63 réponses à ce sujet

[SnapSIX]

Hey, folks  

 

So I know the indoctrination theory has been discussed for ages and almost all aspects of it seem to be exhausted and drained completely. However, there is one thing that has been bothering me for a while and I'd like to share it so i can get some other people's opinions on it. 

 

It's about Shepard's eyes. A lot of people, including Julian Kluk from Clevernoobs, who made 3 excellent documentaries on the theory, believe that when you choose either Synthesis or Control Shepard's eyes change to the eyes of an indoctrinated person. I have a few problems with this aspect of the theory. I'll go through them below.

 

First of all is the comparison to The Illusive Man's eyes: I'm not quite certain that the eyes in general mean that the person is indoctrinated. First of all, it's never explained and is not stated in any codex or source anywhere. However, a quick look at TIM's wiki page (http://masseffect.wi...ki/Illusive_Man) will say that these eyes are prosthetics, or appear to be. (or at least that's the statement made about his eyes).

Also, Shepard has encountered a fair share of indoctrinated people - Sure, Saren was indoctrinated, no doubt about that, but the rest of his body also looked very machine-like with tubes and wires all around him. This would make it seem very likely to me that his eyes are also mechanical in some sense. But what about Doctor Kenson from the Arrival DLC? She's also fully indoctrinated, yet we see no sign of any change in her eyes what so ever. Neither did we see it with Matriarch Benezia on Noveria in the original Mass Effect - and if the indoctrination theory was planned from Bioware, shouldn't they have incorporated this from the beginning instead of throwing a curveball by only adding these "indoctrinated eyes" in the last game? 

 

Also, when playing Mass Effect 2 and 3 as Renegade Shepard and the scars start to become really visible, guess what: http://img4.wikia.no...rd_renegade.jpg - Shepard's eyes glow red in the exact same pattern! I believe this is because, when Cerberus rebuilt Shepard, they had to use prosthetic eyes. The eyes are clearly connected to the facial implants, since they glow red just like the scars. Now, why the eyes don't glow all the time like TIM's, I don't know. Maybe he got them earlier on before "realistic" eyes were created, I have no clue. But I believe my point still stands.

 

And lastly, in ME3 when EDI obtains Dr. Eva's body, you can see that her eyes, although not glowy, have the same pattern with the circles and the three dots in them. Why would the eyes of a synthetic have the pattern of Reaper Indoctrination? It's not like the Reapers can actually indoctrinate synthetics -  "Indoctrination is the term used for the "brainwashing" effect the Reapers and their technology have on organic beings" (http://masseffect.wi.../Indoctrination) - literally the first line on the Indoctrination wiki page. And even if we assume that the Reapers COULD indoctrinate synthetics, how would it ever change their physical appearance in such a manner? Good question with no clear answer. 

 

Anyway, that's just something I wanted to get out there for people to see. I still believe that the theory has a LOT of valid points and is the explanation that makes the most sense overall. Hope you guys will give this a read and some feedback on my thoughts - thanks!

[ZipZap2000]

I tested this on my xbox post EC I saw no change in the eyes they stayed the colour I picked. Only after he grabs the control thingy's but that's because he's being obliterated by the colour blue.

[Farangbaa]

Please people, stop saying that IT makes the most sense. It makes the most sense because you have no idea how indoctrination works and what it does, therefore making everything, no matter how ridiculous, explainable by indoctrionation:

OH ****, a purple fly that should've been blue --> Indoctrination.
Buggy animation --> Indoctrination.
Reused texture --> Indoctrination.
'I can't wrap my head around this' --> Indoctrination.

Litterally everything can be explained by indoctrination because indoctrionation itself is not explained properly.

[SnapSIX]

Did you see the picture I linked? It's clear to see that the custom Shepard gets the red dots in his eyes when playing Renegade.

 

I most certainly am not arguing that Cerberus indoctrinated Shepard - how did you get that idea?

I'm trying to dispute all the eye-related arguments people use in favor of the indoctrination theory. I've never said that Shepard was indoctrinated, not by Cerberus or anyone else - merely saying that the appearence of the pattern in his eyes, which some people claim is caused by indoctrination, are only there because Shepard's eyes are prosthetic and thus when he's obliterated by the Control or Synthesis option, his eyes get obliterated too and we get to see the pattern beneath the iris. 

 

But I think that IT makes sense - am I not allowed to think that? I've been convinced by the amount of evidence that has been presented to me through various posts, articles and especially this: https://www.youtube....h?v=2CKHLDgz2zE and the other two documentaries he's made, which all in all add up to 4 hours and 53 minutes of some quite compelling arguments. If you've not seen these, I suggest you go and do it.

[Farangbaa]

I'm just gonna ask this guy:

 

[Excella Gionne]

The IT Theory is delicious...

 

"Ah, yes, Indoctrination Theory! How we have dismissed that claim."

[SnapSIX]

So, you gonna watch the ones I've linked? Otherwise you just seem ignorant (or insecure in you own belief, since you're not willing to watch something contradicting your view.)

[Farangbaa]

So, you gonna watch the ones I've linked? Otherwise you just seem ignorant (or insecure in you own belief, since you're not willing to watch something contradicting your view.)

 
Nope. I've seen a few of them. Really though, watch the vid, it expains why IT explains a lot of things, without it being true.

[SnapSIX]

I have seen it - and I agree, most of it makes sense. But there is no way that a 12 minute video based on one guy's own opinion and showing no evidence that falsifyes the IT can be a counter to almost 5 hours worth of evidence being presented in a thorough and well-documented manner. 

 

Thumbs up for the South Park meme

[Excella Gionne]

I already watched a 30 minute clip about IT Theory and blah blah blah. The IT Theory is flawed at particular parts of the game, and the IT does not conclude the ending of the Reapers. EC contradicts the IT Theory by expanding upon the endings. If it never existed, then maybe IT would still have more relevance. When I first saw & found out about the IT Theory, I have to agree, I was amazed, but doing more research and all that good stuff proved that the IT Theory is also flawed. 

 

I skimmed through the video. I already know what's going to happen. Hell no I ain't watchin' an hour of IT Theory.

[Farangbaa]

I have seen it - and I agree, most of it makes sense. But there is no way that a 12 minute video based on one guy's own opinion and showing no evidence that falsifyes the IT can be a counter to almost 5 hours worth of evidence being presented in a thorough and well-documented manner. 
 
Thumbs up for the South Park meme

That one of the points of the video: you can't falsify IT because indoctrination has no proper explanation. Anything and everything can be explained as indoctrination. Anything 'off' can be labeled indoctrination and you can't bring up anything against it, because we have no clear description of indoctrination, what it does and how it works.

That, and, it would be worse story telling than what we got. Way worse.

[Excella Gionne]

It makes 0 sense on how Reaper tech indoctrinates. And because Reapers are synthetics and have no cognitive functions, they can't possibly indoctrinate.

[SnapSIX]

But because you can't falsify it doesn't make the opposite true - isn't that how religions works? "You can't prove that God doesn't exist, so he must exist."

 

I say again, I agree that the theory is flawed in many places, like my original point of this post - it was actually AGAINST the IT theory. 

 

But if we assume that the theory is wrong, there are still things that are not explained at all by any of the endings! 
How did Anderson go through the beam AFTER Shepard yet get to the console before him without us seeing him? When we get to the chasm, he says he can see the console up ahead - yet we can't see him. We should have spotted him at this point. And why, if he entered the beam after us, did he not tell Major Coats to NOT retreat, like he stated earlier, when Coats orders it? Anderson must be near the beam and seeing Harbinger fly away, otherwise he'd not be able to make it all the way to the beam and get up shortly after Shepard.

Where did the Illusive Man come from? 
Why does Shepard bleed from a shot to the abdomen, when he never got shot there? 

 

There are other examples, but these are just a few. Can you offer some explainations for these? Because I sure as hell can't.

[SnapSIX]

It makes 0 sense on how Reaper tech indoctrinates. And because Reapers are synthetics and have no cognitive functions, they can't possibly indoctrinate.

Can you link me to your source of that? We KNOW that Indoctrination is a thing in the Mass Effect universe - it's been used over and over again as a means of storytelling and development. If we throw out Indoctrination completely, what are we left with? What happened to Saren? Why did he suddenly change his mind at the end of ME1? What made him think how he did to begin with? Coherence goes out the window with the dismissal of such an important element. 

 

I agree, again, that the IT is flawed, don't know how many times I need to say that. But to totally dismiss Indoctrination is simply stupid! Why else would we hear so much about it - from the codex, from other characters and even from the God Child (who is a Reaper)? You think Bioware put it in the game, but decided that it was just a myth in the game? What's the point?

[Excella Gionne]

1) Anderson may have discreetly sneaked past Harbinger's gaze as the rest of hammer squad was being attacked. He may have used that to his advantage and hid until Harbinger left and then went into the beam either before or after us. Anderson is no longer seen with us once we dash for the beam. 

 

2) There are other doors within the chasm, but only one way to get to the control station. I've already observed the chasm, and it is possible that Anderson must have went along the sides where the dead bodies are lying and walked down the path we also take as well to get to the control room. 

 

3) Hammer team was already down, and they aren't going to waste anymore resources on trying to get to the beam if no one else made it. They have no one else to spare in attempt to reach the beam. 

 

4) The Illusive Man was already at the Citadel as said by the Prothean VI. 

 

5) Shepard got shot by the infamous Marauder Shields!

[in it for the lolz]

Let's make this clear for you OP:

 

IT HAS BEEN STATED OVER AND OVER AGIAN THAT I.T. IS NOT PART OF THE GAME. OK

[Excella Gionne]

Can you link me to your source of that? We KNOW that Indoctrination is a thing in the Mass Effect universe - it's been used over and over again as a means of storytelling and development. If we throw out Indoctrination completely, what are we left with? What happened to Saren? Why did he suddenly change his mind at the end of ME1? What made him think how he did to begin with? Coherence goes out the window with the dismissal of such an important element. 

 

I agree, again, that the IT is flawed, don't know how many times I need to say that. But to totally dismiss Indoctrination is simply stupid! Why else would we hear so much about it - from the codex, from other characters and even from the God Child (who is a Reaper)? You think Bioware put it in the game, but decided that it was just a myth in the game? What's the point?

You don't need a source for that. It's called a brain. Reapers are controlled by an A.I., and they have one singular purpose only. Being Space Magic'd to be forced to believe the views of another is just silly. Indoctrination is when you willingly accept the views of another without questioning. Saren will only start to change his mind if you start choosing charm or intimidation options. The scenario is determined by your choice of words. It's not steady evidence. Indoctrination can still be fought by planting enough doubt within the indoctrinated.

[SnapSIX]

I'm glad you said "may", because again, you provide no evidence what so ever. 
Would Anderson, a decorated soldier and war hero, HIDE while his fellow soldiers die around him? His entire plan hinged on rushing the beam with as many men as possible to get to the beam and get someone, ANYONE, inside!

 

Anderson enters after Shepard. So you're saying that he managed to walk a much longer distance than Shepard in the same amount of time and still be totally out of sight when Shepard reaches the chasm?

 

Yes, he was at the Citadel. But where?! How does he suddenly just show up at the tower? Was he hiding among the corpses? Or in the other doorways that at that current time don't align with the path to the console?

 

Yes, he got shot. In the right shoulder! You clearly see the blood and Shepard jerks the right shoulder back because of the bullet. No way a shot in the lower left abdomen could cause that kind of reaction.

[Excella Gionne]

I really don't get it! Everyone sees Shepard bleeds, but then they forget about Marauder Shields? WTH! 

[SnapSIX]

You don't need a source for that.

Excellent, just excellent - those are JUST the words you wanna use to prove your point of view. There is no source to back up your claim!

 

Bioware, who made the game and know much more than any of us, have stated that Indoctrination is not voluntary - it's in the codex. Yes, it can be broken, but being indoctrinated is not a choice. https://www.youtube....h?v=jI1yekAjJls - there we go! 

 

Just silly? If you follow that logic, everything in the game is silly, isn't it?

[SnapSIX]

https://www.youtube....h?v=g2gymf8PLyQ

 

Watch this and see where Shepard gets hit. If that's the lower left abdomen, then I'm the God Child!

[Excella Gionne]

I'm glad you said "may", because again, you provide no evidence what so ever. 
Would Anderson, a decorated soldier and war hero, HIDE while his fellow soldiers die around him? His entire plan hinged on rushing the beam with as many men as possible to get to the beam and get someone, ANYONE, inside!

 

Anderson enters after Shepard. So you're saying that he managed to walk a much longer distance than Shepard in the same amount of time and still be totally out of sight when Shepard reaches the chasm?

 

Yes, he was at the Citadel. But where?! How does he suddenly just show up at the tower? Was he hiding among the corpses? Or in the other doorways that at that current time don't align with the path to the console?

 

Yes, he got shot. In the right shoulder! You clearly see the blood and Shepard jerks the right shoulder back because of the bullet. No way a shot in the lower left abdomen could cause that kind of reaction.

Everyone is expendable, and sacrificing the many just to achieve what the overall goal was is never too much. 

 

 

Everything is pre-set already, even once you open the doors, Anderson is already at the console before he mentions anything about a console being up ahead. 

 

 

Shepard could be bleeding from the blast he/she took from Harby's beam as well. 

[Farangbaa]

Yeah, keep this up.

Keep presenting oversights and bugs as being done on purpose and you get monstrosities like IT.

If we do that, I'm going to say the indoctrination was already well on it's way on Virmire. We clearly see Joker dropping the Mako, and suddenly when Joker contacts Shepard and crew, they are outside of the Mako.

OMG, indoctrination.
 

Or else on the collector ship:

 

 

You can clearly see Ashley's armor.

 

Oh look, more of them!

 

 

It was all a dream.

[SnapSIX]

It's sad that an idea can't be posted without people trying to shoot it down. I believe something, you believe something else - yet I can't do that without getting attack by todays equivalent of religious zealots. "He believes something different, kill the heathen!". 

 

Too bad.

[Farangbaa]

It's sad that an idea can't be posted without people trying to shoot it down. I believe something, you believe something else - yet I can't do that without getting attack by todays equivalent of religious zealots. "He believes something different, kill the heathen!". 

 

Too bad.

 

 Hope you guys will give this a read and some feedback on my thoughts - thanks!

 

You ask, we deliver.