139 réponses à ce sujet

[TurianSpectre]

thats the thing though, i remember when i first played through ME3 and i got to the run down the hill and i was like "**** yes harbinger you are going down" and then it came to the whole star child thing and i was literally like "ok so ive got to choose something here and then i'll get back down to the fight" and then the whole cutscene afterwards i was like "wait what?! when do i get the epic battle between harbinger and TIM?!" since the whole entire game was leading up to those two fights. I mean yes i have moved on from it and all that but the scars still remain, hopefully if Andromeda turns into a trilogy they will at least make the battles like the ones in the Dragon Age trilogy as i've just played through all three and freaking loved the whole climactic feel of finally driving back the darkspawn and the archdemon in inquisition, unlike with ME3 when youve killed Saren and Sovereign then the Collectors, you should get to face Harbinger face to face once and for all but you dont...

[spinachdiaper]

I usually enjoy entertaining outlandish possibilities, but IT is mindbogglingly horrendous on a level that very few human atrocities have reached.

[Catastrophy]

Intoxication Theory is Official Headcannon. All go home to pub now.

[TurianSpectre]

Intoxication Theory is Official Headcannon. All go home to pub now.

I'll join you!!! 

[Lord Kiran]

Have to love the militant hatred of the IT in a thread everyone is free to ignore. 

I don't like this post for a number of reasons. 

 

Chiefly is the use of the word militant. I realize that it's application is largely based on perception, but I say that it's use here is wrong and included only to try and demonize those who refute IT as a concept.

 

Secondly. Yes, everyone is free to ignore this thread. So what? Does that somehow invalidate what they have to say? The purpose of a forum is to enable the exchange of ideas. You put out an idea, and get feedback from those who see it and feel so inclined as to leave feedback. Sometimes that feedback doesn't agree with your point of view. It's how things work.

[TurianSpectre]

I don't like this post for a number of reasons. 

 

Chiefly is the use of the word militant. I realize that it's application is largely based on perception, but I say that it's use here is wrong and included only to try and demonize those who refute IT as a concept.

 

Secondly. Yes, everyone is free to ignore this thread. So what? Does that somehow invalidate what they have to say? The purpose of a forum is to enable the exchange of ideas. You put out an idea, and get feedback from those who see it and feel so inclined as to leave feedback. Sometimes that feedback doesn't agree with your point of view. It's how things work.

Well said man... well said... here have a cookie!

[Ruadh]

Just like the draw of butt hurt metalheads to a Babymetal article, you can practically count the seconds before the same ol' **** is spewed out over and over again.

 

If this was a game of 'IT hate bingo', we might have had a winner already. Wait . . . who am I kidding? Nobody wins on this forum.

[AlanC9]

thats the thing though, i remember when i first played through ME3 and i got to the run down the hill and i was like "**** yes harbinger you are going down" and then it came to the whole star child thing and i was literally like "ok so ive got to choose something here and then i'll get back down to the fight" and then the whole cutscene afterwards i was like "wait what?! when do i get the epic battle between harbinger and TIM?!" since the whole entire game was leading up to those two fights.

I'm having a little trouble following this. What fight did you figure Shepard was heading back down to? The whole point of the ground fight was to get someone up to the Citadel to dock the Crucible. After that any fighting on the ground would be irrelevant to the outcome of the war; it can't harm the Reapers since all their ground troops are expendable pawns.

As for a TIM-Harbinger fight.... you really didn't get that TIM was an indoctrinated stooge by that point?

[Prince Enigmatic]

Intoxication Theory is Official Headcannon. All go home to pub now.

 

I'll bring the ryncol.

[The Dystopian Hound]

Here's another alternate theory... 50,000 years after Saren's attack on the Citadel, Shepard wakes up on the ARK. The last thing he/she remembers is the Normandy blowing up.

ETA: As for the rest of ME2 and all of ME3... the clone(s) did it.

I have a disdain for you now. Kidding.

[Cunning Villain]

This is one remnant of the BSN I was hoping I'd never see again. I suppose it's appropriate masster blaster brought this nonsense back. Where are the rest of your cohorts? Did they finally give up on this kooky theory, like you should've long ago?

[TurianSpectre]

This is one remnant of the BSN I was hoping I'd never see again. I suppose it's appropriate masster blaster brought this nonsense back. Where are the rest of your cohorts? Did they finally give up on this kooky theory, like you should've long ago?

i do have to agree with you lol

[OH-UP-THIS!]

I am in a mood today....

[Terrell]

I finally saw all of the Indoctrination Theory videos by CleverNoob and even though its interesting I have one major problem with it....

 

Completing the indoctrination of Shepard at that point and the way they attempted to do it makes no sense.

Shepard has spent the last few months of his/her life getting all the groups together, or at least trying, for one purpose...destroy the repears.  Why would any of them back off now because Shepard all of a sudden had a change of heart?  Anderson, by telling people no retreat understood exactly what was at stake... this was indeed all or nothing.  They were fully committed.  The organics had zero room to negotiate with the reapers... none.  The retreat order by ?cotes? could have been so they could regroup and try again.  In addition, the crucible at that point, is exposed. You technically can't retreat because there is no where for you to retreat and doing so gets your best weapon destroyed.


In Shepard's mind he has won the day.  The situation is over.  The reapers are either destroyed by him, controlled by him, or merged with organics.  When he wakes up and find they are still kicking ass, operating against his will, and still seperate from organics he is going to know something is horribly wrong.  I would expect at that point the indoctrination to fail.  Even though he had been exposed for a long length of time, his indoctrination wasn't that long so perhaps he would have been able to break it.

Everyone else who was indoctrinated was indoctrinated before the attack on the citadel by Soverign or before the invasion of Earth.  They were used at tools (I guess) to try to accomplish the Reapers goals much faster much like the mass relays allowed everyone to travel through the galaxy much faster.  I don't see anything at the end of ME3 that would give Shpeard the impression the war was still going on and there was something he could do to aid the situation.

I find the indoctrination theory very entertaining but after thinking about it I don't see where it has legs.  If the ending was real it doesn't bother me too much.  I still enjoyed it and I suppose there was always some discrpencies between what the reapers did vs what they really had to do such as:

Why indoctrinate anyone? 

The reapers could have just did their thing.  Nobody had the ability to stop them.  They had been around for at least 100,000 years.  When it comes time for the harvest, just lock out the relays like the Omega 4 one.  This will prevent fast travel and leave system vunerable to harvest without too much interference.  In that length of time how many troops could they have created?  It would have been a number so large to fight them would have been folly.

What did Harbinger mean when he said, "We will find another way?"

There is no indication that the organics could stop the reapers  so why do they have to find another way?  They should have already known the way because they have done this so many times and seem to do the same thing every time.  If you listen to Javik he mentions some of the same tatics used during his time as they were using during our time specially a splinter group, Cerebus, breaking off and trying to control them.

It seems to me that some times in order to keep a story engaging the writers play to the audience instead of the characters.  An exmaple of this is during a movie called "Now You see Me" {** Spoilers **}  staring Morgan Freemon and the Hulk.  There was a scene in which Morgan character suggest that the Hulks female friend may be the one behind it all.  The hulk goes over there and then questions her as if he thought Morgan may have been on to something.  But if you've seen the end, you know those questions would have never been asked by him because he already knew who was behind it all and morgan was no where around when he asked them.  Thus, the writers were playing to the peolple seeing the move instead of playing to the characters.  If he doesn't ask those questions the audience may have suspect he knew more than he was letting on thus breaking the twist at the end.

What really was Saran's purpose?

Did Soverign need a driver?  Why did we have to go all the way to IIlos to find that thing that jumped us back to the Citidel?  Shouldn't the reapers already know about stuff like that?  Shouldn't they have just told Saren what to do?  Wouldn't that have saved a lot of time?  Yes, but it also would have voided the reason for this game.

At any rate, it was a great ride.  The more that was revealed, the less sense this game makes but none of that takes away from this great piece of art.  I find the indoctrination Theory very entertaining and tempting but I just don't buy it.
 

[BioWareM0d13]

If IT was actually correct in how it interprets the endings, we would have had a DLC way back in 2012 or 2013 with the big IT reveal. That didn't happen. Bioware also released the Extended Cut, which features epilogues that debunk IT, and once banned discussion of IT on this forum.

IT is dead and has been for years.

[RZIBARA]

Hold up, do people actually still think IT is real? WTF

 

Let it go people

[SKAR]

Shouldn't this have been locked already?

[Dalakaar]

IT is dead and has been for years.

They'll be saying the same thing about Han by the time Episode VIII airs.

[rossler]

If IT was actually correct in how it interprets the endings, we would have had a DLC way back in 2012 or 2013 with the big IT reveal. That didn't happen. Bioware also released the Extended Cut, which features epilogues that debunk IT, and once banned discussion of IT on this forum.

IT is dead and has been for years.

 

They didn't ban discussion. Only restricted it to groups or small posts here and there. Like this one. It's not a violation of the rules or anything to discuss it. 

[Terrell]

Some people like myself are just now playing the game for the first time.  I didn't realize the indoctrination theory even existed until a few days ago.  So most people have already debated it, like it, left it, or whatever, but its all fairly new to me. 

I have a theory of my own that I haven't really fleshed out.  And my theory says Shepard was indoctrinated.  If Saren was the synthesis guy and he was indoctrinated.  If TIM was the control guy and he was indoctrinated.  Then perhaps, Shepard, the destroy guy, was also indoctrinated.  All of these people did exactly what they thought was right and killed many people in the process because of it.  All three were guiilty of committing some kind of Genocide.  Shepard (Rachni, Baterians, Geth, Querians (or whatever their name is) . 

But I still can't get passed the ending after he is hit with the beam.  If it was all in his mind, which I think is still a possibilty, then the dream he had with the child where he catches the child, smiles, and burns is like picking the destroy option.  You "caught" the child, by going through the beam, and then burned by clicking destroy. 

The breath at the end? Perhaps it was a breath of relief.  In his mind he finally achieved his goal.But I don't know.  Perhaps it was just a weak ending. lol

Why would the reapers indoctrinate someone to destroy them?  I guess for the same reason they would indoctrinate someone who wanted to join them or control them.  Each method brings diffrent kinds of people toward the reapers for harvest.

My original thogut was why indoctrinate anyone when you have the miliary might to just steam role people.  So there must be some kind of strange method to this madness.  Perhaps they can't use dead people.  They'd rather take you alive and convert you when needed.  Aliens worked the same way.  They needed live bodies for reproduction but if they had to they would kill you outright.  But this doesn't explain Human Husk in ME1.   So in some places where peole are dead, they just pile them up and dispose of them.  When they are alive they get put in a container for "ascending".

Anyway, its fun to think about this stuff.

[Gileadan]

IT is like a sad zombie that gets resurrected once in a while only to run into the next wall of chainsaws.

 

It's bogus. Indoctrination overrides an individual's will. It does not try to trick it with some kind of illusion, it makes people want to serve the reapers.

 

To implement indoctrination correctly, the game would have simply changed the mission goal to "make sure the reapers win".

[SolNebula]

As soon as I've seen this thread this pic come to my mind. Old but always good.

 

[UpUpAway]

Some people like myself are just now playing the game for the first time.  I didn't realize the indoctrination theory even existed until a few days ago.  So most people have already debated it, like it, left it, or whatever, but its all fairly new to me. 

I have a theory of my own that I haven't really fleshed out.  And my theory says Shepard was indoctrinated.  If Saren was the synthesis guy and he was indoctrinated.  If TIM was the control guy and he was indoctrinated.  Then perhaps, Shepard, the destroy guy, was also indoctrinated.  All of these people did exactly what they thought was right and killed many people in the process because of it.  All three were guiilty of committing some kind of Genocide.  Shepard (Rachni, Baterians, Geth, Querians (or whatever their name is) . 

But I still can't get passed the ending after he is hit with the beam.  If it was all in his mind, which I think is still a possibilty, then the dream he had with the child where he catches the child, smiles, and burns is like picking the destroy option.  You "caught" the child, by going through the beam, and then burned by clicking destroy. 

The breath at the end? Perhaps it was a breath of relief.  In his mind he finally achieved his goal.But I don't know.  Perhaps it was just a weak ending. lol

Why would the reapers indoctrinate someone to destroy them?  I guess for the same reason they would indoctrinate someone who wanted to join them or control them.  Each method brings diffrent kinds of people toward the reapers for harvest.

My original thogut was why indoctrinate anyone when you have the miliary might to just steam role people.  So there must be some kind of strange method to this madness.  Perhaps they can't use dead people.  They'd rather take you alive and convert you when needed.  Aliens worked the same way.  They needed live bodies for reproduction but if they had to they would kill you outright.  But this doesn't explain Human Husk in ME1.   So in some places where peole are dead, they just pile them up and dispose of them.  When they are alive they get put in a container for "ascending".

Anyway, its fun to think about this stuff.

 

The Indoctrination Theory simply over complicates everything.  Shepard is mortally wounded by the beam and is, essentially, a dying person reflecting on his/her life in his/her mind even as he/she struggles just to complete his/her life's work.  The bodies piled up are representative of the people he/she has killed throughout his/her life.  The "ascension" imagery is from Christian death and after death doctrine... heck, even the term Reapers derives from Christian death doctrine (i.e. grim reaper).  The game is riddled with symbolism.  Throughout it, it questions our own beliefs about government, war, relationships, and last but not least, about death itself.  The plot is not very tight because, I believe, the developers were trying to give us room to question and derive our own beliefs on a number of the world's issues..  The final choices in ME3 are not well thought out... but, IMO, there is no indoctrination required to explain the "dreamlike" state (hallucinations) of a dying individual as they near the end of their life.

[GaroTD]

I would absolutely love if this theory would turn out to be true, BW made accidentally great plot twist but I doubt they will go with that. I don't get why you all get sooo annoyed about this thread, like we got anything better to talk about here before June 12. 

[BioWareM0d13]

They didn't ban discussion. Only restricted it to groups or small posts here and there. Like this one. It's not a violation of the rules or anything to discuss it.

Nevertheless, having limits placed on where and when it could be discussed on the ME3 forums points toward it *not* being the ending the writers intended.