene as presented still makes more sense as being on Earth than on the Citadel. I don't know what exactly to make of this.
  • Indoc Theory wasn't about the dream sequence, ergo it's still alive.
  • One weak argument can't debunk a theory built on many strong arguments.
  • Extended Cut still supports IT but does not confirm or deny it.
  • There's a difference between questioning Indoc Theory's merit as a canon vs. questioning Indoc Theory's being the canon. And we better grow up and understand that.


Took me a while to read it all, but I do agree with most of this.  I personally still think the parts on the Citadel are full-blown dreams, and the rest of London (and parts from before) are being affected by hallucinations that alter reality.  Further details are harder to process, since its a very confusing narrative style.

#35104
Simon_Says

Simon_Says
  • Members
  • 1 164 messages

HellishFiend wrote...

It's hard to make an "official distinction" since each of us tend to have our own personal interpretation. For example, Arian and I tend to agree with ~98% of our IT interpretation, but we differ on Shep's state of mind when picking Synthesis. Does one of those get to be a distinction?

Plus, you gotta consider that even if we made an effort to distinguish, most literalists wouldnt give us the chance to explain ourselves before attacking it anyway, most likely with irrelevant/old debunk material.

What I'm basically getting at is that we need to distinguish discussing the theory itself and discussing what Bioware's plans for whatever an 'official' version of IT are, or if there are any.

And if literalists start attacking IT, then calmly link them to my explanation or explain it yourself. So much trouble can be saved on this thread if both opposing sides know exactly what we're all talking about. Also we really, really need a new Master Guide To Indoc Theory (Post EC Edition). Something akin to Acavayos' original videos.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 30 juin 2012 - 03:15 .


#35105
Arian Dynas

Arian Dynas
  • Members
  • 3 799 messages

Simon_Says wrote...

I know you were joking. But my apology is still genuine.


Edward Everett to Abraham Lincoln;

"You said better in two minutes than I could in two hours."

#35106
Starbuck8

Starbuck8
  • Members
  • 659 messages

Simon_Says wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

It's hard to make an "official distinction" since each of us tend to have our own personal interpretation. For example, Arian and I tend to agree with ~98% of our IT interpretation, but we differ on Shep's state of mind when picking Synthesis. Does one of those get to be a distinction?

Plus, you gotta consider that even if we made an effort to distinguish, most literalists wouldnt give us the chance to explain ourselves before attacking it anyway, most likely with irrelevant/old debunk material.

What I'm basically getting at is that we need to distinguish discussing the theory itself and discussing what Bioware's plans for whatever an 'official' version of IT are, or if there are any.

And if literalists start attacking IT, then calmly link them to my explanation or explain it yourself. So much trouble can be saved on this thread if both opposing sides know exactly what we're all talking about. Also we really, really need a new Master Guide To Indoc Theory (Post EC Edition). Something akin to Acavayos' original videos.


Yes, this. I completely agree.

#35107
byne

byne
  • Members
  • 7 813 messages
So, this is off-topic, but bandits in Skyrim amuse me. I just shot one in the face with an arrow, but he didnt die. After about 20 seconds of looking for me, he decided he was just hearing things, and went back to eating food at the table. All the while with a big arrow stuck in his head.

#35108
HellishFiend

HellishFiend
  • Members
  • 5 546 messages

Simon_Says wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

It's hard to make an "official distinction" since each of us tend to have our own personal interpretation. For example, Arian and I tend to agree with ~98% of our IT interpretation, but we differ on Shep's state of mind when picking Synthesis. Does one of those get to be a distinction?

Plus, you gotta consider that even if we made an effort to distinguish, most literalists wouldnt give us the chance to explain ourselves before attacking it anyway, most likely with irrelevant/old debunk material.

What I'm basically getting at is that we need to distinguish discussing the theory itself and discussing what Bioware's plans for whatever an 'official' version of IT are, or if there are any.

And if literalists start attacking IT, then calmly link them to my explanation or explain it yourself. So much trouble can be saved on this thread if both opposing sides know exactly what we're all talking about. Also we really, really need a new Master Guide To Indoc Theory (Post EC Edition). Something akin to Acavayos' original videos.


I agree. Those things would help for those that are genuinely curious. But thankfully the ones that are genuinely curious are lurkers that actually pay attention most of the time, and pick up what they want/need to know by observing our conversations. The ones that actually come in here and post nonsense wouldnt pay attention to anything we put together for them.

That being said, a new "feature" video would still be a great idea, since we're apparently in it for the long haul. 

#35109
Andromidius

Andromidius
  • Members
  • 2 997 messages

Simon_Says wrote...

What I'm basically getting at is that we need to distinguish discussing the theory itself and discussing what Bioware's plans for whatever an 'official' version of IT are, or if there are any.


This is agree with.  While its fun to speculate, we have little go on bar that Leviathan of Dis is possibly the next DLC.

#35110
Arian Dynas

Arian Dynas
  • Members
  • 3 799 messages

Simon_Says wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

It's hard to make an "official distinction" since each of us tend to have our own personal interpretation. For example, Arian and I tend to agree with ~98% of our IT interpretation, but we differ on Shep's state of mind when picking Synthesis. Does one of those get to be a distinction?

Plus, you gotta consider that even if we made an effort to distinguish, most literalists wouldnt give us the chance to explain ourselves before attacking it anyway, most likely with irrelevant/old debunk material.

What I'm basically getting at is that we need to distinguish discussing the theory itself and discussing what Bioware's plans for whatever an 'official' version of IT are, or if there are any.

And if literalists start attacking IT, then calmly link them to my explanation or explain it yourself. So much trouble can be saved on this thread if both opposing sides know exactly what we're all talking about. Also we really, really need a new Master Guide To Indoc Theory (Post EC Edition). Something akin to Acavayos' original videos.


Shepard's state of mind we decided was unimportant, because his state of mind was meant to be blank so as to be impressed upon by the mind of the player, was what I believe we decided.

#35111
Arian Dynas

Arian Dynas
  • Members
  • 3 799 messages

byne wrote...

So, this is off-topic, but bandits in Skyrim amuse me. I just shot one in the face with an arrow, but he didnt die. After about 20 seconds of looking for me, he decided he was just hearing things, and went back to eating food at the table. All the while with a big arrow stuck in his head.


Use one of the sneaking overhauls, he won't stop looking for you until he finds you with that on.

I can sugguest a mod list...:whistle:

#35112
Andromidius

Andromidius
  • Members
  • 2 997 messages

byne wrote...

So, this is off-topic, but bandits in Skyrim amuse me. I just shot one in the face with an arrow, but he didnt die. After about 20 seconds of looking for me, he decided he was just hearing things, and went back to eating food at the table. All the while with a big arrow stuck in his head.


The AI in that game is hilariously bad, especially when you play as a Thief-type character.

Still fun though.  And rather difficult when you play as a Warrior-type without a shield.

Still annoyed that Dawnguard isn't out on PC for another month...

#35113
HellishFiend

HellishFiend
  • Members
  • 5 546 messages

Arian Dynas wrote...

Shepard's state of mind we decided was unimportant, because his state of mind was meant to be blank so as to be impressed upon by the mind of the player, was what I believe we decided.


Yeah I suppose we did settle on that. It was the first example that came to mind though, and I needed a quick example. :P

#35114
byne

byne
  • Members
  • 7 813 messages

Arian Dynas wrote...

byne wrote...

So, this is off-topic, but bandits in Skyrim amuse me. I just shot one in the face with an arrow, but he didnt die. After about 20 seconds of looking for me, he decided he was just hearing things, and went back to eating food at the table. All the while with a big arrow stuck in his head.


Use one of the sneaking overhauls, he won't stop looking for you until he finds you with that on.

I can sugguest a mod list...:whistle:


But I play on xbox so that wouldnt help me much.

#35115
Nightingale

Nightingale
  • Members
  • 756 messages

Starbuck8 wrote...
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12047832/1388#12871248
Also confirmed by Megumi: www.youtube.com/watch

Ah, I can't believe I missed that. Thanks for the links :)
Not to sound ignorant (which I'm sure I will, considering how many times I've played this game) but it was just the calm expression before EC, right?

HellishFiend wrote...
In the absense of proof, we cant draw
any conclusions. I personally feel the size is greater than the content
justifies, but a feeling isnt enough to present as evidence. I cant data
mine either (360), so I cant help out with that. 


I agree, from what I've seen. I can't data mine either (PS3...and I don't know that I'd know what to look for) and haven't had much time to check out in-game changes :unsure:

#35116
Arian Dynas

Arian Dynas
  • Members
  • 3 799 messages

byne wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

byne wrote...

So, this is off-topic, but bandits in Skyrim amuse me. I just shot one in the face with an arrow, but he didnt die. After about 20 seconds of looking for me, he decided he was just hearing things, and went back to eating food at the table. All the while with a big arrow stuck in his head.


Use one of the sneaking overhauls, he won't stop looking for you until he finds you with that on.

I can sugguest a mod list...:whistle:


But I play on xbox so that wouldnt help me much.


Oh, well clearly your intellect is inferior to mine, console kiddie. :P

#35117
dreamgazer

dreamgazer
  • Members
  • 15 765 messages

Simon_Says wrote...

I would like to bring up the subject about where exactly the breath scene was again. I know, I know, you don't want to go back to that, and this is probably way too late, but please hear me out.

The EC changed the data we had to work with. Before, we developed the dream sequence hypothesis because it was the best way to explain Shepard surviving an explosion that was clearly depicted as breaking the entire Citadel apart, Shepard showing much less of their inquisitive nature when talking with the Catalyst, as well as Normandy's retreat, among other things. Yet now that isn't the case because EC has in some way or another touched upon these reasons, isn't a dream sequence now not strictly necessary for Indoc Theory?

Yes, I believe the breath scene still makes more sense as being on Earth. (Though I’m unsure whether or not the game’s ending took place on Earth in a dream sequence given what else we see in the EC. This is a tricky subject that I think merits more discussion.) I'll try to find the images to prove it, but the breath scene contains assets identical in shape and texture to concrete blocks found on Earth and Benning. It's visibly obvious that it's concrete. These assets are never shown citadel locations. Additionally, I cannot recall evidence of the existence of concrete-like materials anywhere on the Citadel, in any of the games or other media. Not to mention that the existence of concrete on an alien space station as anything more than decorative or for extremely minor applications is simply not plausible.

As for the cables, as mentioned before, cables of similar design are present throughout the game in both single and multiplayer, including areas where such cables are obviously not of reaper origin. Even though loose cables such as those have not been discovered on the Earth missions yet, one must remember that reapers and reapertech were strewn throughout London. The cables could feasibly be from, say, the conduit.

Not that this matters, as I've explained before. Since the dream sequence isn't a neccesary part of Indoctrination Theory anymore, debunking the claim that Shepard was still on Earth is not going to debunk Indoctrination Theory as a whole. Yes, the title of the thread asks if Mass Effect 3's climax was a hallucination, but the real core of Indoc Theory is the idea that Shepard's mind is under attack throughout the game and most particularily during the final sequences, and that Shepard/The Player must overcome that to achieve true victory. That much hasn't changed.

Oh, and generally to folks such as Peytl who want to come here and claim that Indoctrination Theory is debunked based on a single piece of evidence, extraordinary claims regarding extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof. In this case I refer to IT as an extraordinary theory in that from the literary side of things Indoctrination Theory is a compelling and comprehensive explanation of the events we're presented throughout Mass Effect 3. It draws numerous powerful and sound arguments from lore found throughout the franchise. Refuting the theory from a literary standpoint will require much more than a single minor argument that can be easily countered.

As for the meta standpoint, i.e. "Did Bioware intend Indoctrination Theory to be the exclusive canon," I think we can all agree that whatever the case, Bioware's intent at this point is to sit on the fence and watch us speculate our guts out, without truly supporting any side. What has been added lends credence to both literalist and theorist interpretations. For instance, EDI's monologue can be viewed either as a genuine celebration of the dawn of a Brave New World that many literalists argued, or it could be viewed as horrid propaganda to an indoctrinated galaxy. IT hasn't been confirmed as canon. But It hasn't been confirmed not to be valid interpretation of the ending.

So at this point I think it's high time we made an important separation regarding Indoc Theory. We must separate Indoc Theory's value as a literary interpretation of the ending, and whether or not Indoc Theory was/is Bioware's plan for Mass Effect 3's canon. It's an important distinction that too many, including myself, have fallen into the trap of forgetting. Remember when people attacked IT saying that aspects of Indoc Theory could be easily explained as developer laziness? Or the people who desperately argued that Indoc Theory has to be more than fancanon because, basically, "the theory is too beautiful not to be"? That's because this distinction wasn't recognized. We have to start recognizing it, lest we keep making asses of ourselves to each other and the world at large.

TL:DR version (also known as the Rifneno version)

  • Whether the breath scene was on Earth or not is irrelevant now because the dream sequence hypothesis isn't necessary anymore.
  • The breath scene as presented still makes more sense as being on Earth than on the Citadel. I don't know what exactly to make of this.
  • Indoc Theory wasn't about the dream sequence, ergo it's still alive.
  • One weak argument can't debunk a theory built on many strong arguments.
  • Extended Cut still supports IT but does not confirm or deny it.
  • There's a difference between questioning Indoc Theory's merit as a canon vs. questioning Indoc Theory's being the canon. And we better grow up and understand that.


(massive thumbs up)  This is all very, very accurate. I was contemplaying a post similar to this, but I didn't want to dampen the thread's momentum.  

Honestly, I've been there since I arrived on the board in March, but I indulged---and defended---the idea of the "theory" because the device sounded: a) really clever; and B) reminiscent of things that BioWare have done in the past.  That's why a lot of my conversation remained top-level, purely story-oriented dissection, the stuff observable as if the extended cut weren't happening.  And any time "indoctrination" is mentioned outside this thread now, it's met with very, very nasty language, mocking, and insults that I'm getting tired of hearing.  

The Reapers are in Shepard's head, as evidenced by the catalyst's form of the child from the nightmares.  That's my pivotal jumping-off point, and why my mind will remain latched onto the concept of indoctrination being in Shepard's system. The dreams, the moral alignment of the decisions, the crescendo of mentioning "indoctrination" in the game as it approaches the conclusion, and the surreal fabric of the Citadel sequence all influence it.  The lore backs it up. That's more than enough.

I do believe BioWare intended that abstract interpretation. Always will.  All it required was, "Hey, let's make these elements reminiscent of indoctrination symptoms to play with the viewer". Bam.  And the EC strengthens components of that interpretation.  

#35118
Andromidius

Andromidius
  • Members
  • 2 997 messages

DrTsoni wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12047832/1388#12871248
Also confirmed by Megumi: www.youtube.com/watch

Ah, I can't believe I missed that. Thanks for the links :)
Not to sound ignorant (which I'm sure I will, considering how many times I've played this game) but it was just the calm expression before EC, right?


I missed it too, and I was the one asking for the video >_>

And yeah, it was just 'stoneface Shep' before.

#35119
Starbuck8

Starbuck8
  • Members
  • 659 messages

DrTsoni wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12047832/1388#12871248
Also confirmed by Megumi: www.youtube.com/watch

Ah, I can't believe I missed that. Thanks for the links :)
Not to sound ignorant (which I'm sure I will, considering how many times I've played this game) but it was just the calm expression before EC, right?


I believe so, yes. I don't have proof myself, but can add that there's evidence in the game files of changes in the 3rd dream.

#35120
Nightingale

Nightingale
  • Members
  • 756 messages

Andromidius wrote...
I missed it too, and I was the one asking for the video >_>

And yeah, it was just 'stoneface Shep' before.

Oh. Well then thanks for requesting a video so I could see it too :P
Anyway, it's a small difference but I think I like it more this way.

byne wrote...

So, this is off-topic, but bandits in Skyrim
amuse me. I just shot one in the face with an arrow, but he didnt die.
After about 20 seconds of looking for me, he decided he was just hearing
things, and went back to eating food at the table. All the while with a
big arrow stuck in his head.

Lol it may be worth picking up Skyrim when I have the time, just to see that.

#35121
HellishFiend

HellishFiend
  • Members
  • 5 546 messages

Andromidius wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12047832/1388#12871248
Also confirmed by Megumi: www.youtube.com/watch

Ah, I can't believe I missed that. Thanks for the links :)
Not to sound ignorant (which I'm sure I will, considering how many times I've played this game) but it was just the calm expression before EC, right?


I missed it too, and I was the one asking for the video >_>

And yeah, it was just 'stoneface Shep' before.


The more I think about it, the more I think that the new "EC" version of the third dream is the way it was supposed to be. Why wouldnt it be? It must have been glitched. He looks mortified in the first dream, why not the third? Maybe because it depends on the player's choices.... 

#35122
Andromidius

Andromidius
  • Members
  • 2 997 messages

HellishFiend wrote...
The more I think about it, the more I think that the new "EC" version of the third dream is the way it was supposed to be. Why wouldnt it be? It must have been glitched. He looks mortified in the first dream, why not the third? Maybe because it depends on the player's choices.... 


Either that or Shep is getting bored of having the same dream over and over again :D

#35123
LT123

LT123
  • Members
  • 770 messages

Andromidius wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...
social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12047832/1388#12871248
Also confirmed by Megumi: www.youtube.com/watch

Ah, I can't believe I missed that. Thanks for the links :)
Not to sound ignorant (which I'm sure I will, considering how many times I've played this game) but it was just the calm expression before EC, right?


I missed it too, and I was the one asking for the video >_>

And yeah, it was just 'stoneface Shep' before.

Weird.

So Paragon Shep + Paragon response("Everything?")=calm
Paragon Shep + Renegade response ("Absolutely")=distressed

Correct?

What about Renegade Shep?

Modifié par LT123, 30 juin 2012 - 03:35 .


#35124
Arian Dynas

Arian Dynas
  • Members
  • 3 799 messages

DrTsoni wrote...

byne wrote...

So, this is off-topic, but bandits in Skyrim
amuse me. I just shot one in the face with an arrow, but he didnt die.
After about 20 seconds of looking for me, he decided he was just hearing
things, and went back to eating food at the table. All the while with a
big arrow stuck in his head.

Lol it may be worth picking up Skyrim when I have the time, just to see that.


Oh believe me, Skyrim is worth far more than just that.

#35125
Simon_Says

Simon_Says
  • Members
  • 1 164 messages
Mind if I bring up something I touched upon earlier but I didn't get into fully?

Simon_Says wrote...

Yes, I believe the breath scene still makes more sense as being on Earth. (Though I’m unsure whether or not the game’s ending took place on Earth in a dream sequence given what else we see in the EC. This is a tricky subject that I think merits more discussion.)


The Extended Cut showed scenes happening between the times when Shepard enters the Citadel (for real or no) and they wake up (on Earth or not). Problem for me is that the breath scene makes more sense being on Earth, yet those scenes with Hacket, the Normandy, etc. all felt as if they were 'real', in my opinion. I can't figure out how they could be part of a dream sequence. So, to me, Shepard appears to have actually been on the Citadel to fire that Crucible. Yet they end up seemingly on Earth. Also, as many people noted, rejection doesn't show Shepard surviving, which looks like it should happen if Shepard was dreaming on Earth.

I've no clue what to make of this. Anyone care to tackle it? Anyone already did?

As for the post-choice monologues, I'm fairly certain those are not visions to Shepard but just summarizations of the galaxy's future made for the benefit of the player. In that sense they're not 'actually going on' in the story. Hence how in destroy we get Big Bada Boom, the Relay Network Crash, Normandy's landing, the monolgue, Normandy taking off, then the breath scene.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 30 juin 2012 - 03:39 .