I will go through the "evidence" listed in the indoc theory thread and debunk it case by case. Using reasonable logic and coomonsence.
"When you talk to TIM, you get those weird black things at the edges of the screen."
Those "black things" represent TIM controlling you implants. If the weird black things, instead represent indoctrination why is it that they only appear during the scene where TIM is controlling Shepard and Anderson?
"It would explain why the kid was there"
The Catalyst chose the form of "the kid" to present something familiar to Shepard. Just like how Vendetta takes the form of a Prothean or Avina is in Asari form.
"The weird blackness when TIM tried to control you and you tried to fight it could be Shepard fighting against blood loss and trying not to pass out (hence the darkening around the edges of the screen)"
Again why would it appear during only that scene? Why would Shepard only be fighting bloodloss during the TIM scene?
"It explains how even the crew who were wounded with you near the portal in London ended up on the Normandy, and even why the Normandy was leaving Earth in the first place, its because Shepard isnt thinking clearly, and these are just the images dreamed up by a deteriorating brain."
Admiral Hackett told everybody to retreat cause the Reapers were OP.
"Also, there is a likelyhood that having spent so much time around Reapers, Shepard is slightly indoctrinated. The Synthesis ending really doesnt make much sense, other than the fact that the little kid seems to think it is the best option. We never get an explanation on how jumping into a beam of energy that kills us will do anything like what it is said it will do."
While it is true that Shepard has spent loads of time around Reapers, Bioware never gives us any sign that he is experienceing signs of indoctrination, or his buddies for that matter. Bioware gives us clear signs, such as voices in the head that indicates indoctrination. There is none of that.
And while synthesis might not make sense, it hardly is a sign of indoctrination. There are several situations that don't make much sense in Mass Effect that have nothing to do with indoctrination, such as why didn't Shepard cure the genophage in ME1 or how Krogen infantry can logistically and sucessfully repell 40km tall machines of death. It has nothing to do with indoc, simply deveolper oversight.
"The Reapers used Shepard's slight indoctrination and confused state as part of a last ditch effort to get Shepard to take himself out of the picture, since they knew that if they didnt do so, Shepard was about to win."
If that is true, then why wouldn't Harbinger just shoot Shepard again? It would make more sense just to blow him up, rather then wait for the effects of indoctrination.
"Theory 1 is that indoctrination is at the start of ME3 and that during the whole game every dream is more and more indoctrination. Also, there is an indoctrination device on the normandy, (supported by Vega mentioning a Hum all throughout the game) This is supported by the re-apperance of the RGC all througout the game. People disagree because people believe Indoctrination, (from now on condensed to ID) is not as subtle as that, and would not only affect dreams."
The dream sequences are meant to remind the player of what there fighting for and the losses along the way (mordin, the kid, Ashley/Kaiden). Much like how Cortana/The Gravemind interupt gameplay in Halo 3 it is a story device to deapen the imersion the player has with what Shepard is struggling with; how to war is taking it's toll.
Perhaps Vega hears humming because he is right next to the engine room? What do we even have to go by to indicate indoc devices emit anysort of humming?
"Theory 2 is that it happens on the Normandy, that the child is real in the beginning, but once on the Normandy, you start to get indoctrinated, which is supported by Vega hearing the Hum. The same reasons as above but SLIGHTLY more credible due to the poster of the missing earth child. People disagree with Theory 2 for the same reasons as theory 1."
See previous repsonce.
"Theory A is what I like to call the "Ilos Run" theory, that you're ID is full blown on the shuttle as soon as you leave the shuttle. This theory concludes that the shuttle was blown up at some point, that you were buried beneath rubble, and harbinger is trying to indoctrinate you to retrieve the body. It is supported by the dreamy quality of the run itself, and the lack of squadmates following you, soon as the ID gets stronger, you go full on dream mode. This is to compensate for the "Dream Trees" at the very beginning of the run"
This is speculation, there is no ingame evidence to support this. Harbinger doesn't even seem occupied with trying to get it's hands on Shepard in ME3. See previous responce.
"Theory B is that your full blown indoctrination is not until you get pwnt by the laser. and that at that point you are passed out at the crucible, and Harbinger is doing what he has always wanted, (ID of Shep) This is supported due to the realistic look of the run down the hill."
I'm not sure how the end run looks any more realistic then the citadel exploding or meeting the Catalyst.
"1. The endgame scenario is Indoctrination/Manipulation from the Reapers (Harbinger) trying to force you into choosing to let the Reapers live. Shepard is not awake during the final sceens!"
At this point what would the Reapers gain by indoctrinating Shepard? They are already are on the road to victory, with their fleets attacking nemerous worlds en'force. And at this point Shepard would already be out of the fight. Unlike in ME1 or ME2 the reapers have nothing to gain, as they are already in the galaxy and harvesting humans at this point.
"2. Choosing to control the Reapers allows them to live. Reapers win. They will still exist."
If Shepard is indoctrinated this option makes sense. But I doubt Bioware would pour the resources they did into making a false ending.
"3. Choosing to combine organic and synthetic life: Reapers win. They will still exist."
Diddo.
"4. Choosing to destroy all synthetic life: Reapers loose. Shepard lives. Reapers die."
With this one I'm not sure how surviving indoc would kill all Reapers. Furthermore where would this leave Shepard and the player? This would end the series with Shepard burried underrubble and the Reapers killing everybody. If you didn't like the endings you would probably say this is even worse then the ones we got.
"5. Choosing to destroy all synthetic life option is more Renegade in appearence. Controlling the Reapers is more Paragon in appearence. The Illusive Man's choice should not be Paragon colors, just as Anderson's choice should not be Renegade."
Which one is more Renegade? Peacefully coe-existing with the Reapers or Destroying all synthetic life because of the deeds of Harbinger and his pals. TIM is represented as foward thinking, while Anderson is "an old man stuck in his ways" all he can think about is destroying the machines. I would argue it is more renegade to commit genocide then to control the machines.
6. Shepard awakes at the end of destroying Reapers. But Shepard is not awaking from the aftermath. He is awaking from either after he is hit by Harbingers lazer attack on Earth or after the scene with Anderson and the Illusive Man.
Again where would that leave the series?
7. Stating that all sythetic life will be destroyed will give you pause; destroying the Geth can force you to a different conclusion. This choice exists for the illusion of choice; the other choices are ment to sound better.
It should give you pause, it's the renegade option. There are consequences to your actions. Like with the Control ending you let EDI and the Geth live but who says the Reapers will never turn around millions of years later and blow stuff up?
8. Shepard does not awake in the other 2 "endings" because you are fully indoctrinated by the choices you made to allow the Reapers to win. "Assuming Control!"
Again why would bioware pour recourses into tricking players into two false endings? It would be smart if presented correctly but, even if you choose the "correct" ending you are not even given the option to continue the fight. See what I'm getting at.
9. Never trust any child construct, be it a ghost or artificial intelligence, or heck even human. They are just creepy.
True dat
10. Shepard awakes at the end because he has broken hold of the Reaper's control.
Once more where would that leave the player given the game won't let them continue the fight.
11. Shepard has spent alot of time around Reapers. Soveriegn, various Reaper artifacts, the Human Reaper, 2 Reaper destroyers, the Artifact from "The Arrival." Its foolish to assume there is not some level of
indoctrination.
It would be foolish to assume so given there are no signs present to indicate such. From my understanding the person must submit themselves to being around said artifacts for extended amounts of time. At the most Shepard has only spent a few hours up close to a reaper. Also we must take into account all the civians in reaper prisions. Gathering from EDI a huge amount are still resisting the machines. Implying indoc takes time.
12. Bioware not only get more $$$ for DLC for the final battle, but big props for INDOCTRINATING A LOT OF ITS OWN PLAYERS! I do not know of another gaming company that has tried to fool all of its consumers, but they look to be the first and reap all of the attention.
that would be bad bizznizz. They know better, plus EC is free.
15. Shepard is not wearing his armor when he wakes up in the Citadel, implying that this is a dream.
There are several things that easily explain this 1) blown off by Harbinger 2) Citadel had MEF that allowed atmosphere 3) Squadmates do not need atmosphere to survive the vacume of space.
16) As soon as Shepherd "wakes up" after being blasted by the Reaper laser, he's limping. If, as you're playing, you try to look/aim down at Shep's feet, you can't. The view angle get's blocked so that you can't see below his/her knees. If you watch the pace of the legs moving, though, it becomes really obvious that Shepherd is moving considerably faster than he is actually walking, almost floating as it were. At first when I noticed this in the my second play-though I just figured it was designed that way because making Shepherds speed the same as his walk would make the last moments in the game take 3 times longer (and it already seemed to take forever). But if we're rolling with the hallucination/indoctrination theory, then the fact that he's practically floating on his feet just adds more fuel to the fire...
Or perhaps limping would take too long and make the scene too long and tedius. So bioware sped up the walk speed. Of course the walkspeed won't match the limp animations, so they make it so you can't look down plain and simple. Also the set camera angle keeps teh player focused on the goal.
17) The line Harbinger repeated over and over in ME2 was that the Reapers would be "your salvation through destruction." Well, the synthesis and control options are literally salvation for the galaxy through Shep's destruction, buying into a compliance mindset. The only option that leaves Shep breathing is to destroy the Reapers, which has been the point since ME1. All the evidence points to the last sequence being a battle for Shepards mind that is only won when Shep chooses the path that the god-kid tries to convince him not to take.
But the Catalyst tells Shep, that he will die in the destroy ending also, if that where true why would Shepard be prompted to choose the other two over destroy given the catalyst told shepard he will die. See what i'm getting at?
Listen carefully and you'll hear 3 very distinct voices when the Catalyst speaks. Strange you say? It's getting even stranger... Listen REALLY carefully and you'll hear that the 3 voices are a kids voice, femShep's voice and maleShep's voice.
And how does this prove indoc? For example Garrus or any Turian has a deeper more gruff sounding voice underneath their actual tone/pitch when your talking to them. It is simply a way to make things sound more alien by distorting audio.
19) Anderson is clearly killed by the laser
Nope. At least I don't recall seeing that.
20) No squad members are scene once you're hit by the laser
Those sences were cut, you can find em on youtube.
21) after being hit by the laser, you see shadowy whisps on the floor, similar to the much larger whisps seen in the dreams during the game.
That is shading and light effects from the water and conduit.
The child does not actually exist. He is an attempt to indoctrinate Shepard. Nobody but Shepard ever sees or interacts with the child.
Anderson sees him in to opening segments of the game. I mean he is looking right where the kid is, even spotting the husks I don't think his eyesight is that bad. When evacuating one of the Alliance soilders even waits for the kid to enter the Kodiak shuttle before taking off. Then that Reaper destroyer was like I see kiddies om yom yom!
When Anderson calls for Shepard at the beginning of the game, when Shepard is talking to the child, Shepard turns back and the child is gone. Shepard has been "snapped out of it".
Or he crawled down the airvents
When Shepard turns towards Anderson after being "snapped out of it", a growl is heard. In the third novel, when Greyson resisted the reapers they would make a growling noise once they realized they didn't have him under complete control.
Keep in mind the place was just swarming with husks. There are probably some nearby. Even then in the ME3 soundtrack reaper abmience is used in the Cerberus Plot track. Indicating reworking of audio for various reasons or purposes. Chances are it is just ambience, rather then indoc.
During Shepard's final dream with the child, chatter can be heard over the radio about nobody making it to the beam. Shepard is still in London.
In war you don't know everything that is going on 100% of the time. The likely hood that no one saw Shep or Anderson get to the beam is a far more reasonable explination. Even from Shepard's perspective it looked like nearly everybody got decimated.
When Shepard catches the child in the final dream, they are both engulfed in flame. Going with the child (the
reapers) means Shepard's destruction.
It's a dream though, bizarre illustrations like what you just mentioned are often used to forshadow various things. In this case forshadowing the possibility of Shepard's death.
When Shepard wakes up at the end of Destroy, he/she is waking up in London, after being hit with the laser.
Last time I checked there wasn't any huge amounts of building rubble around the coundiut. It was quite cleared out. With rubble and buildings far away on the parameter.
It does require a strong and disorienting amount of suspension of disbelief, so if you cannot engage in this type of thought process, I encourage you to skip over this post.
It will hurt your brain. Or make you think that I'm crazy. Likely both. (I'm okay with either.)So what your saying is that it will make sence when your don't use your brain to disern or analyze the so called "proof"?
Understanding that the reality on the Citadel as being a cerebral concoction that is entirely of Shepard's creation is important when we arrive upon the Crucible. It becomes a vital understanding when we are faced with these three, unexpected choices that the Catalyst gives us. This theory submits that BioWare is asking the player to actively question EVERYTHING that happens once Shepard runs into Harbinger's beam. The cost of not questioning, or making the right choice even if you do?
Of course they are unexpected, i didn't the council or collector base choices. Even more so in ME3, there isn't enough forshaddowing to what the crucible might do thus the suspension of disblief is broken and these choices come quite bizarre comapred to the other in the last two games. How is actively questioning the choices different from any of the past games. I recall there were huge discussions about weather or not to save the collector base.
Think about it carefully. We arrive on the Crucible, and are faced with an archetype of manipulation, the Catalyst. Taking the form of a child that has come to represent everything that is horrendous about the Reapers to Shepard,the Catalyst/Harbinger provides Shepard with three strange and disorienting choices. He first presents Shepard with the option of Destroy, making swift and empty assertations about how it is the wrong choice because it would kill all synthetic life and Shepard herself/himself. At its surface, this seems like the renegade/chaos option, and is even insidiously portrayed in Renegade Red, a direct nod to the Player himself/herself. Directly appealing to your experiences with how the game works. He then goes on at great length about the Control and Synthesis options, portraying Control as the blue paragon/order option. Again, directly appealing to the Player. He arguesthat Control is the best option, implies that Shepard is the new Catalyst, and leaves us to contemplate the possibility that we could use it to try and save the people we love; after all, we are Shepard, and we would never become like TIM.
The Catalyst is afterall a Reaper construct, it's logic doesn't have to make sence. And that is alright, for example in Halo, does the covenant's religion follow logic? No. It isn't logical, and thus it gives the player a reason to fight. If their logic did make sence, why wouldn't the Chief be their next convert? The Catalyst never imposes it's logic or lack there of on you, but instead you have to make up your mind and choose which option either rejecting or accpting the catalyst's logic. The catalyst is manipulative it a certain extent, lieing to you about surviving the destroy ending but that said....
It makes sence the the renegade be destroy ending. Is it not renegade to destroy? Adding to that you (shaperd) impose your opinion that the reapers should be destroyed on the rest of the galaxy. And in the process commit mass genocide of all sythetic life. IF that isn't renegade tell me what is.
For Control, while the Ellusive man might not have the best motives around. His idea of controlling the reapers is the most peaceful. It allows shep to make peace and send the reapers away into (assumably) darkspace. Allowing peaceful cooperative living with the Reapers.
Synthesis is a hybrid, you allow peacefull coexistance with the machines without genocide, yet impose on all of creation that everybody become partially cybernetic. Weather that be good or bad...
This moment, when you are standing there, agonizing over your choice? This is your indoctrination moment. This is where, it could be (fantastically and insanely) argued that this is the moment when indoctrination and all of its insidious power becomes as real as it possibly CAN be to the Player. Think about it! We stand there. We agonize. We freak out about the ridiculous choices, and we wonder (like Shepard would) why we just can't ARUGE with the Catalyst (like Shepard would). And then, as this reality seems to be the only way forward (much like how indoctrination presents a version of reality to the indoctrinated that he/she sees as being the ONLY REAL OPTION -- echoes of TIM, Kai Leng, Saren here), we begin to accept it. Tremulously, we start to make our choice.
It has been stated before by Casey that there were options were you could argue with the catalyst and even a TIM bossfight but those where cut.
Does this theory make sense? Maybe not. When we consider BioWare's real-world motivations and risks (profit, losing a large fanbase over the disgusting wretchedness of the endings as they currently exist), then the theory is hard to support.
There. Addmission the indoc theory is mearly conjured up to attempt to make sense for those who dislike the endings.
It may explain BioWare's silence on the matter, until "more people have played the game", or until all regions have the game. It may explain Jess M.'s twitter about fans "reacting before having all of the facts". It may.... just may explain these super sh*tty endings in a way that would make BioWare the God of RPGs.
Sure it couldl've explained BW silence but at the time they were debating weather or not to change the endings and make EC.
Is it likely? No. Am I reaching, insanely? Yes. But is it possible? Yes.
Agreed.
hepard is standing on is definately part of the Citadel...so why is there the human numbers and letters such as 1M1 on structures in the citadel, a site we've never seen before?
Possibly the reuse of old modles is the best explination for this. It doesn't look terribly out of place in my opinion. This is most likely recycling old game content (look to HL's Source engine) you see recycled content there all teh time.
Also it is possible that the system's alliance could have done an EVA and attacked that on the hull of the citadel for what ever reason. There is proof, need i remind you that other cultures do their own modifications to the citadel. I doubt this would exclude the outerhull.
Also looking at the structures that are used for Control (blue) and Destroy (red) are already on the Citadel
They appear not to be directly connected to the Crucible, as it looks like the Crucible and the Citadel are connected only by the blue stream of light (purple circle). The options to control or destroy were implimented on the citadel, and not made through the Crucible.
Vendatta and Liara mention that over the years numerous species have made modification on the crucible design and the citadel in order for it to work. That can easily explain that. Or perhaps we just haven't seen that part yet. Eitehr way this does not remotely act as evidence for the indoc theory.
AlphaDormante wrote:
I just noticed this right now...don't know if anyone's mentioned this already or if it's been explained, but I thought I'd bring it up.
So you know that oddly colorful rubble that's littered around the Makos near the beam?
Yeah, that crap looks weird. PC, I'm ashamed of you and those textures.
...hey, wait a minute.
Are those BODIES?
Yes. As you can clearly see, there are faces, torsos, and legs in that pile of low-res polygons. Now, why it's so low-res I don't know; that might really be an issue with my computer. But I've never had this level of terrible with any other texture in the game...and you have to admit, seeing it so blurry and awful-looking lends it a very eerie quality.
Yes and how exactly does this proove indoc? If your say Ashley and Kaiden's bodies are in there I would love to know how you gather that information. Many other NPC wear the same armor as both those squadmates.
I know the subject of the eyes has been brought up a lot. But I've talked to quite a few people who don't see it, or don't think they're really what we think they are. So I got some screenshots and when necessary magnified them so you can see them better.
That's the Illusive Man's eye in ME2. Note the pattern: an inner circle, an outer circle, and two orb shapes on the bottom left and right.
Yep.
This is Saren's eye in ME1 right before he ragequits existence. It's different, but similar in a way. A large glowing center, an inner ring, a much smaller outer ring, and some wavy designs coming out of them.
I don't think having a retna and glowy eyes qualifies as evidence.
This is Shepard's eye right after his face turned black in the control ending. This is the exact same pattern as the Illusive Man's. The only difference is the color. Which is similar to Saren's. I'll also note that the rest of the scene he seemed to be in immense pain as he's gripping the handles. After he turns like this, he simply looks deadpan and emotionless.
Yes, indeed Shepard does get TIM eyes during those two endings. But it is highly likely that those are just for special fx. If you did anying modding you could tell that Shepard and TIM use the same eyes models anyhow. All you have to do is change the variables to get TIM's eye effects. TO me atleast this indicates nothing special as Shepard always had times eyes and they always could be brought out under the right variables and conditions.
Also, not sure who put this together, but I believe it was Nighthunteer. The area where you talk to the godchild and the Conduit approach look remarkably similar:
For me this is the most powerful evidence in support for the indoctrination theory. It had me convinced for a little while. Yes, I was a former indoc theorist. While it can be explained easily by design oversight it and everything above it is powerfull evidence to those who want to believe, to those who would rather burry their head in the sand, those who are in denial.
It all has to do with the "burden of proof", the indoctrination theory must present more evidence to gather up support then I ever have to for my rebuttals, speculation and facts. I have far less to proove in that sense. By inserting reasonable doubt into the "evidence", the Indoctrination Theory doesn't have a leg to stand on. As all their arguments can be reasonably and easily explained.
Modifié par Captain Cornhole, 26 juin 2012 - 12:29 .
Retour en haut
