567 réponses à ce sujet

[Wissenschaft 2.0]

Ah, indoctrination theory, the zombie theory that never dies. Since commander shepherds story is over and is not going to be revisited, isn't debating this theory in relation to the new game kind of pointless? Its going to be irrelevant since there's not going to be anymore reapers.

[Ria Kon]

I was waiting for this to happen! Here we go again... and after next X Mass Effect games

[Star fury]

Bioware would probably make a tongue-in-cheek reference to the IT and that's it.

[Heimerdinger]

I put Indoctrination Theorists in the same camp as Holocaust deniers or 9/11 inside-jobbers.

No, scratch that, I think Holocaust deniers and 9/11 inside-jobbers are less crazy than people who still believe in the IT after 3 frikkin' years.

 

Holocaust and 9/11 in the same boat with a video game ending debate?

 

There are still IT fanboys trying to pass off their wishful thinking for why they didn't get their happy ending with their space waifu in a third person shooter as a legit theory after three years now? Seriously?

 

That nonsense has as much credibility as those nutjob 9/11 truther conspiracy theories that involved remote planes or holograms.

 

IT = no happy ending. Cliffhanger at best.

[NextGenCowboy]

How does IT means that Reapers were destroyed? 

It means that the entire ending happened in Shepard's head.

So there was no ending accoridng to it (and Shepard hallucinated EDIs/Hackett's/GodShepard's narration, which is riddiculous in and of itself).

 

Drop it, It had a degree of sense before Extended Cut, now it doesn't. 

 

I believe this person believes that the final section of ME3 is a test for Shep. Destroy, (or Refuse but that's a separate case) means Shep goes through with destroying the Reapers, While the other two endings mean that they allowed themselves to succumb to the Reaper's control. I don't know if that's IT's whole premise, as I haven't read the threads, nor do I care to debate it. Merely that's the gist I got from their post.

 

I can certainly see the choices playing out like that, it's certainly the tone I get from the situation, but it's ambiguous enough, even after EC, that the endings could be taken at face value, or that way.

[Franky Figgs]

OP, I believe what we saw was exactly what we got. I also believe in IT. I can do that because I've disassociated IT from theories about hallucinations. I did that because the game does not present indoctrination this way, however the fan base will persist it does. It presents that indoctrinated individuals consent control over themselves to an enthralling power beyond their awareness to detect it. In this regard we as players do face indoctrination at the very end. And the game ends in concordance with our decision - no illusions.

I am curious if and how this will be addressed in the new story. I'd imagine if any enthraller species makes its way into the story again it would be the chance to explore this better.

[Majestic Jazz]

Lives happily ever after with <insert LI here>.

And if MEA takes place in a distant future, every original trilogy character is likely to be long dead.

Except for Liara and Grunt.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

It had a degree of sense before Extended Cut, now it doesn't. 

 

IT keeps changing its narrative to fit the newest developments in Mass Effect.

 

I mean, how else would its followers sustain the delusion they cling to (rather ironically, considering what they believe to happen in the game) - ?

[Hadeedak]

I believe this person believes that the final section of ME3 is a test for Shep. Destroy, (or Refuse but that's a separate case) means Shep goes through with destroying the Reapers, While the other two endings mean that they allowed themselves to succumb to the Reaper's control. I don't know if that's IT's whole premise, as I haven't read the threads, nor do I care to debate it. Merely that's the gist I got from their post.

 

I can certainly see the choices playing out like that, it's certainly the tone I get from the situation, but it's ambiguous enough, even after EC, that the endings could be taken at face value, or that way.

 

And this is why IT is so divisive. "You chose wrong!" is not really a going theme for Mass Effect, unless you decide to send Thane in the collector base vents because you thought his vent sneaking abilities would be important. Then you were wrong. By depriving half the endings of their interest and declaring them a game over, it really kind of neuters what the endings had going for them: a set of answers with good and bad points that lead to a vastly different galaxy.

 

Now I do think that the scenery is mostly in Shepard's blood-loss drained noggin, but I think the choices and the consequences are real.

 

Also, I love paragade ReaperShep voiceover. 

[RavenBlack]

I believe that IT was the ending but you had to choose destroy to fully understand it. I think they gave us a mind frell and people who didn't get it lost. People who did won. But that's just me. Sadly, I don't think they did it very well as far as letting you know what actually happened and that was the problem. People don't pick up on that sort of thing as a rule. 

 

When I played ME3 and saw the final dream where Shepard burns when he/she embraces the boy I knew all I needed to know. You chase that boy through the game and right before the final battle you have that dream. Subconscious is telling you that if you side with this boy who has infiltrated your mind, then you are going to burn. The boy or catalyst doesn't want you to pick destroy. Destroy therefore is the only option. That's what I felt but majority didn't see it that way and later bioware said IT wasn't something they did. I still pick destroy in good conscience because I don't trust reapers and sure as hell don't want them around anymore. They're a genocidal species that needs to be ended. Also, as a side note, if you choose control or synthesis your shepard does sort of burn up but in a different way.

 

That said, IT doesn't matter anymore and its best to just let it go. Had it been done better it would have made ME series quite amazing. Oh well. Such is life and gaming.

[Hadeedak]

Dude, he doesn't want you to pick Control either. In fact he grumbles about it. 

[RavenBlack]

Dude, he doesn't want you to pick Control either. In fact he grumbles about it. 

 

He would prefer synthesis but control isn't a bad choice for him. Destroy is his major issue. He gives a hard sell against destroy, soft peddles control then big pushes synthesis. If you are trying to save your species, what would you do if you were a reaper who has been aiming for synthesis from the start? Avoid destroy, encourage synthesis but take control if that's the best you can get because at least your species survives.

[Hadeedak]

Okay, then how about low EMS when Destroy is literally the only option? (Because you gave the finger to TIM.)

 

I'd say his sells are about equally hard for Control and Destroy. Especially post EC, where he's like "Yeah, you're totes gunna die."

 

What am I doing I need to go to work...

 

Anyway. I'll just reiterate. I don't particularly like or believe in IT, because among other things, it bonks the "Many choices" thing on the head and is like "CHOOSE ONE OR YOU FAIL."

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Dude, he doesn't want you to pick Control either. In fact he grumbles about it. 

 

Nope, the Reapers are cool with the keys to be handed over to their long time, mortal enemy. 

 

Indoctrination is bad, but the enemies win if they are "only" enslaved. Classic IT.

[RavenBlack]

The assumption is that the reapers are not in actual control. I always thought people who believe that were a bit dense. I mean really, this species has proven itself to be superior across the board. Do you really think that they would allow you to control them? People can think whatever they want. I personally don't care. I just don't buy anything the catalyst sells and think it's a last ditch effort at indoctrination and to save their race.

[Seboist]

Holocaust and 9/11 in the same boat with a video game ending debate?

 

Dude you need to get your **** together.

 

 

IT = no happy ending. Cliffhanger at best.

 

A distinction without a difference, we all know that reason why the IT even exists is as a "get out of bad endings" free card so that these fanboys can get their happy ending.

 

That IT is a cliffhanger is another reason why that "theory" is moronic beyond belief. EAware apparently loves creating negative PR and losing money with EC content for.... some reason according to these people.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The assumption is that the reapers are not in actual control. I always thought people who believe that were a bit dense. I mean really, this species has proven itself to be superior across the board.

 

Do you really think that they would allow you to control them?

 

No less than you believe that they would allow you to destroy them!!

[Valkyrja]

Bioware would probably make a tongue-in-cheek reference to the IT and that's it.

 

Sure maybe BioWare will have the protagonist find a character straitjacketed in a jail cell mumbling about how it was all a dream.

[Torgette]

No less than you believe that they would allow you to destroy them!!

 

Clearly the Catalyst had no sense of self-preservation, otherwise the reapers could've just ya know... made sure Shepard was dead? Or turn off the beam, or just fire a beam once he gets up to the Catalyst.

[Red Panda]

It's entirely possible that ME:A is a Reaper simulation of what it's like to be part of a Reaper, but really believe you're exploring another galaxy.

 

Think of it as a organic smoothie space consensus, evaluating a hypothetical situation of what would happen if organics could expand and into another galaxy, and then develop synthetics that will war on them until extinction, proving the cycle is the only way, and that actually the entire Reaper War fits into the Just War Theory.

 

I don't think I'm being too obtuse with my speculation, am I?

[I Miss Minsc]

I reject all "theories" and substitute      Nexus Mod  "Mass Effect Happy Ending". 

[AlanC9]

It's entirely possible that ME:A is a Reaper simulation of what it's like to be part of a Reaper, but really believe you're exploring another galaxy.
 
Think of it as a organic smoothie space consensus, evaluating a hypothetical situation of what would happen if organics could expand and into another galaxy, and then develop synthetics that will war on them until extinction, proving the cycle is the only way, and that actually the entire Reaper War fits into the Just War Theory.
 
I don't think I'm being too obtuse with my speculation, am I?

Not at all. This is the sort of thinking that's kept IT going this far, and the sort of thinking that will keep it going forever no matter how many roadblocks Bio puts in its path.

[caradoc2000]

Except for Liara and Grunt.

Depends on how "distant future" it is set. If it is thousands of years, even Liara and Grunt will be dust in the solar wind.

[Torgette]

Depends on how "distant future" it is set. If it is thousands of years, even Liara and Grunt will be dust in the solar wind.

 

I somehow doubt it's set thousands of years in the future when they're still using gear from the ME trilogy in the trailer.