It is also against the rules at the new IT nuthouse -- where seemingly every other active member has mod powers -- but there is no end of vitriol-fueled posting towards everyone/anyone calling their nonsense for what it is. What is your excuse, exactly?
The new IT nuthouse? Did they finally burn down the old one?
The Indoctrination Theory seems to be a respons from people who were very invested in the series, and who probably knew more about Mass Effect than BioWare themselves. They required a better explanation. This is understandable.
Too bad they created a worse explanation in IT.
Everything proves it, except the things that do not, but those things are not real and thus prove it.
In the real world, that is called circular-logic.
Too bad they created a worse explanation in IT.
Everything proves it, except the things that do not, but those things are not real and thus prove it.
In the real world, that is called circular-logic.
like i said, mass 3 has a bad ending. theres no getting around it. Not the Citadel DLC OR the indoctrination theory. You gotta accept whats in front of you. The endings ending was bad.
It's June 24th, 2015 and people STILL talks about IT.
God damnit.
There was no narrative incoherence, just failure of understanding.
And let's not kid ourselves about narrative incoherence being any problem to fans when they get any sort of desirable outcome. MEHEM does not solve all problems with the ending but its users do not go on about them for a reason.
So, everyone who has pointed out any narrative inconsistencies or incoherences about the ME3 ending just doesn't understand it? Given the enormous amount of inconsistencies/incoherences discussed over the past few years by tons of fans, regardless of their opinions of the ending, I find this very hard to believe.
As for narrative incoherence not being a problem with a desirable outcome: Why are these being treated as mutually inclusive? Can I not think a game has a desirable outcome but also discuss its narrative inconsistencies? I loved ME2's ending but still had a lot of good discussions about how other parts of the narrative didn't make sense and detracted from the narrative. Even with ME3, I've met plenty of people on this forum who say they like the ME3 ending but also notice and discuss its inconsistencies and are able to talk about fan theories without being dismissive. I liked MEHEM for what it was, but I still like talking about the narrative as it was presented to us in the game. I try to give people more credit than happy ending = I ignore the narrative quality of the rest of the game.
Too bad they created a worse explanation in IT.
Everything proves it, except the things that do not, but those things are not real and thus prove it.
In the real world, that is called circular-logic.
The Indoctrination Theory is obviously flawed, but the concept was actually interesting.
because the devs pretty much shut down the indoctrination theory with the Citadel DLC. It doesnt fit the frame of the narrative and has been addressed. Mass 3 simply has a bad ending. btw im not hatin on the IT crowd,criticizing the Indoctrination theory shouldnt be used to make fun of people. Seboist is being a ****** by using the IT debate to take potshots at people.
And for the love of Celestia, please turn off that pretentious white filter over your text.
Thanks for the input and not hatin. I don't know if Seboist will see my point to answer directly. But for you the Citadel DLC doesn't address, pro or con, the prospect of us having the opportunity to align our goals with an enthrallers, which is what the game presents as indoctrination and so within the frame of the narrative.
And if i knew what the filter was I would turn it off. I can't even see anything different. Why is it pretentious? Is it pretty?
Time dilation does not occur when using mass effect fields for FTL. I've never seen anything say that the mere presence of a mass effect field is enough to prevent time dilation that would otherwise be occurring.
And if you've got the time dilation and the stasis technology, it's not going to be a subjective million years. And we've got an example of someone getting out of a stasis pod and standing up after 50,000 years, under pretty sub-optimal circumstances. (Hi, Javik!)
How can you have time dilation if you aren't moving at relativistic speeds? Even if it's 50% of the speed of light.
As for indoctrination theory: I personally loved it. The first time I finished ME3 I was sure the catalyst was just Harbinger trying to trick me to keep me from choosing Destroy. I don't understand this nonsense about IT fans just wanting a happy ending. I assumed that my Shep would die either way, (even with the breath scene you're critically wounded with no one to rescue you) and I liked that. In the end I like IT because no sane person who had experienced what Shepherd had experienced would pick anything but destroy. And the Catalyst was clearly insane so taking its arguments at face value made for terrible story-telling.
That said, there was no way Bioware was ever going to go with IT. It would amount to making fools of every one of their customers who picked synthesis or control. But a work of art is more than what the author intended it to be. I'm perfectly happy to go on believing that the RGB options were just a trick by Harbinger - regardless of whatever Bioware intended - because it makes for a much better story.
I'm perfectly happy to go on believing that the RGB options were just a trick by Harbinger - regardless of whatever Bioware intended - because it makes for a much better story.
...and this is the great thing about the ending. You can actually interprete the ending in more than one way. I don't understand why more people can't have this attitude, we don't need to fight about it.
My big problem with IT is that I kind of, sort of, like the idea of what the endings were going for: three big classic sf solutions to bug eyed monsters. Sacrifice, ascendance, and kicking butt. I like the idea of a meaningful choice.
I'm also not wild about being told I'm wrong and stupid just because I don't subscribe to the idea that Bioware broke the fourth wall to lie to us. (See either post credit datapad message. Though the pre-EC one was probably the absolute worst thing about the endings. Whoever thought the last word in the Mass Effect trilogy should be "DLC" clearly hadn't had their coffee yet.) Shepard stopped the Reapers. Shepard stopped the Reapers with Control, Synthesis, Destroy... Heck, Shepard even by-proxy stops the Reapers with Refuse. If Bioware is willing to lie flat out in a message to the players, well, then, drawing conclusions is pointless and I may as well sit in a dark room and stare at the wall.
I understand IT. I've read the theories, I've seen the things in the game that prove it... And I don't see it. Sorry.
So I suspect whatever we're doing in Andromeda will NOT be what proves IT.
Part of me always hoped that a future Mass Effect game would have a couple of NPC's talking in the background exchanging wild theories about indoctrination.
"What if none of this is real? What if our minds are so corrupted that we see what we want to see so we're left complacent and at their mercy?"
"If that was true I'd be seeing your wife instead of you. You're full of it."
"Ass."
So, everyone who has pointed out any narrative inconsistencies or incoherences about the ME3 ending just doesn't understand it?
There is no need for such dishonesty. You should know full well that I never asserted that pointing out *any* inconsistency means that someone does not understand, clearly that was just an attempt at misrepresenting my position.
Given the enormous amount of inconsistencies/incoherences discussed over the past few years by tons of fans, regardless of their opinions of the ending, I find this very hard to believe.
I find it very easy to believe. In my experience, the vast majority of people I have dealt with showed poor understanding of the ending and that most of the issues they raise are in fact non-issues.
Now, that is not entirely their fault. How the ending was written, it was terribly vague and confusing, so this level of misunderstanding is not surprising to see and in large part on the writers themselves. However, fans are also guilty of being lazy and stubborn about their approach to thinking it out. Some folks are content to think "oh, it means nothing, it is just stupid" and others are seemingly morally determined not to find any truth in it.
And then the difference in this approach is night-and-day compared to fan favorite things like MEHEM and IT. Those things do not receive even half the scrutiny that the ending does, just fans exclaiming "OMG BEDDUR!!!!"
Can I not think a game has a desirable outcome but also discuss its narrative inconsistencies? I loved ME2's ending but still had a lot of good discussions about how other parts of the narrative didn't make sense and detracted from the narrative. Even with ME3, I've met plenty of people on this forum who say they like the ME3 ending but also notice and discuss its inconsistencies and are able to talk about fan theories without being dismissive.
You can, but you would be the exception, not the rule.
I try to give people more credit than happy ending = I ignore the narrative quality of the rest of the game.
What, why?? When have most people ever demonstrated that they think critically when they are having fun? They typically do not.
You may *want* to believe people are not terribly shallow creatures, but that is far from the reality of it, sorry to say.
That well was poisoned by the IT believers, who told us for months that we'd learn how wrong we were when the last DLC revealed The Truth....and this is the great thing about the ending. You can actually interprete the ending in more than one way. I don't understand why more people can't have this attitude, we don't need to fight about it.
That well was poisoned by the IT believers, who told us for months that we'd learn how wrong we were when the last DLC revealed The Truth.
Anyone else remember the fake leak that the last DLC would actually be called "The Truth" and would fully confirm IT? Not quite as preposterous as the "Mass Shift" fake leak, of course -- that one was genius.
I just couldn't grasp why the idea that the entire fanbase would be trolled for months would be a good thing. The pro-IT crowd used to push the fact that - if Bioware did follow IT - it would be the greatest storytelling feat in videogaming. But to me it would be more of the MSG2 style trolling Bioware used with the ending in the first place (e.g. the Harbinger beam nuking you despite dodging the same thing once before on Rannoch).
As someone said a few pages back, you've been indoctrinated to think there is only one version of IT, and I think a lot of users here see this as IT:
"Shepard will wake up and finish the fight against the Reapers and there is a real ending coming" - Obviously this is NOT happening, it would have required a new game, a direct sequel in the Milky Way and Bioware are not doing that, we are going to a new galaxy.
Then there are wild interpretations like this:
"Mass Effect 3 is not real, it's a reaper simulation" - this is very high exaggeration, and only few people actually took it seriously or gave it any credence.
Then there are solid interpretations like this:
"The Catalyst conversation takes place in Shepard's mind but the consequences of the choice are seen in the real world, the Crucible fires and Destroys/Controls/Synthesizes."
^A version like this is 100% valid up to this day, there is nothing to disprove it. On the contrary, Leviathan conversation is very similar to the Catalyst conversation, and we know Leviathan convo is in Shep's head. (he never leaves the Triton mech)
Guest_Buru_*
It's June 24th, 2015 and people STILL talks about IT.
God damnit.
People should be allowed to talk about whatever they want. No one said you had to listen.
I always found it fascinating how IT Theory threads sponsored such vitriol. At least it was a discussion, and some of the interpretations were pretty good.
I guess every thread should be about memes.
<snip> Indoctrination Theory of Mass Effect 3 <snip>
I do not know if this has been mentioned already (it is taking me some time to read through the whole thread), but it is everyone aware that we are not talking here about an obscure lore missing in the dawn of time? ME lore was built in the mind of Casey Hudson, who is pretty much alive (and not working with BW anymore). It boggles me how people summon ideas from thin air that not even him has even mentioned or supported, and let them grow and take a life by itself as a separate entity from whatever the author thought back in the day. I have yet to see a statement from Casey Hudson saying anything official supporting or denying this speculation. Until then, what we have is what it is at the end of ME. The Catalyst poses as a child and offers Shepard the option of finishing the conundrum that AI presents (that has been already recognized by some of the most privileged minds of the century) in three different ways, none of them "perfect". Shepard dies a hero (maybe a delayed and painful death under the rubble) regardless his choice. That is what it is, trying to read farther than that without an official statement from Casey Hudson is laughable. It makes me remember when J. K. Rowlings visited the Harry Potter forums anonymously and was scolded by one of the members by her "lack of knowledge" about Harry Potter's lore
That is what it is, trying to read farther than that without a official statement from Casey Hudson is laughable.
It seems that Casey Hudson wanted people to read much further than that ("lots of speculation from everyone") so there's really nothing laughable about one theorizing about what happened at the end of the game, especially when it was so incoherent pre-EC.
Depending how far in the future the game will be set, Liara could still be alive.
She was only like 110 in the original and Asari can live up to 1000 or so.
It seems that Casey Hudson wanted people to read much further than that ("lots of speculation from everyone") so there's really nothing laughable about one theorizing about what happened at the end of the game, especially when it was so incoherent pre-EC.
A theory that it is presented without enough evidence to support it, it is bound to not be taken seriously, something that is not taken seriously is laughable. No offense intended, it is how the world works.
Indeed. I've noticed that a thread can last forever around here when attacking theorist that state things such as "There is red pixel in the Shepard's eye which is more proof that he's indoctrinated" But should a theorist have a more measured approach they will either be lumped into the other group or be ignored.
I've had reasonable debate and discussion about IT everywhere I've tried except here.So I about expect that if we try to continue to make the distinction here then this thread will become obscure.
Yes. If Person 1 says something like this:
"The gun has infinite ammo, the whole game must not be real!" - he is branded a crazy theorist. (and probably not without reason)
If Person 2 says something like this:
"Dreams with dark wispers and oily shadows are symptoms of reaper indoctrination as established by the lore." - he too is branded a crazy theorist in the same lot with Person 1, and his point will be ignored (despite actually making sense) because Person 1's point is more easily debunked. 
As someone said a few pages back, you've been indoctrinated to think there is only one version of IT, and I think a lot of users here see this as IT:
"Shepard will wake up and finish the fight against the Reapers and there is a real ending coming" - Obviously this is NOT happening, it would have required a new game, a direct sequel in the Milky Way and Bioware are not doing that, we are going to a new galaxy.
Then there are wild interpretations like this:
"Mass Effect 3 is not real, it's a reaper simulation" - this is very high exaggeration, and only few people actually took it seriously or gave it any credence.
Then there are solid interpretations like this:
"The Catalyst conversation takes place in Shepard's mind but the consequences of the choice are seen in the real world, the Crucible fires and Destroys/Controls/Synthesizes."
^A version like this is 100% valid up to this day, there is nothing to disprove it. On the contrary, Leviathan conversation is very similar to the Catalyst conversation, and we know Leviathan convo is in Shep's head. (he never leaves the Triton mech)
Retour en haut