937 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

Yes, you missed the point.

 

IT is completely arbitrary, that's what we've been saying. There is no rhyme or reason for any of this. You are taking your subjective "what the game tells us" spiel, running it through a series of contrivances, then trying to package it as something other than fan fiction. It's not a matter of looking at the ending situation from another view but rather swallowing a bunch of logically adverse conjecture. Yes, the ending has lot's of failings and if fanon is your way out of it that's cool. Just don't pretend it's anything more than that.

There can BE a reason to this. you claim it is fan fiction.....do you know what IT is? The Indoctrination Theory is created by BIOWARE, that we the fans saw think they came up with. We only came up with the clues we found in the game. IT stands as Bioware's by all rights, we simply just supported the Indoctrination theory, and it is up to Bioware if they would go through with it or  not. I have taken all the logic and been applying it to my post. I am telling you to take a look at it form another view. I have already viewed the endings as they are and i know how it is all like.

[masster blaster]

Not referring to the horrible mess, but prefering something else over what you see.

Same can be said too you to.

[Farangbaa]

Same can be said too you to.

It could. Would be quite a stupid statement though, seeing as I just accept what I see instead of coming up with elaborate delusions to avoid having to accept what I see.

[ImaginaryMatter]

What huge gaps hmmm? We covered everything we could and gave everyone answers the best we could. If you don't like them than fine, but we speculated the game, the comics, the whole dam things just to back up our findings. Yet you....you simply just critics everything we find and think it unworthy, stupid, and freaking hilarious. I said history because all the times people tried to prove their findings ended up as laughing stocks, called stupid, and simply were bashed to hell. Over time however people saw their views and began integrating it within society.

 

Yes i know that some ITers just hand wave everything you also brings up but i am not that way, and nor is everyone else. I have been doing my best to meet your requirements and yet it is still not enough. I have done all i can to show you from a different prospective how how i see things, and explain them to you, however you are just simply brushing it aside and complain and complain about anything i bring up. You say we don't bring this up and we don't know what we are talking about.......we have, yet you ignore, while WE tackle what you want us to explain to you all about.

 

Yes, you answered the best you could, which really highlights the logical failings of IT. Your explanations are running into the same problems of the original ending, they are contrived, arbitrary, hand waves, etc. It's just replacing one messy pile with an other messier one. The benefit to taking the endings at face value though that they don't depend on a highly subjective interpretation of the text (also developer intent).

[masster blaster]

It could. Would be quite a stupid statement though, seeing as I just accept what I see instead of coming up with elaborate delusions to avoid having to accept what I see.

I see clearly, i am just hoping IT is the case. I can believe in what i want to believe, and you can believe what you want to believe, yet just because i know how it all really looks like doesn't mean i can't hope and believe IT can be the case. Does it mean I am right no, but it doesn't mean you are right either.

[masster blaster]

Yes, you answered the best you could, which really highlights the logical failings of IT. Your explanations are running into the same problems of the original ending, they are contrived, arbitrary, hand waves, etc. It's just replacing one messy pile with an other messier one. The benefit to taking the endings at face value though that they don't depend on a highly subjective interpretation of the text (also developer intent).

To you it is failing, and to others it is not. You view IT as garbage, and others view it as brilliant. I have not been covering anything, i am staying what COULD be possible. You just take it as " It's is just as it is" i am simply implying that it could be also this instead of having a one tracked mind. You don't expect the answers you seek to be right in front of you, and nor should you. You have to WORK and look up things to explain things that may not seem right to you. It could be said too me too, yet i have my view of things as you have yours.

[JasonShepard]

The Reapers can't do the same indoctrination attempts they did on others in the past. Shepard is a being that is unlike any other.

 

So it's a unique indoctrination attempt?

 

So my basic complaint about IT - that the indoctrination is completely unlike any form of indoctrination shown previously - is answered by "Shepard's unique and requires special treatment"? Is that it?

[AlanC9]

Of course it is.

There is a sense in which IT is Bioware's fault. By never making up their minds about how indoctrination works -- ME1 isn't even consistent with itself here -- they left open a hole through which any amount of nonsense can be forced.

[masster blaster]

So it's a unique indoctrination attempt?

 

So my basic complaint about IT - that the indoctrination is completely unlike any form of indoctrination shown previously - is answered by "Shepard's unique and requires special treatment"? Is that it?

In a way yes, and no. Shepard isn't like the rest of the indoctrinated people the Reapers have indoctrinated in the past. Shepard is a wild card, which can be good and bad. The Reapers tried Indoctrinating Shepard before in arrival it seems, yet only had little to no success, however it does not mean Shepard was not compromised. It just means they have to find a way to break Shepard down to the point it would be easy for the Reapers to subjugate his/her state of mind. hence the nightmares and the child. I do not think the child was in fact real, and nor did anyone else but Shepard see the child alone. You can talk about the child but that is it. Plus the child made no sounds in the ducts which Liara can on Mars. It is possible that Bioware intended this since after all they didn't have sound for the first air duct for the child that vanished without a sound, with the exception of the Reaper growl yet Liara makes sounds in the air ducts.

 

The child is a trojin horse in a sense, it was to weaken Shepard's state of mind, for no matter what kind of Shepard you have your Shepard be, your Shepard is haunted by the child. Then that same child is used at the end by the Reapers. It seems to convenient if you ask me. Some could say it is just Bioware being lazy, yet if they had put in a lot of effort into having this child haunt Shepard three times, and the third dream have him/her BURN with the child then something is not right at the end.

 

Moreover the Reapers have to snuff out Shepard's allies as well. They give Shepard hope, and willpower to move on. Hence why i don't think Harbinger didn't fire at the Normandy. You can say the Reaper IFF saved them, but given how the salariens use the Reaper IFF, they are still targeted, and Harbinger is just looking at Shepard and waiting is can be said that Harbinger is letting Shepard's squad go and since they are hurt Shepard would be worried about them surviving. If you had low ems and your squad mates died, this would make Shepard feel defeated in a way.

 

Furthermore Anderson is the father figure of Shepard really, the master/ teacher. Having TIM and Anderson argue about what is right, and what is wrong is conflicting towards Shepard. In order to have Shepard all alone they must kill Anderson ( The un tainted part of Shepard's mind/ his/her voice of reason) thus leaving Shepard easy to sway. For if we had our squad mates, and Anderson with us they would tell Shepard no matter what to Destroy the Reapers.

 

Overall the Reapers have to breach Shepard's state of mind now that Shepard is weak. If they fail to gain Shepard then they would kill Shepard yet if you have enough assets, somewhere in the rubble in London, near the conduit, someone or a group has distracted the Reapers/ Harbinger long enough for Shepard to wake up. In a way it is a new form of Indoctrination, yet it is still the old one, just that the Reapers had to prefect it, in order to take it to the next level.

[masster blaster]

Of course it is.

There is a sense in which IT is Bioware's fault. By never making up their minds about how indoctrination works -- ME1 isn't even consistent with itself here -- they left open a hole through which any amount of nonsense can be forced.

Nonsense is your own opinion. To which i understand, however ME1 is what started it all, to say that in ME2, or ME3 they had it right is faulty. ME1 set up the premise of the trilogy, and it's themes and all that you learned transfer into the next two games, however it is up to you to make the choice that would change the galaxy, and the fate of Shepard. That much is true, yet it does not mean that Indoctrination is wrong. Leviathan explained the Reapers  perfected Indoctrination/ their powers. Who is to say they can't make a virtual world inside Shepard's head like Leviathan?

[ImaginaryMatter]

Nonsense is your own opinion. To which i understand, however ME1 is what started it all, to say that in ME2, or ME3 they had it right is faulty. ME1 set up the premise of the trilogy, and it's themes and all that you learned transfer into the next two games, however it is up to you to make the choice that would change the galaxy, and the fate of Shepard. That much is true, yet it does not mean that Indoctrination is wrong. Leviathan explained the Reapers  perfected Indoctrination/ their powers. Who is to say they can't make a virtual world inside Shepard's head like Leviathan?

 

Nothing. But as we see in the Leviathan DLC the mechanics of Leviathan Domination is different from that of Indoctrination (also read the transcript carefully, the Leviathan never says that about Indoctrination in relation to Domination, that's an assumption on your part). Which leads to a problem with IT. The Indoctrination involved is different than anything previously seen, might as well not even call it Indoctrination. It's not necessarily invalid but it falls clearly within the realm of making-things-up.

[masster blaster]

Nothing. But as we see in the Leviathan DLC the mechanics of Leviathan Domination is different from that of Indoctrination (also read the transcript carefully, the Leviathan never says that about Indoctrination in relation to Domination, that's an assumption on your part). Which leads to a problem with IT. The Indoctrination involved is different than anything previously seen, might as well not even call it Indoctrination. It's not necessarily invalid but it falls clearly within the realm of making-things-up.

Domination IS the original indoctrination, just that the Reapers improved the Leviathans abilities which we call Indoctrination. If they took the leviathans powers and improved them, then it can be said that the Reapers could construct a virtual reality like the leviathans do inside Shepard mind. No it is not. if we take what we have learned about Indoctrination it is very similar to how things have been playing at the end. It could be a new form of indoctrination that we have not seen, or in fact HOW it is like to become indoctrinated. We know the symptoms of Indoctrination, yet we don't know how truly one becomes indoctrinated.  It is a matter of choice it seems It still not clear, but since Leviathan created a world inside Shepard's head, to which the Reapers took their abilities and improved them by far, which is now know as Indoctrination, then it can be said that is how indoctrination is like only it is more convincing than what the leviathans came up with.

[Farangbaa]

Moreover the Reapers have to snuff out Shepard's allies as well. They give Shepard hope, and willpower to move on. Hence why i don't think Harbinger didn't fire at the Normandy. You can say the Reaper IFF saved them, but given how the salariens use the Reaper IFF, they are still targeted, and Harbinger is just looking at Shepard and waiting is can be said that Harbinger is letting Shepard's squad go and since they are hurt Shepard would be worried about them surviving. If you had low ems and your squad mates died, this would make Shepard feel defeated in a way.

And then the Catalyst only presents you destroy.. because, well, f*ck it all.

[masster blaster]

And then the Catalyst only presents you destroy.. because, well, f*ck it all.

actually destroy is what has always been the goal of each cycle. Destroy is the very thing the Reapers fight so hard against. It is a back door for Shepard to escape. It is basically escaping the Indoctrination attempt. Not to mention let just say if that was not the case, and Shepard did not create the destroy tube, then the Reapers had to make this whole reality feel real. If Shepard didn't see a destroy ending option, then something would be off. Even if not IT thinking, having an option NOT to destroy the Reapers would be a huge warning sign that something is not right.

 

Moreover Destroy is new beginnings, a future without the Reapers. The future generations have the option to continue the war, or not. They may not have peace for long, nor war for long, yet they will have to learn from the past, or continue the cycle again. However it is a victory no matter what because fear did not compromise Shepard, the fear of dying, the fear of looking for another way, and the fear of still needing the Reapers. It is the first step for true unity and defiance to the cycle. Yes all synthetics die, which would include Shepard since he/she is half synthetic, yet Shepard can live. The cost was high yet in war, victory in death, sacrifice. IF you think outside of IT, the Geth did not die in vain. Organics understood what went wrong with the geth, and how the quarians are to blame. They have a chance to right the wrong the best they can. will it be enough? Who knows? yet for once there is peace.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Domination IS the original indoctrination, just that the Reapers improved the Leviathans abilities which we call Indoctrination. If they took the leviathans powers and improved them, then it can be said that the Reapers could construct a virtual reality like the leviathans do inside Shepard mind. No it is not. if we take what we have learned about Indoctrination it is very similar to how things have been playing at the end. It could be a new form of indoctrination that we have not seen, or in fact HOW it is like to become indoctrinated. We know the symptoms of Indoctrination, yet we don't know how truly one becomes indoctrinated.  It is a matter of choice it seems It still not clear, but since Leviathan created a world inside Shepard's head, to which the Reapers took their abilities and improved them by far, which is now know as Indoctrination, then it can be said that is how indoctrination is like only it is more convincing than what the leviathans came up with.

 

Again read the script, the Leviathan never says this. Also, as we see the abilities are very different in execution, mechanics, limitations, and actual affect; they have similarities but they are superficial.

 

I'm not denying that it could be a new form of Indoctrination, but it is different from what we've seen before (so different, that calling it something else might be appropriate). This is not a strength of IT, it is a blatant weakness. It turns the entire ending sequence into a subjective play ground free from the rules and limitations that the game world has established. You can see a consequence from this given how many incarnations of IT there are; walk into a room with 20 ITers and you get 21 versions of IT.

[masster blaster]

Again read the script, the Leviathan never says this. Also, as we see the abilities are very different in execution, mechanics, limitations, and actual affect; they have similarities but they are superficial.

 

I'm not denying that it could be a new form of Indoctrination, but it is different from what we've seen before (so different, that calling it something else might be appropriate). This is not a strength of IT, it is a blatant weakness. It turns the entire ending sequence into a subjective play ground free from the rules and limitations that the game world has established. You can see a consequence from this given how many incarnations of IT there are; walk into a room with 20 ITers and you get 21 versions of IT.

It depends where you go though. most ITers have the same thought, just that some take it another way. Remember it is based on interpretation so like wise there are bound to be many theories like IT but different( plus we create some of those to mess around with each other, hence on the main site we have them in the "Scary Door"). Moreover I say they are similar because the Reapers were designed after Harbinger. Harbinger is in fact a Leviathan, which more than likely has the powers of all the leviathans that created it. If the intelligence found a way to harness the power of it's creators it can replicate it and create similar harbingers with the ability as well. That is why i say this, and most of all how it is similar. However it can be a new form of indoctrination or have to go back to old ways of doing things. who knows right?  To be fair the ending throws away the rules and limitations period, hence why it is more believe to either have it in a form of a dream/indoctrination attempt, or simple put bad writing. Preferably i take indoc/dream.

[wolfhowwl]

There was a news article somewhere claiming that IT was part of the planned ending but that bioware couldn't make it work in time and requested 6 months to finish the game, they were told no. IT was then removed completely from the ending and bioware were forced to rush through with the poorly thought out pre EC endings, which would explain a lot including nonsensical explanations for just about everything, poor graphics (piles of bodies that look 2D and resemble clothes more than anything) and why evidence for IT could be found throughout the game. It's not that theorists had it wrong, they were just mistaken in thinking it was all a troll by bioware. Whatever the case bioware had an opportunity to run with it and extend the story while making a ton of money along the way their loss more than ours.  

 

Really?

 

They did discard a sequence where the player would "lose control of Shepard's movements and fall under full Reaper control" due to the gameplay mechanics not working in November 2011 but the leaked script and BioWare's own material in the Final Hours app seem to indicate that the endings were what they had intended all along and were meant to be taken at face value.

[JasonShepard]

So let me see if I understand all this correctly.

1. Shepard has proven remarkably resilient against indoctrination. (Debatable. If you didn't play Arrival, Shepard hasn't spent more than a few hours in the presence of Reaper artifacts. Even if you did play Arrival, it took months to indoctrinate Kenson, not days...)
2. The Reapers conclude that they need a special will-breaking hallucinatory form of indoctrination to break Shepard before the ordinary form of indoctrination will work. (Speculation, but hey, it might be true.)
3. The ending of ME3, from Harbinger's blast onwards, is this 'special' indoctrination. (Also speculation, though this section does have a fair amount of 'something fishy' indicators.)
4. Picking Control or Synthesis represents enough of a break of Shepard's will that the usual indoctrination will do the rest. (Although, of course, this 'usual indoctrination' isn't shown.)

And you conclude all of that from a handful of scattered signs that 'something fishy might be happening', and the fact that Control and Synthesis don't feel right? 2 and 4 have nothing in-game to support them, while 1 and 3 have only scant indicators.

 

Well, it's a theory, I guess. I don't feel that there's anywhere near enough evidence behind it, especially since all the evidence is of the 'something fishy' variety with nothing conclusive, but I can't actually disprove it.

 

Then again, I can't disprove the theory that the world was made last Thursday either. And personally, I still feel that taking the ending at face value makes more sense, based on the evidence.

[masster blaster]

So let me see if I understand all this correctly.

1. Shepard has proven remarkably resilient against indoctrination. (Debatable. If you didn't play Arrival, Shepard hasn't spent more than a few hours in the presence of Reaper artifacts. Even if you did play Arrival, it took months to indoctrinate Kenson, not days...)
2. The Reapers conclude that they need a special will-breaking hallucinatory form of indoctrination to break Shepard before the ordinary form of indoctrination will work. (Speculation, but hey, it might be true.)
3. The ending of ME3, from Harbinger's blast onwards, is this 'special' indoctrination. (Also speculation, though this section does have a fair amount of 'something fishy' indicators.)
4. Picking Control or Synthesis represents enough of a break of Shepard's will that the usual indoctrination will do the rest. (Although, of course, this 'usual indoctrination' isn't shown.)

And you conclude all of that from a handful of scattered signs that 'something fishy might be happening', and the fact that Control and Synthesis don't feel right? 2 and 4 have nothing in-game to support them, while 1 and 3 have only scant indicators.

 

Well, it's a theory, I guess. I don't feel that there's anywhere near enough evidence behind it, especially since all the evidence is of the 'something fishy' variety with nothing conclusive, but I can't actually disprove it.

 

Then again, I can't disprove the theory that the world was made last Thursday either. And personally, I still feel that taking the ending at face value makes more sense, based on the evidence.

 

Well for 1. There are many scenarios when Shepard could have picked up a small little tid bit, but ya basically arrival would be ideal and to say at least playing arrival makes sense. Rapid Indoctrination is possible, but this would destroy Shepard's mind if it was the case, yet we have to taken in a factor that the collector base had a lot of Reaper tech, it is likely there it could have taken hold. However we also have to take in the factor that the war and when Shepard was on Earth was a total of 9 months. So slowly Shepard could have began to see things, hence the child with in at least at the end of 3 months prior after  arrival or SC mission.

 

2. All sides have been wanting Shepard for their own needs. Shepard has done the impossible, yet is still kill-able and can be mentally brought down despite his/her upgrades. It's possible given how tough Shepard is, the normal approach would not work against Shepard. They need to weaken Shepard to the point he/she is easy to gain accesses too. Which would requier another way. Still speculations.

 

3. Pretty much, that is when ME3 becomes a horrible mess of sorts, and weird things happen. Harbinger blast scene is what many ITers believe when Shepard starts to go into a dream like state after nearly getting blasted, and pushed back into the rubble, still  speculations.

 

4. Well given on what we speculated in the past the gun represents Shepard's fighting desire. You see Shepard drop the gun in control and synthesis, and in Refuse lower his/her gun as in the fight is over. In Destroy however the gun is being use to blow up the tube and you see Shepard regain his/her strength each time he/she fires. I know in Synthesis Shepard begins to run in a last leap of faith yet for Destroy it shows more of not going to give up just yet feels. Moreover in control and synthesis when you see the two soldiers fighting the onslaught of husk, they get overrun and one of the soldiers hides in fear, while the other one is pinned down. In Destroy however The two soldiers stand their ground, and before the husk can even touch them, the wave destroys the husk. It is all about symbolism, and how in Destroy you see more of a "victory win" rather than in control and for sure synthesis. Plus there is the fact Shepard is being implanted with Reaper tech in synthesis and control. Though yes the eyes are common in synthetics, for people who are infected with Reaper tech, they have the three circles under their eyes.  when Shepard is turning into data in both of the two endings, Shepard gains similar eyes as Saren did and TIM. Though it is debatable because Shepard is also a synthetic as well, Renegade Shepard if you go full, has red eyes, yet does not show any indication of the little circles prior to control and synthesis endings. Overall it just depends on what you make of it.

 

We have supporting things to back us up, yet are we a 100 percent right, maybe ,maybe not. If one comes up with something that contradicts the other, then the one that is being contradicted will have to have higher evidence to back them up to either out way the other, or simply meet the level the other is at. In truth no side has real evidence other than how they view the game, however both sides can point out how this scene or wordings may be this or that. Like i said it's all based on how you see it at the end of the game. So I understand where you come from.

[JasonShepard]

Fair enough. I guess it's an 'agree to disagree' thing then. I'll admit that part of the reason I find the on-screen ending acceptable is because I've dressed it up with a reasonable amount of fanon and headcanon - so I can't exactly blame IT for doing the same sort of thing, even if IT goes in the complete opposite direction to me.

 

I do, at least, now have a better understanding of IT. Ish. So, thanks for that, I guess.

[masster blaster]

Fair enough. I guess it's an 'agree to disagree' thing then. I'll admit that part of the reason I find the on-screen ending acceptable is because I've dressed it up with a reasonable amount of fanon and headcanon - so I can't exactly blame IT for doing the same sort of thing, even if IT goes in the complete opposite direction to me.

 

I do, at least, now have a better understanding of IT. Ish. So, thanks for that, I guess.

Your welcome, and ya i know i read your post in the past, there are some i agree with and have an understanding with. In the end it's agree to disagree.  It takes time to at least consider another view of things that is not your own, so i understand.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I don't believe in IT. Shepard wasn't indoctrinated because Shepard was Space Jesus.

[Excella Gionne]

I don't believe in IT. Shepard wasn't indoctrinated because Shepard was Space Jesus.

Lol, I think no one used the Lord's name in vain in Mass Effect.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Lol, I think no one used the Lord's name in vain in Mass Effect.

 

I think Udina might have.

[ZipZap2000]

@wolfhowwl (cant quote for some reason) Yes, really. I don't remember the article word for word but when it was decided the game release would not be pushed back they took a months break and someone spent that time on holiday with THEIR SON and when they returned to work starchild (a 6-7 year old boy) was born. I only remember this because I was keeping up with IT back then. It was used repeatedly as a link and a screen cap to disprove and prove IT but it was constantly drowned out by the arguments like the ones in this thread. Few people ever stop to consider that maybe IT was intended but scrapped and the sequences were kept and recycled, creating the confusion.  Personally I think it was intended then scrapped but we weren't ever supposed to figure that out.