Aller au contenu

Photo

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

Débuté par byne , juil. 30 2012 07:09

  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
80611 réponses à ce sujet

#39901
plfranke
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 07:56

plfranke
  • Members
  • 1 404 messages

SwobyJ wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

No...
The series ends on Shepard waking up...
That's the ****ing ending...

It's the player vs. indoctrination...
Boom, there's your ending...
Art...


That's the current ending, yes.


Yeah that's my point. Bill, its like you think Mass Effect, period, ends on the default ending of ME3.

It doesn't, or at least we have no confirmation of such.

I already said earlier that while I think there will be some related DLC to this (Rio), it doesn't mean I absolutely know that would happen. It very well may go without and DLC, and just end how it ends.

But that also doesn't mean Mass Effect ends.

Bill, do you really think the Crucible is just a plan carried throughout all or most of the cycles without any Reaper tampering or origination?

What exaclt is art about that, is what I want to know. That would be the worst writing ever. Have you forgotten that with IT we still have no idea what the crucible does? I'm tired and need to go to sleep but I'm willing I could list 5 things off the top of my head that are wrong with this being the ending and IT being true.

1. What happened to Illusive Man?
2. Where are the Reapers that were heading to Earth and why don't they stop everyone from getting to the beam?
3. How did the Crucible plans get passed down from so many cycles without the Reapers noticing it if it was actually capable of destroying them? In fact it's been discussed on this thread how it is nearly impossible the Reapers do not know the Crucible is being actively built.
4. Assuming the Crucible is a Reaper killer, how would you dock it in time before the Reapers destroyed it, considering you don't even have the Citadel's arms open.
5. Why would you end a series off on Priority Earth, for the expectations, arguably the worst mission in video game history?

Honestly I can't even take anyone seriously who believes that IT being the correct interperetation of the ending, but thinks no content should be added. Think about reading a book like that. I've made several analogies of this to other stories, it's just a ridiculous notion.

#39902
Raistlin Majare 1992
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 08:02

Raistlin Majare 1992
  • Members
  • 2 101 messages

leonia42 wrote...

Ah, we're back to "Something is wrong with Hackett". The more you think about it, the more weird it gets. All of Hackett's responses in ME3 seem relatively basic. He doesn't want to understand the Reapers, he wants to beat them. But how can you beat an enemy if you don't understand its tactics? It's like that line from Vigil, feels like Sun Tzu is relevant here. Who points you to the Crucible plans at just the right moment? Who sends you alone to Object Rho? Who has armed guards with him on the Normandy?

I'm not sure whether it's indoctrination or what but something isn't quite right. What if the fleet that he sacrificed at Arcturus was actually handed over to the Reapers so they could start processing some ground troops? What does he really want with the Proto-Reaper? Maybe the whole Cronos Station thing is a distraction to keep Shepard out of the way. Was it entirely Anderson's idea to go charging into a beam that nobody knew anything about or was that Hackett's suggestion?

But then.. all the MP stuff indicates Hackett is "normal", not that MP lore is super reliable (or rather, we don't know whether it is reliable or not).

Anyway, it's been awhile since this idea has been brought up so maybe it's worth looking at again.


The biggest problem is the question of how Hacket would have gotten Indoctrinated.

I mean have we ever seen that guy of a spaceship? He seems to be a fleet admiral to the bone and is never on any ground missions which would bring into contact with Reaper tech. Even more so we know he spends almost all of ME3 overseeing the Crucible project, safely hidden away from the Reapers until the final battle is at hand and even there he is on a ship and not down on Earth or anywhere where he might get exposed.

In short for all we know Hacket has had zero exposure to Reaper tech.

#39903
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 08:05

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests

leonia42 wrote...

Ah, we're back to "Something is wrong with Hackett". The more you think about it, the more weird it gets. All of Hackett's responses in ME3 seem relatively basic. He doesn't want to understand the Reapers, he wants to beat them. But how can you beat an enemy if you don't understand its tactics? It's like that line from Vigil, feels like Sun Tzu is relevant here. Who points you to the Crucible plans at just the right moment? Who sends you alone to Object Rho? Who has armed guards with him on the Normandy?

I'm not sure whether it's indoctrination or what but something isn't quite right. What if the fleet that he sacrificed at Arcturus was actually handed over to the Reapers so they could start processing some ground troops? What does he really want with the Proto-Reaper? Maybe the whole Cronos Station thing is a distraction to keep Shepard out of the way. Was it entirely Anderson's idea to go charging into a beam that nobody knew anything about or was that Hackett's suggestion?

But then.. all the MP stuff indicates Hackett is "normal", not that MP lore is super reliable (or rather, we don't know whether it is reliable or not).

Anyway, it's been awhile since this idea has been brought up so maybe it's worth looking at again.


Most of the MP stuff seems like sending talented special ops on wild goose chases while bigger stuff could be done, possibly.

We need to remember that if one is undergoing indoctrination of a low level, they still may fight and kill Reaper and fully indoctrinated forces for a time. It's not like they can't.

All of this stuff is suspect to me. People look to Hackett's demeanor and think 'tough, wizened military leader'.

I look at our history and think "Hiding, power-hungry, and closed-minded".

He seems to actually not ....worry about Cerberus. Not really. He seems to have certain sympathies with them, yet also not.

Here's what I think about Cerberus: TIM wants the Reapers to think they have him under his thumb (thus confusing/shielding himself from the Reapers/indoctrinated), except he's not. He's going to struggle for control over them and their technology. Maybe succeed. Maybe not. If IT is true, we don't know yet.

Hackett's actions against Cerberus make sense then.


"Once we're commited against Cerberus, it won't be long before the Reapers to take notice."
"Then we take the fleets to Earth and we take our chances"

Makes sense, in a weird way, for all this to happen after Sanctuary.

It's also creepy to think as this whole thing centered around getting Shepard into the right position to take over him. Damn.

#39904
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 08:09

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Ah, we're back to "Something is wrong with Hackett". The more you think about it, the more weird it gets. All of Hackett's responses in ME3 seem relatively basic. He doesn't want to understand the Reapers, he wants to beat them. But how can you beat an enemy if you don't understand its tactics? It's like that line from Vigil, feels like Sun Tzu is relevant here. Who points you to the Crucible plans at just the right moment? Who sends you alone to Object Rho? Who has armed guards with him on the Normandy?

I'm not sure whether it's indoctrination or what but something isn't quite right. What if the fleet that he sacrificed at Arcturus was actually handed over to the Reapers so they could start processing some ground troops? What does he really want with the Proto-Reaper? Maybe the whole Cronos Station thing is a distraction to keep Shepard out of the way. Was it entirely Anderson's idea to go charging into a beam that nobody knew anything about or was that Hackett's suggestion?

But then.. all the MP stuff indicates Hackett is "normal", not that MP lore is super reliable (or rather, we don't know whether it is reliable or not).

Anyway, it's been awhile since this idea has been brought up so maybe it's worth looking at again.


The biggest problem is the question of how Hacket would have gotten Indoctrinated.

I mean have we ever seen that guy of a spaceship? He seems to be a fleet admiral to the bone and is never on any ground missions which would bring into contact with Reaper tech. Even more so we know he spends almost all of ME3 overseeing the Crucible project, safely hidden away from the Reapers until the final battle is at hand and even there he is on a ship and not down on Earth or anywhere where he might get exposed.

In short for all we know Hacket has had zero exposure to Reaper tech.




Agreed.

The only thing to give this idea true credence (as much as I like it, while still being creeped out by it), is if DLC has a hint in it that Hackett once DID have exposure to something.

It could even be a little datapad mentioning it. Just something.

Otherwise, I recognize its pure speculation. Speculation that can make a ton of creepy sense in IT, but still speculation.

#39905
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 08:13

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests
If IT pans out and there's a bigger story after this, I can see the story moving from 'moral strengths' to the 'grey area' TIM mentions.

It would be no wonder then that ME3 acts and presents the story with such absolutes. Yes, its the Reaper invasion (all these idea have some sort of 'story cover' to justify them), but it could also show ME3 to be the true trial of Shepard's moral character, and ME4 instead as the true trial of the galaxy and your catalytic impact on it, and its performance against the Reaper fleet.

I can at least conceive of a ME4 where Shepard (or whoever you play as) struggles against the Reaper Fleet now scattered throughout the galaxy (so not focused on Earth), and the ground Cerberus troops replaced by indoctrinated factions.

The Council is so far an unknown, Cerberus/TIM himself (last remaining?) becomes a tense ally (depending on decisions), and husk enemies become even more numerous as Salarians and more are added to their ranks.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:15 .

#39906
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 08:20

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests
"You could have destroyed EVA's body, but instead you chose to control it."
"It was necessary."
"My point exactly."

So much of TIM's speech in ME2 seems to mirror Leviathan philosophy. I wonder if Bioware may be going somewhere with this in Omega or other DLC.

#39907
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 08:28

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests
Another illustrative IT video... youtu.be/a5f8huTzT_U

#39908
Raistlin Majare 1992
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 08:43

Raistlin Majare 1992
  • Members
  • 2 101 messages

SwobyJ wrote...

Another illustrative IT video... youtu.be/a5f8huTzT_U


Love the end as the Kid says "So be it!" and it goes right into a series of Harbinger quotes.

Good vid in general and I liked the comparision between Refuse and Saren.

Also it is always mindblowing how many forgot how fiercely Shepard went against TIM and control only minutes before.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:45 .

#39909
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 08:56

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

Another illustrative IT video... youtu.be/a5f8huTzT_U


Love the end as the Kid says "So be it!" and it goes right into a series of Harbinger quotes.

Good vid in general and I liked the comparision between Refuse and Saren.

Also it is always mindblowing how many forgot how fiercely Shepard went against TIM and control only minutes before.


Yep.

While I think a plot for Control is still something that could be in the works..

It's not really Shepard's Path.

#39910
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 08:57

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests
Found on the CleverNoob Forums

I'm not religious but I think this has merit. So bear with me here...

Someone from Bioware mentioned Jesus on twitter when the game first came
out and everyone hated the ending, so lets use that as a metaphor...
(it is "the greatest story ever told" so of course anything that parallels it should do alright.)

Some have made the Shepard - Jesus comparison before but I've yet to see anything like this and I thought it very interesting.

The decision chamber is akin to the 3 temptations of Christ.

Reapers = Devil. Shepard = Jesus.


Replace "God" with what we have been working towards for 3 games, destroying the reapers. And replace "Jesus/Son of God" with Shepard. Everything we know and trust in is "God."
Along comes starchild (aka satan) to test us. He tells us that
everything we know is wrong, and that he can give us a better way if we
simply do as he wishes. He can't make us do anything, but he can twist
words and influence us to pick the easy way out.

The reapers present shepard with his 3 options. Compare it to the devil tempting Jesus...

Synthesis - Is the 1st temptation in which satan tempts Jesus to turn stones into bread.

Satan was tempting Jesus to doubt he was the son of God, to lust for
something that he wanted before God was willing to give it to him and in
doing so, to become his own “God.” It's the same as Adam and Eve's
story where God told them if they ate the fruit, they would die. But the
serpant tells them they will surely live.

It's not about living and dying with Shepard, it's about destroying the
reapers. "God" tells us synthesis won't destroy the reapers, but the
catalyst promises it will.

Control- Is the 3rd temptation. In which satan offers Jesus the kingdoms of the world.

Satan was tempting Jesus to “save the world” in an easier, far less
humiliating way than death on a cross. But the price for Jesus would be -
to sell his soul to the devil – and lose the authority to save the
world.  It would appear to be a benefit for the short term, but in the
long term it would be a complete failure.

Pretty self explanitory I think. Shepard's best intentions, but at what cost?

Destroy - Is the 2nd temptation. Kinda... The temptation lies in not[picking destroy.

This is the one wherein satan tells him to jump off a cliff and that angels will save him if
he truly is the son of God. Satan attempts to put doubt in the heart of
Jesus that he really is the son of God. Jesus didn’t have to jump to
prove his trust in God; he demonstrated it by trusting in God’s word.

Here the catalyst tries his very best to tell us that destroy will not
work. First of all it'll kill the geth and EDI, then your children will
create synthetics and everyone will die eventually. The exact opposite
of what this franchise has been about. Faith in... let's call it
hummanity... to overcome the seemingly impossible. That against all
odds, peace is possible.

I've more than likely done a poor job in explaining the 3 temptations
but it's late and im running on fumes. Turning rocks into bread applying
to mass effect probably has some of you scratching your heads. But it's
not about the act itself, it's about what the temptation represents. I
believe the overall themes are the same in each scenario.


Modifié par SwobyJ, 26 octobre 2012 - 08:59 .

#39911
spotlessvoid
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 09:05

spotlessvoid
  • Members
  • 3 497 messages
The problem Bill Casey seemingly fails to see is that the only thing that seems relatively conclusive is the foreshadowing that synthesis is horrific, control is not possible, and there is some sort of indoctrination of Shepard going on.


What we don't know:

1.When the hallucinating starts
2. When and if any sequences are not happening in reality (dreams, geth consensus, etc excluded)
3. Is the crucible legit
4. Does the crucible actually work
5. Is the crucible a trap
6. What the Reapers plans are in London that requires the Citadel.
7. What the Illusive man is up to.
8. Who/what is the Intelligence
9. Does Shepard ever wake up
10. Is victory even possible
11.What does choosing synthesis mean
12.What does choosing control mean
13. Where are the Rachni
14. What happens to our crew
15. Are there more Reapers in space
16. Why do the Reapers want Shepard's mind
17. What are the Leviathans game plan
18. What ****ing happens

#39912
spotlessvoid
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 09:23

spotlessvoid
  • Members
  • 3 497 messages
The thing is it's a long personalized trilogy with a huge emotional investment in all the characters, especially the protagonist. It's not some trippy movie where you don't know exactly what is really going on, but you're not that attached to the characters that it supersedes your appreciation of the art factor of the ambiguous ending. The highly emotional impact of the characters and their relationship with the protagonist you've been shaping for hundreds of hours shouldn't be abandoned in the name of artsy vagueness, especially when there is that tremendous amount of ambiguity about everything. I understand letting things run their course, but the point has been made and this story deserves more answers than what we got

#39913
demersel
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 10:07

demersel
  • Members
  • 3 868 messages

SwobyJ wrote...

I think that while Arrival is very optional, it is also illustrative of the means and methods Reapers will use to take control of you. The Project is a mini Crucible, symbolically, and Kenson leading Shepard to it is like Hackett/Anderson leading Shepard to the beam,


This is very illustrative acrually. 

Imagine this as point to point journey - 
Arrival is where it starts, Crucible choice is where it ends - 

Same dilemma - fight the reapers at the cost of sacrifacing innocents/allies.  

Arrival - Shepard does not even consider not destroying the alpha relay  (this is where we start)
Crucible - Shepard hesitates, and ask for other options (this is what we have come to) 
That is what you call a character arc. 


I always thought of Arriaval as the real prologue to ME3. And so does Bioware - even it's promotional materials feature the same art ME3 does. 

#39914
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 10:09

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests

demersel wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

I think that while Arrival is very optional, it is also illustrative of the means and methods Reapers will use to take control of you. The Project is a mini Crucible, symbolically, and Kenson leading Shepard to it is like Hackett/Anderson leading Shepard to the beam,


This is very illustrative acrually. 

Imagine this as point to point journey - 
Arrival is where it starts, Crucible choice is where it ends - 

Same dilemma - fight the reapers at the cost of sacrifacing innocents/allies.  

Arrival - Shepard does not even consider not destroying the alpha relay  (this is where we start)
Crucible - Shepard hesitates, and ask for other options (this is what we have come to) 
That is what you call a character arc. 


I always thought of Arriaval as the real prologue to ME3. And so does Bioware - even it's promotional materials feature the same art ME3 does. 


And that's why I think maybe, just maybe, Bioware considers just Arrival until London as "Shepard's story".

EDIT: Not that I don't think Eden Prime until Suicide Mission doesn't matter! Just that the very singlular focus by the subliminal narrative (aka indoctrination story) will end at London.

Whatever a maybe-happening ME4 is, it won't have Shepard as we know him/her, and the military won't be so strongly involved.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 26 octobre 2012 - 10:15 .

#39915
demersel
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 10:17

demersel
  • Members
  • 3 868 messages
ME1 - it is the story when you save the galaxy from imminent reaper invasion.
ME2 - it is the story when you save humanity from becoming the galaxies next bogeyman.
ME3 - it is the story when you fight off indoctrination.

It is all great and if you look at each game this way - you'll se that each of them is a complete and finished story.

However. there is one story that is missing, and that is not even started to be adressed in ANY of those three games.

It the story how you defeat the reapers once and for all. - it is a complete stand alone story, that need a full game to adress, and that can only start to happend ONLY if all three that come before happen.

#39916
demersel
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 10:24

demersel
  • Members
  • 3 868 messages

SwobyJ wrote...

And that's why I think maybe, just maybe, Bioware considers just Arrival until London as "Shepard's story".

EDIT: Not that I don't think Eden Prime until Suicide Mission doesn't matter! Just that the very singlular focus by the subliminal narrative (aka indoctrination story) will end at London.

Whatever a maybe-happening ME4 is, it won't have Shepard as we know him/her, and the military won't be so strongly involved.


They constantly compare the war with the reapers to WWII. They make a point of it. 

And the WWII was LONG. It was a war of endurance. 

The events of ME3 cannot be compared to WWII.  - if anything - it is initial blitzkrieg - with you gathering allies together - if anything it ends at the mark of 1941. You still have like 4 years of nightmare to fight through. 

Modifié par demersel, 26 octobre 2012 - 10:25 .

#39917
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 10:35

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests

demersel wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

And that's why I think maybe, just maybe, Bioware considers just Arrival until London as "Shepard's story".

EDIT: Not that I don't think Eden Prime until Suicide Mission doesn't matter! Just that the very singlular focus by the subliminal narrative (aka indoctrination story) will end at London.

Whatever a maybe-happening ME4 is, it won't have Shepard as we know him/her, and the military won't be so strongly involved.


They constantly compare the war with the reapers to WWII. They make a point of it. 

And the WWII was LONG. It was a war of endurance. 

The events of ME3 cannot be compared to WWII.  - if anything - it is initial blitzkrieg - with you gathering allies together - if anything it ends at the mark of 1941. You still have like 4 years of nightmare to fight through. 




Well hopefully not 4 more years :)

But yes, I'm on the same page here.

I can just imagine Harbinger cornered in some location, suiciding himself after all other Reapers have been defeated. Heh....

"Synthesis is the final evolution of life."

Ugh, feels like a Final Solution if you ask me.

#39918
Jusseb
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 11:18

Jusseb
  • Members
  • 179 messages
Morgan David Foehl assigned to write script of Mass Effect movie


http://www.comicbook...k/news/?a=69193

Thought it was cancelled?

#39919
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 11:21

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests

Jusseb wrote...

Morgan David Foehl assigned to write script of Mass Effect movie

http://www.comicbook...k/news/?a=69193

Thought it was cancelled?


I had my hopes up due to it being by Legendary Pictures, but if this guy is the writer...

#39920
Andromidius
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 11:24

Andromidius
  • Members
  • 2 997 messages

SwobyJ wrote...

Another illustrative IT video... youtu.be/a5f8huTzT_U


Urgh, that scene at the start never fails to irritate me.

Even if, EVEN IF you got an evac order and people willingly left (while ignoring all other injured)...

Why do those two marines who are clearly uninjured, fresh from the Normandy, then get back on and leave instead of helping the final desperate push?

/facepalm

#39921
Andromidius
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 11:29

Andromidius
  • Members
  • 2 997 messages
One thing I never noticed about the scene with Starchild/Starbinger.

They are both echoing. How can you echo in an open space with very little to bounce from?

Answer: Because they aren't in the open. They are inside. Inside Shepard's mind.

Remember the dreams? They echo too.

#39922
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 11:33

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests
A reminder of my poll at social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/14682075

social.bioware.com/898431/polls/41016/

Was Hackett Indoctrinated?

#39923
demersel
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 11:59

demersel
  • Members
  • 3 868 messages
ShobyJ - I distinctly remember how they were pormoting Arrival as it was more of Shepard's story, rather then Mass Effect in general.

Modifié par demersel, 26 octobre 2012 - 12:00 .

#39924
Guest_SwobyJ_*
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 12:07

Guest_SwobyJ_*
  • Guests

demersel wrote...

ShobyJ - I distinctly remember how they were pormoting Arrival as it was more of Shepard's story, rather then Mass Effect in general.


Wow, now that I think of it, me too.

Hmmm.

#39925
demersel
Posté 26 octobre 2012 - 12:11

demersel
  • Members
  • 3 868 messages
Mac Walters is the lead writer for ME3. And he became lead writer at Arrival. Before that he was a character writer.

Now. Arrival - shepard's story.
ME3 - shepard's story (they repeatedly said it was)
Arrival + ME3 - shepard's story - LeaD writer for both - Mac Walters - former character writer.
Retourner dans Story, Campaign, and Characters


  1. The BioWare Forum
  2. → Mass Effect
  3. → Mass Effect 3
  4. → Story, Campaign, and Characters