937 réponses à ce sujet

[Hadeedak]

So, Doomsday. If low EMS Shepard is below contempt, why does the 'ending' even take place, since it's all a dream? Is it just because the Catalyst wants to annoy itself by chatting with failShep?

[Illusive]

The main issue I see with the Indoctrination Theory is that, if true, the game (still) doesn't have a satisfactory ending.

 

If you do everything right (pick Destroy, have enough War Assets, etc), then ME3 ends with Shepard waking up during the "Breathe scene". OK. Now what? The game just ends. The Shepard Mass Effect trilogy is finished, as stated by the developers. You don't see what happens next. Is Shepard able to get up and keep fighting? Is Shepard able to defeat the Reapers? What happens to the galaxy and everyone in it?

 

If IT is true, it still fails to end the game in a satisfactory manner.

[AlanC9]

OMG, stop the presses - there is a round shape! It must be the specific wheeled vehicle we saw earlier!

It's also the wrong number of "wheels," isn't it?

Maybe someone made up that image to discredit IT believers?

[AlanC9]

So, Doomsday. If low EMS Shepard is below contempt, why does the 'ending' even take place, since it's all a dream? Is it just because the Catalyst wants to annoy itself by chatting with failShep?

I can't wait to hear the answer to this.

I'll add one. Why is the "beautiful vision" not as beautiful as the supposedly real high-EMS Destroy?

And one for you: why are we bothering with this? I keep thinking that this is like Bill Nye debating that creationist. All it does is make it look like this is an idea that can be taken seriously.

[von uber]

I think the catalyst subverts the operation of the Crucible to its own ends, without entirely being able to remove its primary function of destroy.

 

Incidentally, anyone know why Firefox spellcheck doesn't work in this reply box?

[AlanC9]

I think the catalyst subverts the operation of the Crucible to its own ends, without entirely being able to remove its primary function of destroy.
 

Are you also signing on to low-EMS Destroy being fake?

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Shepard does not live up to their expectations. Shepard didn't do everything he could to bring the fleets to the Reapers, didn't put much effort in making the Crucible the best he could. He failed as a leader, and isn't even worthy of ascension or useful as a Reaper agent. If destroy is Shep's only option, that means he destroyed the collector base, and thought it unwise to study the Reaper (tech). If Shepard had kept the collector base, that would mean Shepard was open to learning about the Reapers (like TIM), and therefore more easily corruptible. Therefore, if you kept the collector base, control is your only option.

 

If you have low EMS, the catalyst greets you with "Why are you here?". It speaks volumes. You're useless to him.

 

And when destroy is your only option, that just means the catalyst knows you can't be corrupted, nor does he want to, because you made no effort worthy of leadership. It doesn't matter to him that you want to destroy the Reapers, because it will only happen in your head, a beautiful vision before dying. In reality, the Reapers will simply destroy Shepard.

 

So if the Reapers are not interested in low-EMS Shepard if he destroyed the base, why are they interested in low-EMS Shepard that saved the base? Aren't both unworthy? And why would a low-EMS Shepard that destroyed the base be the only one that is immune to indoctrination? Because he was terrible at his job?

 

And as mentioned by others above, why would the end sequence even be there in the low-EMS destroy scenario? Shouldn't the scene simply cut to black once Harby hits Shepard? You also claim that the low-EMS ending is just a "beautiful vision" before dying, yet the low-EMS ending is by far the bleakest of the endings. If it was just a happy dream Shepard has before dying you would think it would be far more cheerful than "And then the crucible purged the milky way of almost all advanced life".

 

And also, does anyone still have a good answer to the notepad at the very end of the game?

[von uber]

Are you also signing on to low-EMS Destroy being fake?

 

Nope, the crucible is too damaged to operate properly and just blats out the energy destroying everything.

[SwobyJ]

The main issue I see with the Indoctrination Theory is that, if true, the game (still) doesn't have a satisfactory ending.

 

If you do everything right (pick Destroy, have enough War Assets, etc), then ME3 ends with Shepard waking up during the "Breathe scene". OK. Now what? The game just ends. The Shepard Mass Effect trilogy is finished, as stated by the developers. You don't see what happens next. Is Shepard able to get up and keep fighting? Is Shepard able to defeat the Reapers? What happens to the galaxy and everyone in it?

 

If IT is true, it still fails to end the game in a satisfactory manner.

 

Oh I totally agree.

 

It's seemingly only with Extended Cut + Citadel DLC (and kinda Leviathan), that things feel 'good enough' for me to move on.

 

But I'm not happy.

 

Bioware can say all they want that they 'ended Shepard's story' and 'the trilogy is over', but that doesn't mean they ended it appropriately for a trilogy.

 

This might be part of their returning to avoiding numerical title numbers, and instead "Franchise: Title" this time around, for both major BW series.

 

That said, I like a good mystery, and if my perception is even right (lol), then there's a DAMN good mystery behind these games, and the purpose of the Shepard Trilogy is just to lay down the FOUNDATIONS of a story MUCH larger and complex.

 

But that's being optimistic!, I know.

[SwobyJ]

I think the catalyst subverts the operation of the Crucible to its own ends, without entirely being able to remove its primary function of destroy.

 

Incidentally, anyone know why Firefox spellcheck doesn't work in this reply box?

 

I think the Crucible has no primary function. It's there break the cycle and power a change. Anything else is up to us.

 

Are you also signing on to low-EMS Destroy being fake?

(Not directed to me but I feel like talkin)

 

I think they're all fake but real. Subjective when it comes to matters of future technology and realms of perception.

[SwobyJ]

So if the Reapers are not interested in low-EMS Shepard if he destroyed the base, why are they interested in low-EMS Shepard that saved the base? Aren't both unworthy? And why would a low-EMS Shepard that destroyed the base be the only one that is immune to indoctrination? Because he was terrible at his job?

 

And as mentioned by others above, why would the end sequence even be there in the low-EMS destroy scenario? Shouldn't the scene simply cut to black once Harby hits Shepard? You also claim that the low-EMS ending is just a "beautiful vision" before dying, yet the low-EMS ending is by far the bleakest of the endings. If it was just a happy dream Shepard has before dying you would think it would be far more cheerful than "And then the crucible purged the milky way of almost all advanced life".

 

And also, does anyone still have a good answer to the notepad at the very end of the game?

 

-Yeah I don't really agree with DD when it comes to Low-EMS Destroy. At this point, I gotta think that something has to give - even as pro-Destroy as I am - and I've gotta admit that in some way, the 'Catalyst' is trying to help. I don't think its in a pure way. I don't think its in a 'good' way. But I think it is. Still a lil' ******* (insert bad word because many would fit) though.

 

-My answer is that the Reaper threat has been defeated and that Shepard has become a legend. ..Yeah. That's it.

[Hadeedak]

And one for you: why are we bothering with this? I keep thinking that this is like Bill Nye debating that creationist. All it does is make it look like this is an idea that can be taken seriously.

 

Forums are fun.

 

No, seriously, I have fun with chitchatting about the game, and there's plenty of people like Swobj who're fun to talk endings about, even if our ideas don't even really mesh. Also, I am precisely cantankerous enough to want to debate stuff, especially the imagedump above or people telling me I'm WRONG!!! because I like control.

 

Also, I was watching True Grit and on the Mass Effect forums today. Both of them.  Unless that was all a dream, too.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Refuse ending Jack when she's let out of her cryo sleep pod: "In my cycle, we had victory within our f***ing grasp, and this f***ing idiot Shepard refused to use the f***ing Crucible."

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The catalyst wants only one question answered. Can Shepard be persuaded to see things from the Reapers' perspective, or does Shepard still want to destroy the Reapers?

In refuse, you're worthless to him, because you don't want to accept the Reaper 'solutions', but you don't want to use the Crucible to destroy the Reapers either.
 
It's not about defying the catalyst. It's just about one thing: does Shepard still want to destroy the Reapers?

 
So basically, IT logic is invalid, because [able to see things from the Reapers' perspective] and [want to destroy the Reapers] are two things that are not mutually exclusive. In other words, this is a false dichotomy (a.k.a. black-and-white fallacy, fittingly).
 
Here are some easy counter-examples to your argument just off the top of my head:
 
1.) We have an in-game example of someone who agrees with the Catalyst (and, by extension, with the Reapers) and wants to destroy them: Javik. What they believe is literally the same damn thing. Only difference is Javik's ideal solution is pro-organic, while the Catalyst's obviously isn't (he's synthetic).
 
2.) pre-EC, people chose Control with the idea that it could work as a loophole to destroy the Reapers without casualties. That doesn't necessarily mean they are unwilling to make the sacrifice Destroy requires, either. So we have "Controllers," do not necessarily agree with the Catalyst, and actually want destroy.
 
3.) post-EC, some people who used to choose Destroy and still want to destroy the Reapers now instead Refuse for a host of reasons that do not undermine their will to destroy (they feel like trusting the Catalyst at all is meta-gaming, as one example). And, again, let's not kid ourselves: if Refuse worked out, we'd be hearing no end of how BioWare validated IT by allowing you to reject the Reapers' deception and triumph.
 
4.) Shooting the kid triggers Refuse, not Destroy. You're being violently hostile to the Reaper voice in your head (or whatever IT considers him), as much as you have been towards every Reaper, and yet, doing so somehow leads to Shepard seeing the Reapers win, indoctrinated. WTF? Explain that one.
 
5.) Someone may agree 100% that the Catalyst is right, even that Sync is the perfect solution, but believe it's immoral to force it and thus choose Destroy seeing it as the "least bad" option at hand, although IT would have us believe that anyone having those thoughts is indoctrinated.


Bottom line: you cannot safely infer that choosing Destroy means the player disagrees with the Reapers, nor that choosing anything else (especially Refuse) means they don't want to Destroy the Reapers. It's flawed logic, even more nonsensical with than explaining the ending without IT.
 
You know that old saw about what happens when you assume? Well, IT is full assumptions about other people, and they're some awfully self-serving ones at that (... those people don't choose Destroy because they weren't paying attention like I was! Or weren't as strong-willed as I am! Or... !)

 

He just wants to know if that resolve can be broken.

 
Great, another invalid conclusion IT arrives at.
 
What my Shepard has done up to that point in ME3 speaks for itself. In posting around here on this forum, I've seen -- time and again -- that I'm willing to get my hands dirty where most other people are not -- that includes known IT'ers! I am not any less "resolved" to see the end of the war in rejecting Destroy.
 
There's a reason Destroy is so widely chosen: it's easy. Safe. No scary Reapers to worry about, for one thing. Then there are the moral issues that come along with it. Sacrificing the geth and EDI? It might feel bad, but people can wrap their minds around the concept of sacrificing this or that by military necessity, especially since it was parroted through the game endlessly (let's not even get into the fact that you can role-play against the synthetic life and kill off the geth ahead of time). You were not similarly mentally-prepped for the Control option being offered to you. It was seen as delusional, impossible, and thus gave way to suspicions that it's an indoctrination trap. Sync even less so. Ultimately, I see no "great resolve" required to choose Destroy.

In truth, this pretentious claim that picking Destroy somehow makes you special just seems like an attempt to convince yourself of something.
 
 

You're not "going along" with the catalyst at all if you pick destroy. All that you do is show that you still want to do what you set out to do.

 

Oh, so you believe the Reapers were kind enough to offer you the secret to their destruction, and that they'd allow you to break free of their hold though they could have chosen not to (like in Low-EMS + intact Collector Base) and have never done anything but make the fight as lopsided in their favor as possible? That kinda reminds me of Dr. Amanda Kenson's recordings at The Project base, believing the Reapers can't be all that bad, since they allow life to go on after all. We all know what happened to her, don't we? Oh yeah, she was INDOCTRINATED!! DUN-DUN-DUNNN!!!

 
See, with IT logic, even Destroy can be the slow path down indoctrination. You're only 100% guarantee of not having your mind corrupted by the Reaper voice in your head is to utterly and unequivocally reject it. So again, if there was any truth to IT, Refuse (and only Refuse) should snap you out of it.

 

I just IT'd your IT! It's like googling Google, but better.

 

 

Oh, and that brings me to yet another out-of-world flaw in IT: why only Destroy? Why not Control? There's no reason to believe the Catalyst or Reapers would like it any better -- the former dies, the latter is denied the ability to go free. They destroyed the Sanctuary facility because they deemed it too much of a threat to allow to continue. He's just as hostile towards Shepard in Low EMS + intact Collector Base as without the 'Base. If Shepard reacts negatively to the Control option, the Catalyst responds by saying he's no more enthused about the idea of you doing it than you are. So, why not Control?
 
Nothing funny about IT calling its followers' favorite ending the only right one (which more aptly explains why Refuse is rejected).

[KaiserShep]

All of the vehicles in ME look too small from the outside to fit multiple adults. Proof of IT. You're welcome.

[AlanC9]

Nope, the crucible is too damaged to operate properly and just blats out the energy destroying everything.

So the Catalyst is more able to subvert the Crucible if the Crucible's functioning better? Then why are the Reapers shooting at it?

@ Hadeedak: oh, what the hell. Might as well play.

[Hadeedak]

All of the vehicles in ME look too small from the outside to fit multiple adults. Proof of IT. You're welcome.

 

So that's why we can only take two friends, no matter how important the mission.

[Farangbaa]

I just dished out likes as if I were on XTC for the first time.

 

What a glorious topic.

[Helios969]

Probably.  I think the problem with IDT was that there were some areas where it was incredibly plausible, but some took it too far picking apart every subtle inconsistency in wording and level design to make it part of theory which drowned out the areas that were plausible.  It's like the lone crazy guy with the big sign:  "The end is nigh...the end is nigh."  Most peoples response are to put their head down and pick up their pace or whisper to their child 'don't look at the crazy person with the tinfoil hat.'  Still if people want to head canon that in lieu of the existing endings, I cannot really begrudge that.

[ZerebusPrime]

I have always subscribed to Indoctrination Theory Lite.  To me Shepard is very clearly suffering from the degenerative effects of Indoctrination and resisting it about as well as anyone could hope to.  The ending also very clearly has mind-altering elements and enough weirdness that I can't tell what actually happened regardless of the choice I make in the so called decision chamber ("One shouldn't make moral choices in a vacuum.").  It seems likely to me that Shepard never reached the beam and is lying in a pile of rubble on Earth, his/her body half-fried by Harbinger's near miss and his/her brain cooked like an egg thanks to concerted Indoctrination efforts on the part of the Reapers at the end of the game.  Breath scene indeed.  Most importantly, though, I am patiently waiting for the topic to be revisited in the next Mass Effect series so that I can get some clarity.  If it isn't, I'll be disappointed.

 

Until then, I am open to all interpretations of the ending but the Indoctrination Theory spectrum strikes me as the most plausible.  Some of the variations are crazy, mind you, and I see a lot of people pointing to the fringes to discredit the whole concept.  The infighting within the fanbase is actually par for the course for this sort of thing.

 

I will say this: the ending of ME3 is less abrupt on repeat playthroughs when one looks for foreshadowing elements in seemingly unrelated material.  For me, the Decision Chamber sequence is sort of a pop quiz asking Have you been paying attention?  Refuse to take the test?  Automatic failure of that test.  Wrong answer?  Also failure.  Right answer?  We'll have to get back to you on that.  Some people get so mad when they're told they chose the wrong answer.  I'm not sure it even matters, though. ("Congratulations!  You're a winner!")

 

Anyway, I'm waiting.

[Hadeedak]

What do you feel are the wrong answers, and why?

[Farangbaa]

I have always subscribed to Indoctrination Theory Lite.  To me Shepard is very clearly suffering from the degenerative effects of Indoctrination and resisting it about as well as anyone could hope to.  The ending also very clearly has mind-altering elements and enough weirdness that I can't tell what actually happened regardless of the choice I make in the so called decision chamber ("One shouldn't make moral choices in a vacuum.").  It seems likely to me that Shepard never reached the beam and is lying in a pile of rubble on Earth, his/her body half-fried by Harbinger's near miss and his/her brain cooked like an egg thanks to concerted Indoctrination efforts on the part of the Reapers at the end of the game.  Breath scene indeed.  Most importantly, though, I am patiently waiting for the topic to be revisited in the next Mass Effect series so that I can get some clarity.  If it isn't, I'll be disappointed.

 

Until then, I am open to all interpretations of the ending but the Indoctrination Theory spectrum strikes me as the most plausible.  Some of the variations are crazy, mind you, and I see a lot of people pointing to the fringes to discredit the whole concept.  The infighting within the fanbase is actually par for the course for this sort of thing.

 

I will say this: the ending of ME3 is less abrupt on repeat playthroughs when one looks for foreshadowing elements in seemingly unrelated material.  For me, the Decision Chamber sequence is sort of a pop quiz asking Have you been paying attention?  Refuse to take the test?  Automatic failure of that test.  Wrong answer?  Also failure.  Right answer?  We'll have to get back to you on that.  Some people get so mad when they're told they chose the wrong answer.  I'm not sure it even matters, though. ("Congratulations!  You're a winner!")

 

Anyway, I'm waiting.

 

For you, just like for any other IT'er:

 

Why does the catalyst only offer you destroy in low-EMS if you destroyed the collector base? For not trying at all, he only gives you the 'win'?

Why does the catalyst only offer you control in low-EMS if you kept the collector base? Now you get a 'lose'?

Why does the catalyst make that offer depend on what you did with the Catalyst?

 

Anyway, I'm waiting.

[KaiserShep]

The problem with the idea of Shepard never reaching the beam is that Shepard also has to imagine Hackett being notified of someone reaching the station, and aside from that, someone else opens the arms to allow the Crucible to dock. Did Shepard imagine someone else tapping the controls? Did TIM do it? Anderson? A husk?

[Farangbaa]

At least the Reapers are nice. They give you a full-blown epilogue ascerting your win if you pick the wrong answers.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Indoctrination Theory was fun while it lasted. The EC took about 75% away, and Leviathan took away the rest.