739 réponses à ce sujet

[MrMrPendragon]

I don't even know why people call it a "theory". For the "Indoctrination theory" to be called a "theory", there has to be a possibility of it being true.

But "Indoctrination theory" will never come true because firstly it didn't come from the developers, and second, we already have an ending for the story. The whole IT is based on presupposed scenarios on top of presupposed scenarios - "What if this and this and this..." & "if that happens then this and this and this..."

If anything the IT is just a fan fiction or one of those "how it should have ended" situations .


But despite that, IT is a big part of the community and Bioware denying it may alienate other fans.

[ElSuperGecko]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...
I don't even know why people call it a "theory". For the "Indoctrination theory" to be called a "theory", there has to be a possibility of it being true...

I refer you to my previous post (stroke accurate prediction):

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Before we get someone bleating on about "Theory - LOL no", we should really point out the dictionary definition, for clarity's sake:

Theory (the·o·ry):

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. (nope)
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.(nope)
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.(nope)
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.  (there we go)
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. (not really)
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.  (and there we go again)

Incidentally, nowhere in the definition is there a requirement for something to be "true" to be considered a "theory".

You're welcome.

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 09 janvier 2014 - 01:24 .

[NeonFlux117]

It's an incredibly sound interpretation and "theory".

There are only a few chinks in the armor.

Most notably-

1) If viewing the game and the ending through the IT perspective, why do the Reapers attack sanctuary. If the "control" path and ending choice is a Reaper deflection and maneuver, then why do the Reapers attack Sanctuary?

2) In low EMS-control ending why does it show the Reapers still attacking the Citadel and Crucible?

These two questions throw some real in-game mud at IT.

But really, that's about it.

And 2 plotholes, is a lot less than about the 20 or so you have in the "face value" interpretation of the ending.

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 09 janvier 2014 - 02:06 .

[Possessed Turian]

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

I don't even know why people call it a "theory". For the "Indoctrination theory" to be called a "theory", there has to be a possibility of it being true.

But "Indoctrination theory" will never come true because firstly it didn't come from the developers, and second, we already have an ending for the story. If anything the IT is just a fan fiction or one of those "how it should have ended" situations .


But despite that, IT is a big part of the community and Bioware denying it may alienate other fans.

i think there waiting on someone stupid like me to finish a IT fanfiction so they can steal it. when it comes down to it IT means money, bioware i don't want a million dollars for my story. I want to bring Shepard back that is all  and i right extensivly to keep my story legitamate.

[Possessed Turian]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

There are only a few chinks in the armor.

Most notably-

1) If viewing the game and the ending through the IT perspective, why do the Reapers attack sanctuary. If the "control" path and ending choice is a Reaper deflection and maneuver, then why do the Reapers attack Sanctuary?

2) In low EMS-control ending why does it show the Reapers still attacking the Citadel and Crucible?

this is easily fixed by saying Shepard peared into the Reaper mind while the Reaper tried to indoctrinate him, and that ME3 happened in shepards mind he made his own conclusions from what he drew from the Reaper's mind.

Modifié par Possessed Turian, 09 janvier 2014 - 02:21 .

[Farangbaa]

Possessed Turian wrote...

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

I don't even know why people call it a "theory". For the "Indoctrination theory" to be called a "theory", there has to be a possibility of it being true.

But "Indoctrination theory" will never come true because firstly it didn't come from the developers, and second, we already have an ending for the story. If anything the IT is just a fan fiction or one of those "how it should have ended" situations .


But despite that, IT is a big part of the community and Bioware denying it may alienate other fans.

i think there waiting on someone stupid like me to finish a IT fanfiction so they can steal it. when it comes down to it IT means money, bioware i don't want a million dollars for my story. I want to bring Shepard back that is all  and i right extensivly to keep my story legitamate.

This is exactly the problem with IT. 

You have a goal (bringing Shepard back). You then warp everything you see in such a way that you reach your goal.

[NeonFlux117]

Possessed Turian wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

There are only a few chinks in the armor.

Most notably-

1) If viewing the game and the ending through the IT perspective, why do the Reapers attack sanctuary. If the "control" path and ending choice is a Reaper deflection and maneuver, then why do the Reapers attack Sanctuary?

2) In low EMS-control ending why does it show the Reapers still attacking the Citadel and Crucible?

this is easily fixed by saying Shepard peared into the Reaper mind while the Reaper tried to indoctrinate him, and that ME3 happened in shepards mind he made his own conclusions from what he drew from the Reaper's mind.

No. Because the indoctrination theory states, that the indoctrinated thrall begins AFTER Harbinger's beam nukes Shepard. Not before. So everything in ME3 up to that point is real. 


If your fringing of IT and using something like CW or whatever, then.... Maybe. But for IT that doesn't work. 

The indoctrinated thrall begins AFTER harby's beam hit. The rest is a hallucination/nightmare in Shepards mind. Hence why after Harbingers beam things go way, way "off" and the game begins to be loaded with symbolsim and  hints and "red herrings" that are clearly showing that Shepard is undergoing an indoctrinated dream. 


Hence why my 2 questions throw a wrench in the plan so to speak. 

Sacturary happens in real time. Therefore it breaks lore of IT. 

And low ems control breaks a core componetnt of IT (that choosing control is an indoctrinated choice). 

Like I said, it's 2 plotholes. But still far less than the face value interpret. But it's still got plotholes. 

[Possessed Turian]

Have you ever read my story I warp very little. That is a stupid comment in itself what you just said. a writer must warp information in his/her story to make things work. Manipulation is key in writing a story. writing is a hard field in general, have you ever written a story. A 340 k word story is hard to write and had I not manipulated it I wouldn't have been able to start the story. You manipulate fact in such a way that it works with your story. The goal is to make it believable and legitimate not the enemy has a gun to Shepard's head and kills Shepard with the pull of the trigger. You add a sudden malfunction/ no ammo/ the gun backfires, meanwhile before it was a perfectly good rifle. That is manipulation at its finest and is also BS extremes, but we except those. Why can't you except the IT manipulations.

[Possessed Turian]

There is a faction of IT theorist that believe the IFF mission was a indoctrination point. It holds just as much legitimate claim as the Marauder shields Theory. Or what ever you call it. Probably even more given the ground it has to stand on.

the run on the beam. the whole idea the that the reapers would put such a vital piece of equipment over earth to protect it but left a transporter going makes little sense.

Modifié par Possessed Turian, 09 janvier 2014 - 02:58 .

[NeonFlux117]

Jesus, IT states that the thrall begins after Harby's beam. This was like IT MK 1, back in the day like a few weeks after release. The Indoctrination Theory clearly states the thrall begins after Harby's beam of luv nukes Shep. This is widely accepted. Go to the IT forum and read it.

And there is another interpretation that covers every, and all MAJOR plotholes of the series. But this is not the place nor thread for it.

And I normally don't agree with heavy critics of IT. But like what Psychevore was saying, this is a problem with many "IT'ers". They all want to be creators of the story that Drew k. And Casey Hudson and the bioware team created.

You're not. It is BioWare's story.

But BioWare gave us so many hints and clues that culminated in the ending of ME3, that Shepard and the MEU is deeper than what is reflected on the surface of things. And that the "endings" of ME3 need to looked at very closely.

And IT is an incredibly brilliant interpretation of the ending. It's got it's issues tho, if you were really going to canonize it and use it to continue the MEU series of games. But it still has far less plotholes and lore breaks than the ending at face value.

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 09 janvier 2014 - 03:02 .

[Possessed Turian]

It is funny how you all just want to talk about the theory, but yet you don't want to make it happen. You turn so many into so few by your isolationist views. You want Bioware to accept your views but yet you won't accept use of others. Indoctrination theory is the theory that Shepherd is indoctrinated. Reaper IFF indoctrination theory is what is just what I'll call it. You can play with your Marauder I'll play with the big boys, the Reapers.

[NeonFlux117]

Possessed Turian wrote...

It is funny how you all just want to talk about the theory, but yet you don't want to make it happen. You turn so many into so few by your isolationist views. You want Bioware to accept your views but yet you won't accept use of others. Indoctrination theory is the theory that Shepherd is indoctrinated. Reaper IFF indoctrination theory is what is just what I'll call it. You can play with your Marauder I'll play with the big boys, the Reapers.

This entire "paragraph" makes no sense. I don't really care what your interpretation of things are. IT states the indoctrinated thrall begins after Harbingers beam smack down. 

If you want real ambitous interpreations that are fully supported within the established lore and that literally cover up and fill every major plothole in the series it is the Choose Wisely theory. 

But again, that thing will blow your mind. 

Your reaper IFF Theory does not work. 

Why???

Because it can't be applied to every Shepard..... 

Why??? 

Because the IFF relay can happen at differnt times for differnt players at any given playthrough. 

Also, EVERY SINGLE SHEPARD IS NOT DOING OR WEARING THE SAME THING... 


At the end of said mission, my shepard sometimes is in cerberus short sleave attire... Or the stolen memoris suit, or the spacer/punk outfit... Or... so on and so on. And obviously, every shepard does not begin the mission in the unversal default armor... Armor is customizable in ME2... 

Do you understand what I'm saying here? 

EVERY SINGLE SHEPARD makes it to the beam at the same time within the time frame of the final mission.... 

You cannot go to london. Then fly off world and do a side mission, lol. (The game locks you and your resources and choices in when you launch cronos... Remember? And when you continue a playthrough after credits. Where do you begin??? BioWare very cleverly and deliberatly did this...) 

EVERY SINGLE SHEPARD, AFTER HARBINGERS BEAM strike gets up in the EXACT SAME charrared and burnt out armor.. That shield/barrier reads a big fat 0 in the menu. 

EVERY SINGLE SHEPARD that selects high ems destroy get the SAME EXACT N7 breath scene. Gender not withstanding of course. 

You have to have a singular moment or moments that EVERY SINGLE Shepard is doing. AND. Wearing the same exact things... 

IT does this very well. But like I said, you still have to "choose" destroy... So therefore, there are some inconsistencies. Because that. The choice. The "Choice" is subjective. 

"The paths are open. You must choose"

See, player agency at it's finest. But I digress. 

Modifié par NeonFlux117, 09 janvier 2014 - 03:52 .

[AlanC9]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Incidentally, nowhere in the definition is there a requirement for something to be "true" to be considered a "theory".

However, note that scientific theories are supposed to generate falsifiable predictions; if the predictions bomb, so does the theory. Original Flavor IT led to predictions, but modern versions do not.

Modern IT reminds me of modern creationist theory in some ways, actually. The point of the exercise is to preserve the theory's assumptions from confrontation with contradictory facts.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

Jesus, IT states that the thrall begins after Harby's beam. This was like IT MK 1, back in the day like a few weeks after release. The Indoctrination Theory clearly states the thrall begins after Harby's beam of luv nukes Shep. This is widely accepted. Go to the IT forum and read it.

IT does not even stay consistent between two of its supporters. It has more denominations than Christianity (LOL!)

[Invisible Man]

I feel that shepard being indoctrinated was supposed to be in the final product; however, it was pulled do to time constraints. so we have bits and pieces of a possibly indoctrinated shepard, though that's simply because there wasn't time to completely purge indoctrination clues from the story. I also feel there is nearly equal proofs reinforcing IT, as there are disproving it... though imho, the proofs disproving it seem to be more compelling, this also (to me) seems to be bolstered with the EC added to the ending.

---edit
it could also be argued shep was indoctrinated since the cerberus hq mission, where the endgame truly began. I think this less likely if IT is true. (but to me that's a big if)

Modifié par Invisible Man, 09 janvier 2014 - 05:23 .

[MattFini]

Invisible Man wrote...

I feel that shepard being indoctrinated was supposed to be in the final product; however, it was pulled do to time constraints. so we have bits and pieces of a possibly indoctrinated shepard, though that's simply because there wasn't time to completely purge indoctrination clues from the story.

You're right about that. I think it was the Final Hours app that confirmed it.

But then we have more clues in the EC and even Leviathan where it seems like the writers and devs deliberately fed the theory. 

So then it brings us back to square one where intent is concerned. 

[AlanC9]

Where did they feed the theory in the EC? As for Leviathan, I'd call that ripping off the theory rather than feeding it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 janvier 2014 - 08:43 .

[AlexMBrennan]

Modern IT reminds me of modern creationist theory in some ways, actually. The point of the exercise is to preserve the theory's assumptions from confrontation with contradictory facts.

Wy do you think items banned?

[AlanC9]

 Specifically, I was thinking of Baraminology. The advantage of the theory is that if for some reason it becomes impossible to deny that two species are related, you just redraw the boundaries of a baramin so it includes both of them. The theory still works .... well, as well as it ever did. You can hold off biology for centuries this way.

Similarly, any fact that inconveniences IT belief can just be re-defined as being no fact at all,  merely more indoctrination.

[rapscallioness]

AlanC9 wrote...

Where did they feed the theory in the EC? As for Leviathan, I'd call that ripping off the theory rather than feeding it.

hmm, maybe that's why BW doesn't really confirm, or deny it? because if they incorporate anything along those lines, it may be seen as "ripping off".

Although, I do believe the fine print says that anything posted on their forums abt their product is theirs. sooo, yeah.

[SwobyJ]

My impression so far is that Shepard being indoctrinated was supposed to happen. Like, in the game for all to see.

However, they just moved back from that, removed more overt elements of indoctrination, and decided to instead not dictate terms to the player and allow them come to their own conclusions.

This is especially because, at least imo, we players don't truly understand what indoctrination really is, and what it does to a person. Leviathan DLC hints at it more than most trilogy content though.

Indoctrination of Shepard doesn't = we lose. It also doesn't = the Reapers are 100% wrong and that there's no reason at all to follow them.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 09 janvier 2014 - 09:07 .

[AlanC9]

What I was thinking of WRT Leviathan was that AFAIK the Indoctrination symptoms IT posits aren't actually exhibited by any indoctrination victims prior to Leviathan. We don't see any of them lost in worlds of pure hallucination, do we? Benezia and Saren both knew where they were and what they were doing.

Modifié par AlanC9, 09 janvier 2014 - 09:09 .

[SwobyJ]

Benezia yes. She had her 'real self' (looks more like multiple personalities btw..) hidden away in a portion of her consciousness while the rest got overwritten.

Saren? We don't know. If his was more direct from Sovereign, we don't know where his true self begins and ends, except when he says "Thank you, Shepard", I guess.

Most of what we knew is that he knew enough about indoc that it existed, he had a facility to study it, he brought geth...krogan...an asari assistant.. tried to get rachni onto his side, and that he was eventually implanted to 'strengthen his resolve'.

Which is weird, because at least his character model shows him heavily implanted from the start and no one seem to bat an eye about it.

[ImaginaryMatter]

SwobyJ wrote...

Benezia yes. She had her 'real self' (looks more like multiple personalities btw..) hidden away in a portion of her consciousness while the rest got overwritten.

Saren? We don't know. If his was more direct from Sovereign, we don't know where his true self begins and ends, except when he says "Thank you, Shepard", I guess.

Most of what we knew is that he knew enough about indoc that it existed, he had a facility to study it, he brought geth...krogan...an asari assistant.. tried to get rachni onto his side, and that he was eventually implanted to 'strengthen his resolve'.

Which is weird, because at least his character model shows him heavily implanted from the start and no one seem to bat an eye about it.

I noticed that too. I just kind of handwaved it as those were, relatively speaking, superficial implants and not the crazy ones he had surgacally placed inside him later.

[SwobyJ]

People wave off Renegade Shepard's evil looking red eyes too.