937 réponses à ce sujet

[dorktainian]

Gotta love IT.  Always said IT is legit, but a part of something much bigger.  It's almost like they want you to look at IT as 'the answer' it clearly is, while distracting you from the 'bigger picture'.  You really have to go back to mass effect 1 and pull the narrative apart to have a hope of understanding what the hell is going on.

 

Shepard is the Catalyst.

 

There are three choices, or are there?  For me there only ever was one (from the three not including refuse because sheps speech is just so bad ass in refuse).

 

What actually happens when shep chooses destroy?

 

He wakes up in rubble..

 

Choose anything else and you don't get to 'wake up'

 

Speculations for everyone.

[masster blaster]

i still believe

That's cool.

[masster blaster]

MattFini, I realized that Restrider, an ITer created a list long ago that basically summarized IT from the supporting evidence. Hereyou go, as well as for the others.

 

----------The Ten Most Important Concepts Supporting The Indoctrination Theory----------

     
        I) Indoctrination in general :

          1.   Regarding IT, Shepard is in the process of indoctrination and the outcome is decided by the final decision taken.
          2.   The concept of indoctrination is a crucial part throughout the trilogy and nothing new to the player (link 1 and 2).
          3.   Rana Thanoptis is an example of how subtle and slow indoctrination can be.
          4.   Shepard was knocked out for two days by a Reaper artifact that indoctrinated an entire facility.
          5.   Logs on the derelict Reaper and in Arrival (link) illustrate the reactions of victims of indoctrination.
          6.   Paul Grayson's indoctrination show its effects on someone's mind.
          7.   Harbinger's smacktalk (link 1 and 2).

 
       II) The Breath Scene :

          1.   London rubble (link 1 and 2).
          2.   Mako in the background.
          3.   Citadel explosion (link 1 and 2).


    III) The Dreams :
         
          1.   Dream sequences and post-beam sequence share the same game mechanics.
          2.   Reality-nonreality transition after beam shot (post-beam, dreams, Geth Consensus).
          3.   Oily shadows and whispering.
          4.   Nightmares are mentioned in the Arrival by subjects being indoctrinated.
          5.   Chambers and Asari having PTSD as comparison between PTSD & Shepard's dreams.


    IV) Leviathan :

          1.   Harbinger/the Reapers perfected enthrallment to indoctrination.
          2.   Enthrallment uses memories of its victim.
          3.   Similarities between Leviathan end and decision chamber.
          4.   Zap sound as a sign to enter/leave virtual reality (link 1 and 2).


     V) The Choices :

          1.   Shepard on his knees happened only during/after some mind control.
          2.   The Guardian is aligned to the Reapers.
          3.   Control and Synthesis being supported by indoctrinated characters.
          4.   A swap in the colours (TIM = Paragon; Anderson = Renegade).
          5.   Huskification during Control/Synthesis vs. Shepard gaining strength while shooting the tubes.
          6.   Guardian losing it when you refuse ("SO BE IT!").
          7.   Decision chamber looks like a dialogue wheel from an aerial view.
          8.   Decision chamber resembling beam scenery (link 1 and 2).
          9.   Ambiguous end dialogue (Control/Synthesis).
        10.   Slide shows in Control/Synthesis/Destroy illustrate future possibilities, not facts that already happened.
        11.   Soldiers in Destroy fighting fiercely while in Control/Synthesis they are losing (note: no cheering in Synthesis).


    VI) The Kid :

         1.   Moves from one roof to another during an invasion (all links).
         2.   It can open a door that is marked as locked.
         3.   It survives a blast from a Reaper laser.
         4.   It is not seen by anyone else.
         5.   There always are warning symbols around it.
         6.   It disappears without making any noise.
         7.   It does not behave like a normal kid ("You cannot save me!").
         8.   The Guardian has the same form as the kid.


   VII) Anderson & TIM :

         1.   How did Anderson follow Shepard?
         2.   How can Anderson reach the control first?
         3.   Why did no one else follow Anderson?
         4.   From where did TIM shows up?
         5.   TIM's scars are only present at the end of the game.
         6.   Anderson may be addressing Shepard ("They are controlling you!").
         7.   Shepard is dominated by TIM and thus through him by the Reapers.
         8.   Anderson and Shepard have wounds at the same place (link 1 and 2).
         9.   Reaper horn played in the background (at 1/2 speed).
       10.   The EMS requirements depend on Anderson's fate in the confrontation with TIM.


  VIII) The Guardian :

         1.   It has the same shape as the kid ( thus an extraction of Shepard's memories).
         2.   It speaks with femshep's and maleshep's voice.
         3.   Harbinger's line in the MP trailer (link 1 and 2).
         4.   The Guardian is a liar regardless of the interpretation of the endings.


    IX) The Beam Run :

        1.   Harbinger is pin-pointing everyone and everything but Shepard.
        2.   Harbinger does not destroy the Normandy.
        3.   Shepard survives a blast that should one-shot Makos and Gunships.
        4.   Harbinger just leaves.


     X) The Citadel :

        1.   The Citadel resembles events of the past.
        2.   You can find Coats dead on the Citadel.

 

special thanks to Restrider.

 

lol going to have to fix half of the links XD

Think i got most of them fixed

[naddaya]

Think i got most of them fixed

 

Shepard being wounded after shooting Anderson in the same place got me thinking even before I read about IT, and it's one of the stronger clues. While many things could be bugs or due to oversights, this is just too strange. It doesn't look accidental.

[masster blaster]

Shepard being wounded after shooting Anderson in the same place got me thinking even before I read about IT, and it's one of the stronger clues. While many things could be bugs or due to oversights, this is just too strange. It doesn't look accidental.

Yes, and weird enough, Bioware fixed the buggs that people complained about. Though i am not sure if they got all the bugs but i believe those could be intentional. just my opinion on that matter.

[masster blaster]

 

Yes. I really do believe the ending is simply a test to check if Shepard still wants to destroy the Reapers.

 

There is obviously something not entirely real about the ending. The white dream halo appears three times after we get shot by Harbinger. The only other moments we see these halos is at the start and end of the dreams, and when Shep goes in and out of the Geth concensus.

 

If I simply go by what ME3 seems to convey, then the conclusion is that the Reapers weren't actually defeated (not even in destroy), and the only result is whether Shepard could resist the attempt or not.

 

The breath scene still comes off as a huge cliffhanger, even after EC.

 

Agree with everything you stated above. They could actually still pull this off without invalidating the endings of ME3. Shortly after Bioware released the ME3 datapad app someone posted a screenshot on twitter i think it was that was from the app that you could supposedly only get from Ashley in ME3 if you beat the game and chose destroy. It said something like, "Hey skipper, the doctors say I might finally be able to come down and see you today". This was quickly removed from its original posting and swept under the rug. To me it would seem to indicate that since the message on the datapad app only appeared after beating the game and selecting destroy (thus getting the breathe scene) that the message from Ashley would imply that Shepard survived (the breathe scene) and is recovering in an infirmary somewhere while the war is still ongoing. How this would allow them to make a direct sequel without invalidating the endings is that you play as a new protagonist while Shepard is in recovery,(he may even be in a coma) and depending on choices you make in ME4 and the ending you chose for ME3 and the outcome of finishing the war Shepard can fully recover or succumb completely to the indoctrination attempts and be lost forever.This would actually be the best case scenario IMO. They could please everyone then and it would mean they wouldnt have actually sold us a game without a real ending.

 

not bad

[guigaccess]

I don't believe it, but I think it fits the story very well for me to accept it as a valid view and pick it for my Shepard.

 

So I think BioWare intended for the last part to be an "illusion"? No. But that fits into the story, makes a terrible ending not suck completely and doesn't betray the game themes, so I pick it gladly.

Whatever you chose by the end, the TRUE ending of ME3 is up to you. What happens in the aftermath? Do the krogan rebel again? Do they manage to get back to their planets after the relays got destroyed? Everything is up to you! Everything is up to "it's your story, decide what happened", so picking IT up just seems right. It's just you saying "THIS is what I want as the 'end' of MY Shepard's story".

[Kabooooom]

I don't believe it, but I think it fits the story very well for me to accept it as a valid view and pick it for my Shepard.

So I think BioWare intended for the last part to be an "illusion"? No. But that fits into the story, makes a terrible ending not suck completely and doesn't betray the game themes, so I pick it gladly.
Whatever you chose by the end, the TRUE ending of ME3 is up to you. What happens in the aftermath? Do the krogan rebel again? Do they manage to get back to their planets after the relays got destroyed? Everything is up to you! Everything is up to "it's your story, decide what happened", so picking IT up just seems right. It's just you saying "THIS is what I want as the 'end' of MY Shepard's story".

I am of the same opinion. I am probably the only person on here that prefers a tragic ending for the story. My head canon is that my Shepard was indoctrinated, succumbed, and the cycle finished with the Reapers victorious. However, due to Liara's time capsules, they are eventually defeated. It underscores the theme that it is not humanity, or asari, or turians, or whatever species that matters - it is life itself. Just as the Protheans tried, and failed but gave us a better chance to try, and fail - we were the final link needed to break the cycle forever.

At least, that is my preferred head canon ending.

[Bardox9]

I am of the same opinion. I am probably the only person on here that prefers a tragic ending for the story. My head canon is that my Shepard was indoctrinated, succumbed, and the cycle finished with the Reapers victorious. However, due to Liara's time capsules, they are eventually defeated. It underscores the theme that it is not humanity, or asari, or turians, or whatever species that matters - it is life itself. Just as the Protheans tried, and failed but gave us a better chance to try, and fail - we were the final link needed to break the cycle forever.

At least, that is my preferred head canon ending.

Entirely possible Shepard gets indoctrinated, depending on the ending you chose. Not sure about the rest of your cannon though. Doesn't mesh with the E3 Trailer... but the trailer they showed of ME1 looks almost nothing like what they eventually published so... sure why not... Run with it.

[masster blaster]

I am of the same opinion. I am probably the only person on here that prefers a tragic ending for the story. My head canon is that my Shepard was indoctrinated, succumbed, and the cycle finished with the Reapers victorious. However, due to Liara's time capsules, they are eventually defeated. It underscores the theme that it is not humanity, or asari, or turians, or whatever species that matters - it is life itself. Just as the Protheans tried, and failed but gave us a better chance to try, and fail - we were the final link needed to break the cycle forever.

At least, that is my preferred head canon ending.

not bad and understandable.

[Original182]

Wow so this is what the IT theory is all about.

 

No I do not believe it that is what happened. If some people thought the endings were bad, the IT ending would be the worst for me.

 

It's like when you played Silent Hill 2, and one of the bad endings was that you actually died in a car accident and everything was just a dream.

 

It being a dream is the absolute worst possible ending for a great trilogy like Mass Effect.

 

But, I suppose it allows you to create Mass Effect 4.

[masster blaster]

Wow so this is what the IT theory is all about.

 

No I do not believe it that is what happened. If some people thought the endings were bad, the IT ending would be the worst for me.

 

It's like when you played Silent Hill 2, and one of the bad endings was that you actually died in a car accident and everything was just a dream.

 

It being a dream is the absolute worst possible ending for a great trilogy like Mass Effect.

 

But, I suppose it allows you to create Mass Effect 4.

Well it depends which version of IT. The main IT is Shepard battling the Reaper Indoctrination at the end of ME3. Though it's been happening ever since ME3 started, the final test is upon Shepard. Thus it explains all the weird things that happen at the end, and how the characters are out of behavior. Destroy is the prime way to wake up from the Indoctrination attempt, since it has been your goal from the get go. Yet you have to have enough assets to save your Shepard when he, or she wakes up. Hence the breath scene. Funny though Anderson raises your EMS requirements in Destroy ending if he dies if you didn't pick renegade or paragon options when talking with TIM through ME3. In Short it's basically harbinger/the Reapers vs Shepard and the player but in Shepard's mind.

[Gonder]

I was always skeptical of the theory, though analysing it brings so much sense into me, it just... it makes way too much freaking sense not to be true! Although I found it harder to believe after the release of the Extended Cut, I believe they never dismissed the IT as false? Honestly, I think this may be a bit of a mystery that we will either never get to know the answer to, or will not get to know for many more years to come, though I'm hopeful that it is real.

[SwobyJ]

Wow so this is what the IT theory is all about.

 

No I do not believe it that is what happened. If some people thought the endings were bad, the IT ending would be the worst for me.

 

It's like when you played Silent Hill 2, and one of the bad endings was that you actually died in a car accident and everything was just a dream.

 

It being a dream is the absolute worst possible ending for a great trilogy like Mass Effect.

 

But, I suppose it allows you to create Mass Effect 4.

 

That's one of the bigger arguments against IT, and I understand where it comes from. Its a good point. Why buy and play three games just to have it shown that the protagonist was stuck in a dream and woke up? Especially if the main story itself is barely about that kind of stuff?

 

But its why I personally tend to think that IT is just a significant part of what is actually happening. Its not 'just a dream'. There's stuff happening, and Shepard's choices (specifically that word) will matter a lot. They won't be crucial to the next story, but they'll be remembered and important.

[JasonShepard]

I don't get IT.

 

Indoctrination Theory relies on the idea that Shepard is being indoctrinated during the final conversation with the Catalyst, and that if the Catalyst successfully persuades Shepard to pick either Control or Synthesis, the indoctrination attempt has been successful. (Some extreme versions include Destroy, with Refuse being the only unindoctrinated option.)

 

But... No.

Indoctrination doesn't work like that.

 

 

Consider our three main in-game examples of indoctrination. Saren, Kenson, and TIM. Consider what indoctrination meant for each of them. For what it's worth, for none of them did indoctrination mean agreeing with the Reapers.

 

Saren reached the conclusion that submission was preferable to extinction - failing to consider that submission might mean extinction and that resistance might be the only chance at survival.

Kenson reached the conclusion that the Reapers couldn't be a bad thing for the galaxy, since life continues after each cycle - failing to consider that simple continuity of life was meaningless in the face of the destruction of civilisation.

TIM - ah, TIM. He's probably the best example. TIM reached the conclusion that Control was preferable to Destroy, but completely failed to consider that Destroy was still preferable to a Reaper victory.

 

What do we see in common?

A failure to consider very simple perspectives.

 

What don't we see?

Any sign of a hallucinatory final test of their resolve before they become fully under the control of the Reapers.

They were never fully under the control of the Reapers (with the exception of Saren after he was already dead).

 

 

By my understanding, indoctrination acts as a form of mental tunnel vision. Every single thought that you have is still your own, but thoughts that align with the Reapers' goals are encouraged, and other thoughts merely become less likely. Both Saren and TIM were broken by forcing them to consider perspectives that the Reapers had blinded them to - but the goals that they had were still very much in character for they were. (TIM wanted ultimate power; Saren was actually trying to save organics.) Their free will was still intact - it had just been subverted.

 

I can't reconcile this with what is presented by Indoctrination Theory. IT tells me that, for picking Control, my Shepard wakes up a puppet of the Reapers, all free will gone. So, because I decided that I'd prefer to put galactic power in the hands of one man rather than wipe out the Geth, suddenly I'm fully indoctrinated?! I don't see how that perspective leads to me working for the Reapers. I cannot see the connection.

 

 

Is there a bunch of weird stuff that could be counted as evidence that something fishy is going on? Yes. I tend to ignore it, but yes, it's there if you want to see it. But "Shepard is bleeding from the same place as where he shot Anderson" is not evidence for "Control and Synthesis are indoctrination!". Neither is "Anderson got ahead of Shepard on the Citadel". Nor is "We've seen this kid before." It is evidence for "Something fishy might be going on" - nothing more, nothing less.

 

Is something fishy going on? Maybe. I can't discount it. Is it what IT presents? I doubt it - because as far as I can tell, the indoctrination presented by IT is nothing like indoctrination as we've seen it before.

[ImaginaryMatter]

 

I don't get IT.

 

Indoctrination Theory relies on the idea that Shepard is being indoctrinated during the final conversation with the Catalyst, and that if the Catalyst successfully persuades Shepard to pick either Control or Synthesis, the indoctrination attempt has been successful. (Some extreme versions include Destroy, with Refuse being the only unindoctrinated option.)

 

But... No.

Indoctrination doesn't work like that.

 

 

Consider our three main in-game examples of indoctrination. Saren, Kenson, and TIM. Consider what indoctrination meant for each of them. For what it's worth, for none of them did indoctrination mean agreeing with the Reapers.

 

Saren reached the conclusion that submission was preferable to extinction - failing to consider that submission might mean extinction and that resistance might be the only chance at survival.

Kenson reached the conclusion that the Reapers couldn't be a bad thing for the galaxy, since life continues after each cycle - failing to consider that simple continuity of life was meaningless in the face of the destruction of civilisation.

TIM - ah, TIM. He's probably the best example. TIM reached the conclusion that Control was preferable to Destroy, but completely failed to consider that Destroy was still preferable to a Reaper victory.

 

What do we see in common?

A failure to consider very simple perspectives.

 

What don't we see?

Any sign of a hallucinatory final test of their resolve before they become fully under the control of the Reapers.

They were never fully under the control of the Reapers (with the exception of Saren after he was already dead).

 

 

By my understanding, indoctrination acts as a form of mental tunnel vision. Every single thought that you have is still your own, but thoughts that align with the Reapers' goals are encouraged, and other thoughts merely become less likely. Both Saren and TIM were broken by forcing them to consider perspectives that the Reapers had blinded them to - but the goals that they had were still very much in character for they were. (TIM wanted ultimate power; Saren was actually trying to save organics.) Their free will was still intact - it had just been subverted.

 

I can't reconcile this with what is presented by Indoctrination Theory. IT tells me that, for picking Control, my Shepard wakes up a puppet of the Reapers, all free will gone. So, because I decided that I'd prefer to put galactic power in the hands of one man rather than wipe out the Geth, suddenly I'm fully indoctrinated?! I don't see how that perspective leads to me working for the Reapers. I cannot see the connection.

 

 

Is there a bunch of weird stuff that could be counted as evidence that something fishy is going on? Yes. I tend to ignore it, but yes, it's there if you want to see it. But "Shepard is bleeding from the same place as where he shot Anderson" is not evidence for "Control and Synthesis are indoctrination!". Neither is "Anderson got ahead of Shepard on the Citadel". Nor is "We've seen this kid before." It is evidence for "Something fishy might be going on" - nothing more, nothing less.

 

Is something fishy going on? Maybe. I can't discount it. Is it what IT presents? I doubt it - because as far as I can tell, the indoctrination presented by IT is nothing like indoctrination as we've seen it before.

 

 

The problem that I have with IT is that the act of experiencing it only vaguely explained, so you can pretty much reason anything is a symptom of IT as long as you attach it to some notion of being symbolic, dream like, or abstract. Since the rules of personally experiencing are so ill-defined it's basically a get out of jail ticket for getting out of any objection to the theory. That for me rids it of any meaning and it's effectiveness as a conclusion to a story. That and the whole thing rests on very subtle symbolism which is completely different from anything else in the Mass Effect series. This guy sums it up pretty well.

[Farangbaa]

The problem that I have with IT is that the act of experiencing it only vaguely explained, so you can pretty much reason anything is a symptom of IT as long as you attach it to some notion of being symbolic, dream like, or abstract. Since the rules of personally experiencing are so ill-defined it's basically a get out of jail ticket for getting out of any objection to the theory. That for me rids it of any meaning and it's effectiveness as a conclusion to a story. That and the whole thing rests on very subtle symbolism which is completely different from anything else in the Mass Effect series. This guy sums it up pretty well.

 
I gotta watch that one sometime, even if only because of this description:

A shorter video, this time going into more detail about the indoctrination theory. Contains spoilers for all three games and one Star Trek episode.

[AlanC9]

 

The problem that I have with IT is that the act of experiencing it only vaguely explained, so you can pretty much reason anything is a symptom of IT as long as you attach it to some notion of being symbolic, dream like, or abstract. Since the rules of personally experiencing are so ill-defined it's basically a get out of jail ticket for getting out of any objection to the theory. That for me rids it of any meaning and it's effectiveness as a conclusion to a story. 

 

Of course, this is exactly what's given IT such staying power. There's no conceivable evidence against it because any such evidence can be handwaved away as more indoctrination.

[von uber]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bioware consider Shep being indoctrinated early on in the cycle? Are we seeing the residue of that?

 

Anyway, for what it's worth, Shep being injured in the side during and after the TIM confrontation never made sense to me. Any ideas on that? Is it an existing wound she arrives on the citadel with?

[JasonShepard]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bioware consider Shep being indoctrinated early on in the cycle? Are we seeing the residue of that?

 

Anyway, for what it's worth, Shep being injured in the side during and after the TIM confrontation never made sense to me. Any ideas on that? Is it an existing wound she arrives on the citadel with?

 

That's my understanding. Shep did get shot at by Harbinger. If you let Shepard stand around immediately after entering the Citadel, he/she will cradle that area of their body (LONG before the confrontation in which Anderson gets shot).

 

I've also never liked the suggestion that Shepard and Anderson are bleeding from the exact same spot. We don't see where Anderson gets shot - it's just presumably somewhere in the abdomen, on a not-immediately-vital organ. Shepard is bleeding from the left stomach area (judging from where the hand is placed). It's an assumption to say that they're bleeding in exactly the same spot - the abdomen is a fairly large area (like, you know, the majority of a person's body mass is there).

[ImaginaryMatter]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bioware consider Shep being indoctrinated early on in the cycle? Are we seeing the residue of that?

 

Anyway, for what it's worth, Shep being injured in the side during and after the TIM confrontation never made sense to me. Any ideas on that? Is it an existing wound she arrives on the citadel with?

 

I think the visuals could very well be left over from the Indoctrination plot.

[SwobyJ]

Indoctrination is just apex synthetic/artificial communication like domination is apex organic/natural communication.

 

I feel that not even ITers get that, and that calling it immediately-evil-evil-bad-guy stuff is simplifying the possibilities.

 

ME3 is a dream/nightmare and so much more. But with a relatively single-minded and single-expressive character. Lets us weigh the value of things, the motivations behind actions, in a safe space. Moral key choices. Elcor Hamlet.

 

Onto the next story. I got about 1/2 of what I wanted during the DLC cycle for ME3 - I'm hoping that I get at least 1/4-1/3 more in the next game.

[rapscallioness]

I don't know what to think about all this, tbh. I've skimmed the cliff notes of IT, and I think it has merit. I've also seen some other IT ideas that, imo, go too far, and I don't care for it.

 

It's my understanding that Shep was supposed to be indoctrinated, but it became too complicated to pull of having the player lose control of Shep to that extent. And I guess they just did not remove the visual clues.

 

That said, I'd love to them pick up the idea and run with it. And even during my first--uninfluenced--PT the whole post beam thing I felt like something was terribly wrong. As in, I was certain at the time something was messing w/my mind. I did not trust Anderson's voice. I thought, "It's a trap!" I swear I did. lol!

 

My only problem, though, with them using IT as a springboard for another installment is how would it transition? If we go into the next ME with Shep "waking up"..and then...what? Finishing the fight? No. I would not like that. It's been too long. It will be too long by the time the next game comes out. I don't wanna still be fighting the friggin' Reapers. And I'd feel a bit ripped off that I didn't get to have this kind of conclusion in the original.

 

But then what if there's a new PC and...what? they finish the fight? Boo. Or even worse we just find out about the end of the fight from some codex. Would not want.

 

Or maybe the whole thing was akin to an acid trip where Shep is still doing what Shep does, but Shep is perceiving the experience in a strange way. Essentially Shep still blows the Reapers to hell, but doing so while struggling against a really bad acid trip. The sensory input is all off.

 

And what about Synth and Control? If Destroy is the only way for Shep to wake up, that doesn't really seem fair. It's not like the Shep dead from ME2 Suicide Mission where you had to really screw it up to have no one left and die.

 

Control and Synth'er's did not screw it up, they just had a different idea abt what would be best for galaxy.

 

So, I like the idea, but I just don't see how it would work going fwd.

[XXIceColdXX]

If IT gets revealed, I'm betting it occurs at very end of the next trilogy.

(Would prefer a reveal at the end of next game though)

[Killdren88]

I do..seeing how what choices I'm giving all stem from the idea Starbrat sells me on of Coexistence is impossible with a Us or them mentally, which leaves me with he choices of. Diversity is illogical so wipe out all synthetic life so that organic life may reign supreme. Coexistence is only possible by sacrificing what makes you either synthetic or organic and simply force the understanding rather than slowly coming to accept it at a natural slow rate Geth and Quarians prove this. either party can be trusted so you have to police both sides playing the galactic babysitter. Or finally, You refuse Starbrat's flawed logic and everyone dies.