153 réponses à ce sujet

[Robert Cousland]

I'm sure more of this will be put to rest in the next game. Whatever it may be. I'm done with "lots of speculations".

 

Yeah, especially after how they said, "There will be no speculation". *Sigh*

[Iakus]

Yeah, especially after how they said, "There will be no speculation". *Sigh*

The whole "clarity and closure" thing was just so much PR BS

[D.C.]

The whole "clarity and closure" thing was just so much PR BS

 Seem to me like we went further down the rabbit hole if that makes sense lol

[Robert Cousland]

It’s just hilarious to me how when people try to suggest that anyone on board with the Indoctrination Theory is ‘deluded’, or, dare I say it, 'indoctrinated’ themselves. The fact is, the solutions given to us are 'prettied up’ in such a way they seem almost like ideal versions of what Shepard rejected in Mass Effect 1 and 2. Who’s indoctrinated now? I believe you are, if you made either of those choices and accepted blindly, because you’re not SUPPOSED to accept it. Flawed execution aside, that was the whole god damn point.

 

I still believe that ME4 will be a continuation, in some form, from ME3.

[Ithurael]

Read this.

 

Let\'s be more current shall we? Read this - Note that Stanley Woo left bioware and his account transitioned to Ninja Stan. While working for bioware he was in QA and worked on the ME3 project

http://forum.bioware...l-denial-of-it/

 

I know you don't read my entire posts and only comment on specific segments so I will extrapolate the link as well:

 

Ninja Stan wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

It's a theory about the ending that BioWare used to encourage, but now will close any thread if they feature it. Based on the obvious 'indoctrination' elements during the finale that BW put in, since they actually intended there to be a scene of Shep fighting indoctrination. But then they couldn't figure out how to make it playable, so they abandoned it. Still left all the effects in though. Because they don't really give a damn.

BioWare has never "encouraged" IT or its discussion. IT has always been a fan-made interpretation of events, and its discussion should be relegated to Group discussions. Thank you.

End of line.

 

I guess...if you are going to cite bioware reps you could probably still cite Priestly - even though he is the least trustworthy source Bioware has ever had. And also...you really need to cite more recent sources for Tweets. Biowares entire stance on IT completely changed after the EC and definitely after the Citadel DLC.

 

 

Mike Gamble states the ending being indoctrination "we'll let the content speak for itself".

 

Well, again, if you took time to read through the post I carefully put together you can see - from the material and content presented in the game - using no speculation, headcanon, or assumption we find that there is nothing in the ME universe that can create a detailed dreamscape or virtual interface on par with what IT says both indoctrination can do and what is happening during the ending. If you can come up with anything from the game that counters this (and it is NOT headcanon, speculation, or assumption) then we can really get into some great discussion about it. If I was not clear, please cite the portion I was not clear on and we can discuss it.

 

 

They were even teasing it on Twitter and such.

 

 

Ya - they definitely did Pre EC. I can't really find any twitter messages linking to the IT threads anymore, especially after the EC and even more so after the CItadel DLC. It is almost like...Bioware was using IT as a flame shield by leading them on and getting them to buy more DLC...that is odd. I can't imagine that they would do that

*looks at old tweets before the EC and Citadel DLC were released*

"Oh Myyy"

 

 

There was no finishing the fight. The resisting indoctrination was something people made up. The game tells you (going by the Geth server level), that you make the choice from within the virtual level, and you see the choice happen in the real world (while Shepard is in the pod with his eyes closed). Same thing here. Once you shoot the tube, the Crucible fires, destroys Reapers and then Shepard wakes up. Everything is silent. Reapers dead. Game over  Shepard wins, reapers lose.

 

 

Again, while the Geth server level was contained to the geth and the geth only. And even that looked all blocky and tron-like. We knew it wasn't real. Compare that to the ending and what we see is VASTLY different. Reapers are incapable of creating such a dreamscape so are geth and so are leviathan. So, what in game evidence do you have that lets us know what is creating this highly detailed dreamscape? If what you are saying is your headcanon or how you would end the game - this is fine. But if what you are saying is how bioware ended the game, then you really need to cite in the game where this is shown/explained/or presented. Otherwise it comes off as odd.

 

 

I could dig up some in-game files if you like. If you have the Final Hours, synthesis is implanting everyone with "Reaper anatomy" (become a Reaper).

 

 

Sadly I don't have the final hours thing. Never bought any bioware products past Leviathan. But ya, even in the leaked ending there was a 'become one with the reapers' only if you played a perfect game. Nowhere in the leaked ending was there any mention of this choice is indoctrination, this choice is indoctrination, and this choice is not. Nor was there any mention of a dream reality. Pretty much everything happens the same way - just with dialog changes.

 

 

If you take Arrival into account, Shepard was knocked out for two days from Object Rho, so the same thing is applied here. The whole ending sequence doesn't take place within 20 minutes. More like two days. With the EC, the Normandy lifts off to rescue Shepard. They don't want to believe he is dead, because being knocked out for two days, they probably tried to talk to him, but he wouldn't respond. Like someone in a coma.

 

What are you talking about here? This is ALL headcanon. If that is what you believe - great. But again all we know is that shep is knocked out for a few days during the Arrival DLC (assuming you play it). What about when he is knocked out at Eden Prime? Or after the Battle of the Citadel? Or the Reaper IFF mission? Or on the Collector Base? Or during the trial on Earth? Or during the beam run after Harbinger/Soveriegn reaper zaps him?

 

Also also, the events of Arrival were about what...6 months from ME3? So...are you now saying that ALL of ME3 was a dream? lol Trust me, I have one bit of headcanon like this but no - bioware would never do that.

 

 

I've seen the "virtual interface" thing tons of times in fiction and the way it worked in ME3 ending is exactly the same way. It's not out of place or executed wrong. It wasn't a dream. You interface with a Reaper (talk to Legion) and they mess up your sensory input (what you see and hear on the screen).

 

The only virtual interface we saw in the ME universe was in ME2 with Overlord DLC and ME3 with the geth Server. Shepard never virtually interfaced with a Reaper consensus. He talked with one - or two. But that was in the 'real' world. Not in a virtual reality interface.

 

Nothing in the ME universe has the capability to create the advanced dreamscapes or a virtual interface that your interpretation is saying is happening. Add to the fact that bioware producer Mike Gamble confirms shepard is on the citadel in the post breath scene.

 

So please, if you want to still believe in your ending or your interpretation - go for it. However, if you want to say that your interpretation is what Bioware was gunning for the entire time = You will need to rework it to fit with:

- Gambles statements, shep being on the citadel

- The content of the Mass Effect Universe - nothing observed so far can create such a detailed dreamscape/virtual interface scenario that encompasses both the TIM scene and the ending choices and the slideshows and the narrations.

 

If you cannot rework your interpretation to match those two condition - or you outright reject it = this is headcanon. If you can, then we can discuss it objectively. And, while it is totally ok to have and is a valid way to have as YOUR ending. we can safely say that it was not what bioware originally designed.

 

Again, to reiterate:

 

If you want to believe that there is an indoctrination scene or the ending is in a dreamscape and shepard is on earth = this is fine. It is your headcanon. So long as you know it is YOUR headcanon. There is nothing wrong with using headcanon to fill in gaps or make the game more enjoyable. I do this from time to time, you just need to KNOW that what you are doing is using headcanon and not what is originally presented.

 

If you think this (the above statement) is what bioware wrote and delivered on in their original vision and extended vision then this is not so good. Mainly for the reasons below:

- The content of ME3 and ME1-3 do NOT give us, show us, or even tell us of anything that can create an elaborate and detailed dreamscape - certainly not indoctrination.

- Gamble, the producer of ME3, already confirms Shep is on the citadel

 

Hope that clears it up.

 

Also, if you are going to reply to my post please do the following:

- read the entire thing - I know you don't like to or something like that but you can't just cherry pick what you want, reply to it and think you have countered the arguement entirely.

- Cite from the lore, Dialog, narrative, gameplay or cutscenes. No speculations. If you continue to throw out your headcanon and how you interpreted the game saying it is and was developer design the entire time I will just think you are trying to get a rise out of me as others have tried before.

 

Cheerio

[AlanC9]

How can anyone question the validity of the IT, at all?

Seriously? Dude... after all these years, you've surely heard every argument against those points. God knows I have. Except for maybe the one about TIM being on the Citadel -- I don't know the argument against that one since I don't know what the problem's supposed to be.

Incidentally, at what point do you figure Bio introduced IT? Was the leaked script a plant?

[Daemul]

There's still IT believers?! 

 

Y'all need to move on with your lives, for serious now. It's been 3 years.

[dorktainian]

There's still IT believers?! 

 

Y'all need to move on with your lives, for serious now. It's been 3 years.

 

It's one of the only things that make any sense of the ending. 

 

[ZerebusPrime]

There's still IT believers?! 

 

Y'all need to move on with your lives, for serious now. It's been 3 years.

 

What a curious statement!  Should we all toss aside all interpretations of a story after we are done with it?  Should I forget a book after I put it down in order to 'have a life'?

 

Or is this more of a subtle pun about anyone who would be posting on a forum about a three year old videogame?  If so, I approve. 

 

Ithurael!  I'm having a bit of a... uh.. week.  I haven't had time and energy to reply to you properly and so I haven't.  I'm not ignoring you.  Honest.

[KaiserShep]

Man, Indoctrination Theory. I guess V was right: ideas are bullet-proof. Of course, ME4 is about as likely to provide it with an iota of substantiation as Manos: Hands of Fate will be remade for theatrical release.

[Ithurael]

What a curious statement!  Should we all toss aside all interpretations of a story after we are done with it?  Should I forget a book after I put it down in order to 'have a life'?

 

Or is this more of a subtle pun about anyone who would be posting on a forum about a three year old videogame?  If so, I approve. 

 

Ithurael!  I'm having a bit of a... uh.. week.  I haven't had time and energy to reply to you properly and so I haven't.  I'm not ignoring you.  Honest.

 

It is ok. I am actually starting a new job this week so I know about how crazy things can be. I do hope you are well.

 

My comment was more for the other guy rather than you.

 

If you do reply you would still need to meet the same standards (EG no speculation/assumption/headcanon but in game evidence or in game demonstrations) No Last-Thursdayism here

 

For what it is worth I am fine with IT being someones preferred ending to ME3. Just as I am fine with the Dinosaur theory being someones preferred ending to the Mass Effect trilogy. Just as I am fine with MEHEM.

 

However, if someone starts saying that MEHEM/Dinosaurs/IT was what the developers shipped out in the core product and that is what it was the entire time and then only backs up their claim with speculations and headcanon and no in game evidence of said claim- then it gets a bit silly.

 

MrBtounge (I know I keep restating this but I loved it so much) really did say it best:

"If a segment of a story is based on a contrivance [crucible & catalyst] than it has NO NARRATIVE LEGITIMACY you are free to substitute your own segment [IT or Shep on earth] in its place. And your substitute will be just as official as the real version [shep on the citadel] if not moreso"

 

There could not be more perfect way to describe the state of ME3 than that.

[KaiserShep]

Dinosaur theory? The hell is that?

[Ithurael]

Dinosaur theory? The hell is that?

I lost the original thread in the transition but here are a bunch of links to it

https://www.google.c...rum.bioware.com

 

It was kind of, via speculations, given a clue that we were going to get it with the Leviathan DLC when we say the Loch Ness Monster/Plesiosaur

 

EDIT: I FOUND IT!!!!

http://forum.bioware...ll-sigs-inside/

[dorktainian]

don't forget 'Choose Wisely'...

 

[Valmar]

In the Destroy Ending with high EMS Shepard wakes up in the ruins of London, this is a fact we can all see for ourselves on screen. He/she did not fall to earth, they woke up, where Harbingers beam brushed them. How is this in dispute?

 

 

Factually incorrect. They confirmed that the breath scene is on the Citadel.

 

https://twitter.com/...187404377001987

 

Sorry to break the news to you. Well, not really. I hate it when people say something is "factually correct" when its completely wrong. I'm sorry that it isn't what you thought it was, though. Seems like it meant a lot to you.

[Massa FX]

Factually incorrect. They confirmed that the breath scene is on the Citadel.

 

https://twitter.com/...187404377001987

 

Sorry to break the news to you. Well, not really. I hate it when people say something is "factually correct" when its completely wrong. I'm sorry that it isn't what you thought it was, though. Seems like it meant a lot to you.

 

Yeah. I remember that tweet. Good of you to track it down.

[JasonShepard]

I'm about done trying to reply to him. I give him a link from a guy worked there (at the time) and he explicitly tells people what the ending is by linking to a thread about it. Any rational person would see the link and go "So the ending was IT? Cool".

 

Ithureal supplied you with a later comment from the exact same person (Ninja Stan and Stanley Woo are the same individual, in case you're unaware) stating that IT was a fan-made interpretation, and had never been anything more.

 

My guess is that Stanley offered the link to the IT thread in the first place as a way of offering that person an interpretation that they might like. That doesn't necessarily mean IT is the only interpretation.

 

Then you've got Mike Gamble at PAX 2012 in reference to IT states "we want the content to speak for itself". Well I guess it was just that obvious, but some people would continue to prove how wrong he is with tweets stating Shepard is on the Citadel. In addition to anything else they could come up with.

 

As well as "but it doesn't work this way". Well let's leave that to the writers and such. Clearly, they made the game and it does work that way. Otherwise, you would have had a patch to fix it, right? No patch, and the Extended Cut didn't touch any of it, so maybe it's supposed to be like that. During the beta testing of the game (late 2011 or early 2012) they didn't find any issues with it. If there was a problem they would have fixed it.

 

We are letting the content speak for itself.

 

Within that content, indoctrination has never been depicted as being capable of creating dreamscapes where you can be 'tricked' into being fully indoctrinated. Instead, it's always seemed to work as a sort of thought-tunnel-vision, where indoctrinated individuals just become unable to think of alternatives.

 

It's a slow, insidious process that subverts how your mind is supposed to work - not some bizarre dream quest. Did TIM talk about a glowy boy explaining Reaper motivations? Did Kenson ever mention the Reapers offering her choices, and talking her into picking the one they wanted? Did Saren discuss how Sovereign could create this perfectly detailed imaginary world where everything Sovvy wanted made sense? No.

 

None of them appear to have gone through anything like what you're suggesting is happening to Shepard. Instead, they all just came around to the viewpoint that the Reapers wanted, without even realising that it was happening. And, in TIM and Saren's case, they were only ever broken out of indoctrination by forcing them to consider viewpoints that the Reapers had blinded them to - which again, suggests nothing like IT.

 

IT requires something that the content has never shown us. Hence, by letting the content speak for itself, many of us reject it.

 

EDIT:

If you want to suggest that Shepard is experiencing some new form of indoctrination, that's fine. I can even see the Reapers resorting to some new method due to urgency, and how traditional indoctrination hasn't seemed to even remotely affect Shep. But, you see, that's where headcanon comes in. Dream-scape-indoctrination receives no foreshadowing in-universe, so I find it very difficult to believe that it's the intended interpretation. Is it a valid interpretation? Yes. Of course. Just don't try to tell us that it's the only valid interpretation of events.

[Ithurael]

Thanks JasonShepard! You are awesome!!

 

 

I'm about done trying to reply to him. I give him a link from a guy worked there (at the time) and he explicitly tells people what the ending is by linking to a thread about it. Any rational person would see the link and go "So the ending was IT? Cool".

 

You cited a link from Stanley Woo - an older link mind you - I then cited a more recent link from the SAME GUY made months after the game was released.

 

So...how is 2012 Stanley Woo =/= 2012 (later date) Stanley Woo?

 

 

Then you've got Mike Gamble at PAX 2012 in reference to IT states "we want the content to speak for itself". Well I guess it was just that obvious, but some people would continue to prove how wrong he is with tweets stating Shepard is on the Citadel. In addition to anything else they could come up with.

 

We did look at the content...I cited the codex, then gave citations to video links, then explained the rational surrounding it. Nothing in the game we have seen shows that reaper indoctrination creates a virtual reality - nothing.

 

We are proving he is on the citadel from a tweet from the same guy: Mike Gamble.

 

So...how is 2012 Mike Gamble =/= 2013 Mike Gamble?

 

Are they somehow a different person?

 

 

As well as "but it doesn't work this way". Well let's leave that to the writers and such.

 

We did. We looked*, we reviewed, we analyzed and didn't find anything in the universe to support what you are saying is happening.

 

*=was reviewing classic IT but still looks at the core principles of the IT argument.

 

 

Clearly, they made the game and it does work that way.

 

Source on this? Is there a cutscene that shows this? A moment in the game/dialog/lore/cutscene/story/even one of the books that shows that reapers can create a detailed virtual reality dreamworld?

 

I am not trying to be crass, I am genuinely trying to find it too.

 

It could be some kind of new ability we have never heard of, seen, or had any foreshadowing. Although that is as ****** poor writing as the ending is if it were actually happening - which it is and is reinforced in the core product. But if your primary argument is "It has to be a false reality because there is NO way what is happening can be real" This is not a logical nor even valid argument. This is an Assumption [It has to be a false reality] derived from dissatisfaction and repulsion from the material presented [there is NO way what is happening can be real]

 

Saying that Bioware designed the ending to be a false reality because of your assumption (noted at the beginning of your argument) is, essentially, an argument from a False Premise (or a fallacy) and any argument from a fallacy never ends well...

 

 

Otherwise, you would have had a patch to fix it, right?

 

 

The only thing they patched was the Vanilla ending

- Teleporting Squadmates = Normandy Escape

- All relays go boom = High EMS relays damaged

- Lack of Epilogue = Slideshows!

- How hacket knew shep was on the normandy = Hacket scene with the datapad

- Starchild logic = More exposition

 

Those were the glaring issues that fans were clamoring for during the crapstorm of the ending controversy. Bio addressed what they could.

 

 

 

No patch, and the Extended Cut didn't touch any of it, so maybe it's supposed to be like that. During the beta testing of the game (late 2011 or early 2012) they didn't find any issues with it. If there was a problem they would have fixed it.

 

Beta testing is for gameplay...not so much story right? They want to root out glitches, exploits, and other gameplay issues that could happen. Or at least as many as possible. I don't think bioware has a Story QA. And...besides...the finale wasn't peer reviewed...How are the writers supposed to QA something if it never was reviewed by the other writers?

(inb4Priestly citation)

 

What seems to be happening here is three things:

- You are citing out of date bioware quotes to strengthen your position. This is essentially like saying Kazakhstan is really the Soviet Union and proving this by pointing at a map from the 70's. Times have changed, biowares stance seems to have changed, and in both action and words their views on IT has changed.

 

- You are not giving any citations from the game, codex, books, or dialog to demonstrate your point. The only citations I have seen are the Final Hours tidbit and that link from that one particularly pretentious ITer. Neither of which show - in game - what you are trying to say. All you need to do is show where in the story, game, dialog, cutscenes, codex this super reaper ability is shown or explained or even foreshadowed. Otherwise you kind of come off as a bit of a fanboy trying to shout his headcanon as developer intent. Don't be that guy.

 

- Finally (although this kind of ties into the first), while you quote older Bioware tweets and remarks a lot that do strengthen IT and IT support, you seemingly ignore more recent tweets and remarks (made even by the same people) that weaken IT (as biowares original plan for the ending). You can't really cherry pick here. But then again. If you want to outright reject this you can. But that is headcanon. As long as you are aware of that = fine. If you think your headcanon is bioware's plan and it is reinforced in the content...that is problematic...

 

May the Spork Be with you!

[ZerebusPrime]

Disclaimer: I follow Indoctrination Theory Lite, the core precept of which is uncertainty: I have no idea what's really going on and can only guess based on incomplete evidence.  I can, however, rule certain things out entirely or at least cast doubt where doubt is due.  Finally, I allow myself to be wrong.  For the love of shiny red apples everyone needs to allow themselves to be wrong!  Especially everyone other than me!  Intractability only feeds flame wars!  Also, real wars.  Think of the apples!

 

Every single DLC, including the Extended Cut (but not any of those Multiplayer expansions), have been found to have IT elements.  Every one.  I will not go into detail at this late date because it's bad for my OCD and it's already been done to death elsewhere, but I will try to highlight a tiny few things.

 

Leviathan added the missing live-feed-dreamscape of being directly under the influence of a powerful indoctrination signal; granted, the Leviathans themselves are retcons and I recognize that.  Before the Leviathan DLC I recall there being some speculation about why the Geth were mass-manufacturing VR interface pods on Rannoch (those are the things on the conveyors in the factory above the Reaper's underground installation).  The idea was the Harbinger's beam could have put Shepard into a coma, his body could be recovered by the Reapers and his mind plugged into one of these devices (or equivalent), and then we'd never know the difference. The Leviathan DLC eliminated the need for so many assumptions in the Shep-Reaper mind interface and removed from play simple logic gaps like "Why would the Reapers go to all the trouble of plugging in Shepard's brain in low EMS Destroy?".  In short, Leviathan made the Indoctrination Thesis stronger.  The dreamscape is now a natural evolution of the Leviathans' ability to directly communicate with lesser organic beings.  Harbinger could pull this off with but a thought.

 

The Extended Cut has been thoroughly analyzed.  I couldn't tell you why low EMS Destroy exists for certain; my gut tells me that the Reapers are outright disgusted with your poor performance and that they are not really at risk of being wiped out.  I can, however, offer an explanation for the Normandy pickup scene!  There's a reason I'm mentioning this after the Leviathan DLC: the Normandy pickup is likely the first major Reaper projection/hallucination of the endgame courtesy of Harbinger.  When Shepard calls for reinforcements, Joker replies back with heavy static "We're taking heavy casualties up here!"  Then Joker replies again a split second later with a perfectly clear signal that he's on his way AND THEN BAM THERE'S THE NORMANDY!  You can no doubt tell that I believe in the first Joker reply but not the second.  I've seen many people complain about the bad writing and how the Normandy was supposed to be with Sword and that even if it was one of the ships sent to intercept the Reapers it still shouldn't have been right there or attempted an evac right in front of Harbinger in Downtown Reaper Killzone Central.  There are actually more assumptions involved in believing what we see in that sequence than there are in believing that Shepard's seeing things and giving nonsensical orders to squadmates who may already be dead.  I mean really, evacuating a damaged EDI?  To herself?  Pffft!  I'd rather use her as a bullet shield... a very, very heavy bullet shield.

 

The idea that Shepard was going to shake off Indoctrination and "finish the fight" has long since struck me as naive not because of that famous youtube video with Shepard trying to melee a 2km tall Harbinger and getting bug-zapped for his trouble but rather because there's just no way Shepard could physically continue.  The process of being indoctrinated, as I understand it, is like having a degenerative brain disease.  The damage will remain even if you're removed from the indoctrination signal.  Those suffering from the advanced stages can only hope for moments of lucidity.  Eventually you need someone to find you in your padded cell and put a bullet in your head a la ME1 and the Salarian recon team.  Shepard is just too physically and mentally cooked.  Did you somehow beat the Reapers during that acid trip you just had?  Fantastic!  Hope you like feeding tubes and hospital beds!  *shudder*  So there not being a big reveal with the original ending being false does not surprise me; once your noodle is that baked you won't be able to discern the difference.  As it is, the Extended Cut didn't really change anything.  Every major voiceover vision of the future ends on the note that what happens next will be beyond what they can imagine... and then the sequence ends.  Riveting stuff.

 

Omega was much more subtle.  One wouldn't expect to find anything in combat heavy DLC like this, but here we go!  Shepard spends much of the game acting not quite himself (Paragon drifts into ineffectual worry, Renegade drifts into soulless scumbag).  Nyreen is the expy of the drifting Paragon IMHO.  She's been around these Cerberus husk creations for quite a while and has developed a feeling for the "vibe" of the station under Cerberus control.  In particular, she seems to be especially on guard in areas near the Adjutants; the feel she's developed for these creatures is likely the result of the earliest stages of Reaper exposure.  Aria, by contrast, has been away from the station and the Adjutants and can't understand why Nyreen is acting so unlike herself; she's the control group in our two character experiment.  This stuff is honestly only there if you're looking for it but it is there when you do.  Less subtle is Aria ripping through the barrier trap, being asked how she knew she could do that, and replying that she didn't - that's both foreshadowing the drestroy endings in the literal sense and foreshadowing Shepard blasting his way out of the final nightmare by shooting a nonsensical shoot-me-!-tube.

 

From the Ashes.  I could talk about the Ceberus intel spelling out the Reapers' invasion plan for the galaxy as a whole, but that has nothing to do with IT.  What does impact IT here is Javik's approach to the Reapers: destroy at all costs.  IIRC one can hear Reaper whispers when Javik touches Shepard's mind; Javik has fought the Reaper army before and is implied to have fought against the Reapers for a longer duration than Shepard ever had.  Javik as such points the way to how one can resist indoctrination to a large degree simply by devoting oneself to the one thing that the Reapers cannot easily twist to their advantage: the destruction of the Reapers.  As it turns out, this is the only way to get the breath scene.  Coincidence?  Sure.

 

Citadel.  Oh holy mother of pine cones.  I have to throw out almost everything in the Silver Sun Strip outside of the core story for being fourth-wall-breaking.  BioWare went to great pains to represent all major ending points of view here and gave IT a direct shout-out in the Armax Arena mission when the IT team saves Shepard from a simulation that was trying to kill him.  Ah ha.  Ah ha.  I get it.     It pains me that I have to go back to ME2 and the Derelict Reaper mission to try to make sense of the Citadel DLC; it introduces extra assumptions and that's a weakness.  Nevertheless, during that mission we hear Cerberus personnel complaining about having a shared memory of the same wife; indoctrination was inserting new memories and rewriting their brains with false experiences.  (One also complains about a grey thing darting into a vent; note vent-boy's grey sweat shirt  )  The only way I can rationalize the Citadel DLC is if it's being edited into place in Shepard's mind AFTER the ending.  The clone could have been an expy for Shepard's indoctrinated side trying and failing to take over but this wasn't really supported by the story very well so I have to throw it out; I also had to mention it because if I didn't then it'd come up later.  What I will point out are the lore errors: the piles and piles of clearly intentional lore errors and characters not acting like themselves.  Asari and Turians eating sushi from a shared plate.  Sovereign destroying Zakera Ward.  Tali acting powerless when faced with recovering data off a damaged drive.  Miranda going from dominant to submissive.  The Lancer out shooting everything.  The Ark of the Covenant.  Grunt liking noodles.  One hundred and eighty two pull ups in under ten minutes!  Ok, forget the pull ups.  Not important.  The point I'm trying to make that the Citadel DLC story is intentionally designed to feel like it can't be really happening and that underneath it all something is very wrong.  If that's not a shout-out to the main theme of the Indoctrination Theory, I don't know what is.  The Jack romance dialog points to Shepard possibly being trapped under rubble, slowly starving to death.  At no point do we see Shepard eat, yet food is everywhere.  "I don't think they're going to let us eat in the rubble," quips one of the Turians on the strip of fourth-wall-busting.  Implications... *sniff* ...most unpleasant.

 

So what was the point of all this?  Just this: I will not try to argue the original intent of the original ending; I can only speculate... which also seems to be a big part of the original intent.  I think some form of indoctrination is very likely involved but IT probably overshot it by an unmeasurable degree.  HOWEVER, every DLC after the original ending has catered to the Indoctrination Theory in some way large or small.  NO DLC HAS EVER DISCOUNTED OR DISPROVED THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY.  IT has burned itself into the fan lore and I would not be surprised to see it mentioned in the next Mass Effect game as something more directly canon.

 

And that's not a bad thing.  It's actually quite a lot of fun.

 

 

 

 

 

P.S.

Shepard is totally in London. 

 

 

EDIT: Minor grammatical fixes.

[Ithurael]

Disclaimer: I follow Indoctrination Theory Lite, the core precept of which is uncertainty: I have no idea what's really going on and can only guess based on incomplete evidence.  I can, however, rule certain things out entirely or at least cast doubt where doubt is due.  Finally, I allow myself to be wrong.  For the love of shiny red apples everyone needs to allow themselves to be wrong!  Especially everyone other than me!  Intractability only feeds flame wars!  Also, real wars.  Think of the apples!

 

 

See, now while Zerberus is making an argument he cites where the argument is coming from. Granted a good amount of it is speculation or assumption on the content, but again he/she outright admits that this is largely speculation/assumption.

 

This is not wrong. This is not against the rules. There is no law that says this cannot happen. Point in fact, I will defend to the death someones right to believe in IT or any other interpretation for THEIR interpretation.

 

The issue is when we place our speculations as developer intent or as design. This is a major issue.

 

Granted there was a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT of the post that Zerberus made that was speculation, assumption, and blatant headcanon. And even some portions that I do remember proving to him/her were real...but then again...if that is their interpretation of those events and they keep it central to them that should be fine. I am not a man to argue my headcanon vs someone elses headcanon. That is just a silly argument.

 

Basically, don't be THAT guy. You can have your headcanon but when looking at the content there is no objective evidence that suggests or even shows there is anything capable of creating highly detailed dreamscapes. Not to mention that Indoctrination doesn't seek to trick you into getting indoctrinated...it just straight up dominates you.

 

While some say Leviathan was THE IT DLC. Even that just gives more credence to the literal interpretation (and I know this will probably be posted on the IT forum and scoffed at). But in the end, while we get a nifty little lore retcon we get to see the reaper backstory (personally this would have been sufficient  rather than a starkid but w/e) and we get to see the things that the reapers were based on. Who can somehow create dreamscapes - albeit very rudimentary.

 

Now...here is where it gets messy. ITers think that if a Leviathan can create a dreamscape...then so can anything made by them..enter Harbinger. There are two problems with this

 

The first is this is a fallacy called Affirming the Consequent

 

The second is that in some play throughs Harbinger does not make an appearance and it is just a Sovereign class reaper and the ending still goes on as per usual.

 

Now...is it OK to just make up your own canon and say "well if anything is made by Leviathan then it can create dreamscapes too"? Yes. this is fine - as your headcanon. The lore and game show a different story but that is still ok.

 

The sad part is that even in the majority of the post you can see how IT gains ground. The basis of IT - the foundation - is still very present:

 

"It HAS to be a dream...There is NO WAY that [event] could happen given what we know!!!"

 

Sadly...from what we have seen in the lore indoctrination cannot create a dreamscape so detailed that it explains away all the oddities and inconsistencies in the ending sequence. This is at least looking at the core product and looking at it objectivley

 

Neither IT (as reaper indoctrination) nor the face-value ending match the lore or what we know - at all...in any way...ever...

 

We can use our imagination to fill in the blanks - this is fine. But...seriously...don't praise Mac walters or bioware for your imagination. One thing that always irked me about ITers is that they nearly blindly threw as much money at Bioware as they could...because why not? Bioware had given them a product that they absolutly loved. And thus...after that...flamewars raged...

 

Thus...again...for the bajillionth time....I cite MrBtounge:

"If a segment of a story is based on a contrivance [crucible & catalyst] than it has NO NARRATIVE LEGITIMACY you are free to substitute your own segment [IT or Shep on earth] in its place. And your substitute will be just as official as the real version [shep on the citadel] if not moreso"

 

So yeah. I have my closure...and I know it is local only to me. There is one thing  I wish we could get answers on:

- Why Bioware led people on to believe in IT (was it to keep people talking or just to use as a flame shield and to sell more DLC)

 

Note that Led people on doesn't mean "every interpretation is valid thus we didn't lead them on". No no...bioware almost made it their business (under Priestly) to drive people into the IT forums and lead them to believe in IT...which led them to think more was coming...which led them to become less angry...etc

 

Also:

 

 HOWEVER, every DLC after the original ending has catered to the Indoctrination Theory in some way large or small.  NO DLC HAS EVER DISCOUNTED OR DISPROVED THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY

 

The vanilla content from ME1-3 has shown that Indoctrination cannot work the way IT says it is working. Now if you mean no DLC has discounted or disproved the fan interpretation or speculation train then yes. Because it is a fan interpretation. Why would bioware ever say "NO YOU CANNOT INTERPRET THE MATERIAL THIS WAY!!!"

 

Looking objectively we see that, based solely on the core product we have, IT is not happening in the game, or rather, the ending sequence is not a hallucination created by the reapers or anything else in the known universe.

 

This could be retconned with the next game depending on how bioware takes it - personally I think not but time will tell.

[ZerebusPrime]

Of course the evidence is subjective.  It comes from a critical analysis of a work of fiction.  To come to the basic conclusions requires nothing more than having gone through grade school English Lit, having played the previous Mass Effect games, and having critical thinking skills.  This is why so many have come to the conclusion of indoctrination being involved with the ending without having first heard of the Indoctrination Theory and then jump onboard the IT train after the fact.

 

Any one, two, or three dozen bullet points supporting the IT thesis can be refuted with ease.  But the thing is, any writer worth his or her salt knows how to manipulate metaphors, subtexts, and imagery to create a multilayered narrative.  And there is a ton of this stuff in ME3.  That's where the bullet points come from.  I can't play a single mission without being assaulted by it.  And that is why, despite everything from the PR fiasco, despite all the negativity heaped on ITers by angry players, and despite its flaws pointed out by both cynics just wanting to be cynical and actual fans practicing proper critical analyses of their own, I believe that a large degree of the Indoctrination Theory in the base game was intended and I see no reason to believe otherwise.

 

Ithurael, I follow your logic (well constructed, btw) but I do not agree with many of your conclusions.  I'll have to mull over exactly where the disconnect is while I pass out my latest batch of tin foil hats.

 

They're shiny.

[Ithurael]

Of course the evidence is subjective.

 

If one is to make such an advanced statement like the entire ending is a hallucination - something I have shown and demonstrated using the content in the game itself cannot happen - you need to show what evidence this statement has to support it. And it really needs to be concrete otherwise it comes off as more a fallacious argument than evidence.

 

Basically extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

This is why so many have come to the conclusion of indoctrination being involved with the ending without having first heard of the Indoctrination Theory and then jump onboard the IT train after the fact.

 

People hopped onto IT for largely two reasons

1 - The ending sequence was so impossible that there was NO WAY it could happen

 

2 - IT offered people a way out of the horrible ending since there was, to point one, NO WAY it could be possible and opens plot holes the size of a dreadnaught.

 

There is no way you can make an argument of any kind when the basis of that argument is "It HAS to be a dream - there is absolutely NO WAY that could be happening in reality"

 

I have demonstrated why this is in my previous post.

 

 

 But the thing is, any writer worth his or her salt knows how to manipulate metaphors, subtexts, and imagery to create a multilayered narrative.  And there is a ton of this stuff in ME3.  That's where the bullet points come from.  I can't play a single mission without being assaulted by it. 

 

 

This is the issue, if you are going to give true evidence to support your claim you need to cite evidence. If you are saying that IT is and was developer intent AND is replicated by the core product you need to give some sort of citation that shows and demonstrates it.

 

This cannot be some quote like "and if you are still in the rubble" (that came from the citadel DLC I think) or a quote supporting Destroy made by anderson or Javik or citing some note by the IT team in the citadel DLC that stops the combat simulator.

 

Objectively how can a quote from Javik about wanting to destroy the reapers == reapers being able to create a highly detailed dream sequence?

 

This would be a good citation:

http://masseffect.wi...#Indoctrination

"Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.

 

Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable. Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years. In the case of strong willed victims, the Reaper can create and manipulate the victims ability to perceive false realities in which to lure them to willingly choose to be indoctrinated*"

 

* = What I added in.
 

 

 

despite all the negativity heaped on ITers by angry players, and despite its flaws pointed out by both cynics just wanting to be cynical and actual fans practicing proper critical analyses of their own, I believe that a large degree of the Indoctrination Theory in the base game was intended and I see no reason to believe otherwise.

 

Ithurael, I follow your logic (well constructed, btw) but I do not agree with many of your conclusions.  I'll have to mull over exactly where the disconnect is while I pass out my latest batch of tin foil hats.

 

They're shiny.

 

 

Well...here is something to counter that belief:

 

-Nothing in the core game shows that the reapers can create highly detailed dreamscapes

 

I suppose your only counter to this - objectively - is to say that bioware could implement IT in their next game - via the Ascended Fanon. They could do this, albeit they would need to explain how the events happened - though when the next game is the best place to start I doubt they are going to conclude a 5+ year long story in it. Basically while "what if" is fun, it should never be taken absolutely. In addition, while remaining hopefuly about "what if" can be fun...personally I would rather stay objective and critical.

 

I think the best way to communicate this is:  You don't believe all the stuff in the Scary Door is real or even replicated in the core game right? That is all speculation on what COULD be possible, what some WANT it to be or just blatant headcanon.

 

So...again. If you want to have IT as YOUR interpretation of how the game and the series ended - this is perfect. Bioware wants us to be able to choose our own ending. To them IT is just as valid as Green or Blue or Red or the Dinosaur Ending or the Rychnol Theory.

 

But if you are going to say that IT was the core product - and all you do is cite speculations, quotes about the destroy ending, and fall back on "It HAS to be a dream...there is NO WAY that [event] could be happening". This is very bad...and I have pointed out why it is bad.

 

I am happy you are getting new hats though...those old ones were starting to lose their shine.