Poll: The indoctrination theory: do we really need it?

[Outcast107]

snip

Lol I seen that video before. It what got me to believe. Anyways

1) Well for one thing, hard to tell how much story Liara added or if she even survive the ordeal if this cycle did die out. So could say Liara never got to write down that shepard did commit this horrible acts.

Though also it could be use as a tale of a tragic hero. Like how we have stories about heros who in the end fell to whatever reason. Anyways doesn't really proof anything but I don't think Liara would write about how Shepard turn out super evil. That's kind of a huge downer if the next cycle could understand (Though if I remember right Liara was working on that.)

2) Oh I know, but I was just saying about the part of the last game being told from a story point of view the whole time. Though with the "One more story" it pretty much saying "MOAR DLC!!!"

3) Yeah..nothing else needs to be said here xD

But I have my own little ideas of what they are planning on doing. Now in my opinion, the EMS only counts towards after you "wake" up from the Indoc if IT is true. If you have high EMS then the ships that Hackket sent to stop Harbinger help out and distract him enough so Shepard team can pick him up and regroup.

If you have low EMS then you are dreaming while Harbinger DOES shoot you with his laser. Which is why everything is destroy in the "Bad" red ending. No idea about the other two endings, but what the IT states what they are. Just means to control you and lure you to the reaper sides.

Though again, it just my opinion on the matter and why EMS is important. Which would go like this.

Low EMS - no ships come in to help, and you get fried.
Med EMS - some ships come in, distract Harbinger but get destroy in the process and at the end game you lose a large chunk of the fleet.
High EMS - Same as above but the ships take few losses and you don't lose as many ships as before during the end.

Edit: True, but look at it this way. They probably had some idea to Indoc shepard but when time/money came into view they couldn't work what they wanted. Which is why there such a huge problem now. It didn't go as smoothly as they hope and now they are paying for it. Which I hope Bioware does work with this ending as it would help them but not as much as they would like. Just another opinion of mine...

 

[AbstractStream]

Well, I don't know if we need it, but you have to admit. It's a damn good theory. Plus, it's 100x better than the current ending.

What doesn't help is that apparently, indoctrination was originally intended for the ending but Bioware cut it out because of the mechanics. [This is what I understood from the text in the Final Hours.]

Knowing that just makes me want to say "wtf, Bioware?" Oh well, just gotta wait and see what DLC they come up with.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Instead of relying on "get outs" why can't the ending just be flat out retconned? For those that didn't like it. :<

 

[Outcast107]

Instead of relying on "get outs" why can't the ending just be flat out retconned? For those that didn't like it. :<

Because it will still not have a "Ending". With the IT we can at least say that the ending was plan to be release later (Pay or free don't know yet) and it will be out within a few days or weeks.

If not, then most likely have to wait a few months for them to make the ending and finish it. Which by the way, have no idea how good or bad that will be. Unless of course they just slap it together and throw it out for the fans who keep asking to remake the ending.

I rather have a good, well design game ending then a rush crappy job if they decide to remake it (Which by the way, they said they were only adding on to it. Not changing) If they retconned the whole thing then what parts do they keep and which parts do they take out?

Cause with the new ending their will probably be MORE people piss off because it did not cater to their ending they wanted.

 

[burningdragoon]

But really, the strongest evidence that I've seen that it's supposed to be a literal interpretation is actually this video:


I just cannot believe that Bioware - or any game company - could come up with a plotline that subtle and perfect that spans the course of many years put into 3 games.

There's that video again. It is one of the better pro-IT vids out there, but some parts of just made me go "ugh" at some of the "evidence". I even answered most of those all important questions at the end (in spoilers below). I don't necessarily think that BioWare couldn't have pulled it off, but I definitely think people are both putting too much faith in their abilities as well acting like everything up to before the ending sequence was a perfect, rock solid absence of bad writing. I don't really count "it has to be true because they couldn't have screwed up so terribly considering the rest of the game" a good argument.


1. What is the meaning of the dreams?
IF Shep is being indoctrinated, than the dreams being part of the process makes sense. If Shep isn't being indoctrinated, then the dreams being nightmares from the stress of the mission makes just as much sense. Being the one man responsible for uniting the whole damn galaxy while your home is being actively destroyed sounds incredibly stressful to me.

2. Why does nobody notice the boy?
It's not clear either way really. If he was cleary ignored then there'd be something big here, but as is it could go either way.

3. Why would Shepard be immune to indoctrination?
Who said he is and what about the rest of his crew?

4. Why does Harbinger take a special interest in Shepard?
Because Shepard is king badass of the galaxy and because of him the Reapers' assault has been slowed several times before.

5. Why are there trees from the dream around the beam?
I've seen the dream trees and the two trees you see after Harbinger hits you with a death ray. It would be a pretty interesting and subtle clue, but until someone shows a screenshot of a lack of trees before the death ray, it's not a strong point. Interesting point and one of the better ones, but not strong. Also, if you notice the trees and shrubbery blowing the the wind caused by the teleporter beam, you can reasonably conclude they are there to show wind/force being emitted by the beam.

6. Why does your sidearm have infinite ammo?
*sigh* Because it's a video game so shut the fuck up. No, that's harsh, but really this one of the weakest, most straw-graspy points for the theory. I never carried an assault rifle besides the very beginning and yet in several cutscenes my Shepard was shooting one. And that is hardly the only instance of a disconnect between the "reality" between different parts of the game.

7. Why is the beam directly leading to the panel that opens Citadel's arms?
Again, it's a video game and the whole Crucible thing is already a deus ex machina. Not saying it's not dumb taken literally, but it's far from rare for video game level layouts to have some pretty bad logic. Sea also: a very common lack of bathrooms in almost every game ever.

8. Why are corpses everywhere on the Citadel, just like on the Collectors' ship?
Why were there corpses on the Collectors' ship if everyone was just being turned into DNA goop? We know people were being led up through the beam. We don't know what happens after that, so why wouldn't you expect corpses?

9. How did Anderson enter the beam before Shepard?
He didn't. He says he went up right after Shepard. If you want to ask where the hell he was while you struggling to get there, then yeah, that's a more interesting plot hole.

10. Why was Anderson teleported to another location and how did he arrive at the panel first?
We don't know how the thing works, Deus Ex Machina and all. He was obviously not as injured as Shepard so he likely could get up and going more easily the Shep. Why he was in such better shape is a more interesting plot hole than how he got there first.

As for how he got the panel first:

Boom! Other doors. There's one on the other side two.

11. How did Hackett know that Shepard made it to the Citadel after the entire force had been decimated?
The Citadel arms opened, which meant someone made it. Guessing King Badass was the one who made it is only logical.

12. Why is Shepard bleeding at the same spot Andersone was shot?
It looks that way, yeah. I will admit this is a pretty interesting point. That being said, Shepard was pretty banged up and developers haven't quite got bleeding effects to work in a way that he would slowly get more covered with blood. I would say quickly applying blood to his arm at the last moment to show that he's short on time left is just as likely at this point. Still interesting though.

13. How come the Normandy escapes with Shepard's last two squadmates?
Eh, either it's Shepard's indoctro-fever dream or a terrible plot hole attempting to give a ray of hope to the ending. I could go either way on this one at this point.

14. Wouldn't the explosion of Mass Relays cause super novas like in THE ARRIVAL?
I'm aware of the events of Arrival, but I didn't play it. I also don't remember any mention of it from the Batarians during my play through, but I could be wrong. Anyway, we have evidence of what happens when a relay is destroyed in a certain way. The way the relays are destroyed in the endings, it looks like they were over charged sending the Citadels space magic to the next relay, which means at least the full force of the relay explosion would be dampened. Add in DEM space mcguffin magic and we get some sloppy story telling. Not a bad point for the indoctro-theory but not an especially good one.

It is worth point out that why would they write in the solar system destroying explosion only to have the only other time the relays explode to have a completely different type of explosion. That doesn't support either side of the theory, it's just bad writing either way.

15. Why can't Shepard kill the Keepers or Anderson?
See my response to question 6. It's a video game, so shut up.

16. What is the growl that Shepard hears on the Citadel?
Eh, not sure what this one is referring to.

Obviously aren't perfect answers, but there is a potential non-IT explanation for most, if not all, of them. I even bring up "harder" "evidence" to look at a couple times. But if these are the most important unanswerable questions, then they aren't very good ones.

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

As the chunk of post that you quoted from me suggests: I actually think that amazingly well made videos is the biggest proof that the IT theory is NOT correct.

Some of the questions they bring up are half-way valid, but they can all be explained with an equally half-way valid answer. I say "half-way" because the ending is so full of holes that it's almost impossible to say anything about it for certain. That said, though, again I think that we're meant to take the ending with a literal interpretation and not as an indoctrination hallucination.

Like I said in my first response to this topic: we kinda-sorta do need the IT. I disagree with it, but it is nothing but the product of a fanbase trying to make sense of the nonsensical. To be quite honest the first time I beat the game I really didn't even pay any mind to the fact that my ending squad had somehow magically teleported back to the Normandy. Truth be told I was really enjoying the ending sequence...right up until Space Timmy showed up. Buuuuuuuuut I'm guessing that's how pretty much everyone felt.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Instead of relying on "get outs" why can't the ending just be flat out retconned? For those that didn't like it. :<

Because it will still not have a "Ending". With the IT we can at least say that the ending was plan to be release later (Pay or free don't know yet) and it will be out within a few days or weeks.

If not, then most likely have to wait a few months for them to make the ending and finish it. Which by the way, have no idea how good or bad that will be. Unless of course they just slap it together and throw it out for the fans who keep asking to remake the ending.

I rather have a good, well design game ending then a rush crappy job if they decide to remake it (Which by the way, they said they were only adding on to it. Not changing) If they retconned the whole thing then what parts do they keep and which parts do they take out?

Cause with the new ending their will probably be MORE people piss off because it did not cater to their ending they wanted.

The game does already have an ending but not a very good one - apparently. There would be nothing wrong with just changing the ending as Valve did with Portal.

 

[Outcast107]

Instead of relying on "get outs" why can't the ending just be flat out retconned? For those that didn't like it. :<

Because it will still not have a "Ending". With the IT we can at least say that the ending was plan to be release later (Pay or free don't know yet) and it will be out within a few days or weeks.

If not, then most likely have to wait a few months for them to make the ending and finish it. Which by the way, have no idea how good or bad that will be. Unless of course they just slap it together and throw it out for the fans who keep asking to remake the ending.

I rather have a good, well design game ending then a rush crappy job if they decide to remake it (Which by the way, they said they were only adding on to it. Not changing) If they retconned the whole thing then what parts do they keep and which parts do they take out?

Cause with the new ending their will probably be MORE people piss off because it did not cater to their ending they wanted.

The game does already have an ending but not a very good one - apparently. There would be nothing wrong with just changing the ending as Valve did with Portal.

But the point is, if they change it. IT will STILL not HAVE a ENDING. There will still need question to be answer. If they just cut off the star kid part. What then? A few months of work to make the animation for that scene afterwards, trying to get the voice actors to come back and shoot more voices. And etc, etc.

If they don't then they will just do it slobby with title cards that tell us what happen afterwards. Which in my opinion is WORST! I didn't work my ass off in all three games to save the galaxy to see some words appear on the screen telling what happen. I want to see what happen, not get told.

 

[Lionsfan]

But really, the strongest evidence that I've seen that it's supposed to be a literal interpretation is actually this video:


I just cannot believe that Bioware - or any game company - could come up with a plotline that subtle and perfect that spans the course of many years put into 3 games.

There's that video again. It is one of the better pro-IT vids out there, but some parts of just made me go "ugh" at some of the "evidence". I even answered most of those all important questions at the end (in spoilers below). I don't necessarily think that BioWare couldn't have pulled it off, but I definitely think people are both putting too much faith in their abilities as well acting like everything up to before the ending sequence was a perfect, rock solid absence of bad writing. I don't really count "it has to be true because they couldn't have screwed up so terribly considering the rest of the game" a good argument.


1. What is the meaning of the dreams?
IF Shep is being indoctrinated, than the dreams being part of the process makes sense. If Shep isn't being indoctrinated, then the dreams being nightmares from the stress of the mission makes just as much sense. Being the one man responsible for uniting the whole damn galaxy while your home is being actively destroyed sounds incredibly stressful to me.

2. Why does nobody notice the boy?
It's not clear either way really. If he was cleary ignored then there'd be something big here, but as is it could go either way.

3. Why would Shepard be immune to indoctrination?
Who said he is and what about the rest of his crew?

4. Why does Harbinger take a special interest in Shepard?
Because Shepard is king badass of the galaxy and because of him the Reapers' assault has been slowed several times before.

5. Why are there trees from the dream around the beam?
I've seen the dream trees and the two trees you see after Harbinger hits you with a death ray. It would be a pretty interesting and subtle clue, but until someone shows a screenshot of a lack of trees before the death ray, it's not a strong point. Interesting point and one of the better ones, but not strong. Also, if you notice the trees and shrubbery blowing the the wind caused by the teleporter beam, you can reasonably conclude they are there to show wind/force being emitted by the beam.

6. Why does your sidearm have infinite ammo?
*sigh* Because it's a video game so shut the fuck up. No, that's harsh, but really this one of the weakest, most straw-graspy points for the theory. I never carried an assault rifle besides the very beginning and yet in several cutscenes my Shepard was shooting one. And that is hardly the only instance of a disconnect between the "reality" between different parts of the game.

7. Why is the beam directly leading to the panel that opens Citadel's arms?
Again, it's a video game and the whole Crucible thing is already a deus ex machina. Not saying it's not dumb taken literally, but it's far from rare for video game level layouts to have some pretty bad logic. Sea also: a very common lack of bathrooms in almost every game ever.

8. Why are corpses everywhere on the Citadel, just like on the Collectors' ship?
Why were there corpses on the Collectors' ship if everyone was just being turned into DNA goop? We know people were being led up through the beam. We don't know what happens after that, so why wouldn't you expect corpses?

9. How did Anderson enter the beam before Shepard?
He didn't. He says he went up right after Shepard. If you want to ask where the hell he was while you struggling to get there, then yeah, that's a more interesting plot hole.

10. Why was Anderson teleported to another location and how did he arrive at the panel first?
We don't know how the thing works, Deus Ex Machina and all. He was obviously not as injured as Shepard so he likely could get up and going more easily the Shep. Why he was in such better shape is a more interesting plot hole than how he got there first.

As for how he got the panel first:

Boom! Other doors. There's one on the other side two.

11. How did Hackett know that Shepard made it to the Citadel after the entire force had been decimated?
The Citadel arms opened, which meant someone made it. Guessing King Badass was the one who made it is only logical.

12. Why is Shepard bleeding at the same spot Andersone was shot?
It looks that way, yeah. I will admit this is a pretty interesting point. That being said, Shepard was pretty banged up and developers haven't quite got bleeding effects to work in a way that he would slowly get more covered with blood. I would say quickly applying blood to his arm at the last moment to show that he's short on time left is just as likely at this point. Still interesting though.

13. How come the Normandy escapes with Shepard's last two squadmates?
Eh, either it's Shepard's indoctro-fever dream or a terrible plot hole attempting to give a ray of hope to the ending. I could go either way on this one at this point.

14. Wouldn't the explosion of Mass Relays cause super novas like in THE ARRIVAL?
I'm aware of the events of Arrival, but I didn't play it. I also don't remember any mention of it from the Batarians during my play through, but I could be wrong. Anyway, we have evidence of what happens when a relay is destroyed in a certain way. The way the relays are destroyed in the endings, it looks like they were over charged sending the Citadels space magic to the next relay, which means at least the full force of the relay explosion would be dampened. Add in DEM space mcguffin magic and we get some sloppy story telling. Not a bad point for the indoctro-theory but not an especially good one.

It is worth point out that why would they write in the solar system destroying explosion only to have the only other time the relays explode to have a completely different type of explosion. That doesn't support either side of the theory, it's just bad writing either way.

15. Why can't Shepard kill the Keepers or Anderson?
See my response to question 6. It's a video game, so shut up.

16. What is the growl that Shepard hears on the Citadel?
Eh, not sure what this one is referring to.

Obviously aren't perfect answers, but there is a potential non-IT explanation for most, if not all, of them. I even bring up "harder" "evidence" to look at a couple times. But if these are the most important unanswerable questions, then they aren't very good ones.

Glad to see someone else is doubting that video. There's some facts in there, but a lot of it is taking little things, and trying to pass them off as facts

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said it best with either, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." or "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment"

Whichever one you want to use, the result is the same. A lot of the IT video is pointing out "facts" that suit their theory, when in reality you can explain a lot of it using different stuff. Like the boy thing, is it really that unreasonable to think that in a freaking war zone Anderson couldn't hear a small boy speaking? If they really wanted us to think Shepard was the only one to see him, I'm sure they would have put a "Hey Shepard who are you talking to? There's no one there"

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

The ending sequence would be a military hero's funeral with eulogies provided by the surviving squadmates from 1, 2, and 3 along with some of the more important side-characters. The speeches given would reflect the decisions you made. Once the funeral is over, cut to the text-box slides Dragon Age: Origin's style that explain what each race did in the years that follow (like how DA explained what your decision with the dwarves caused, what your decision with the dalish caused, etc). Roll credits. Pretty sure that ending would be nice and neat and satiate everyone's desire for closure on their decisions.

I'd still want at least the slim possibility of an ending where everyone lives, Shepard included, though I'd expect it to be the absolute hardest to get. You'd have to have a save file going all the way back to ME1, you'd have to make all the right decisions through all three games, you have to get every last war asset, and so on. And hey, maybe there should even be some luck involved: like, all that work means that you earn the right to have the game flip a coin behind the scenes to decide if you live or not.

But yeah, that's one of the many things I don't get about this--that Bioware has been here before, and that they should've known how to do it right. All they really had to do was show the writers the ending of the first Dragon Age and say, "Like this, but with spaceships."

 

[PaganAxe]

I voted neutral; but since then, I'm now against the indoctrination theory.

This here [http://iamrodyle.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/why-i-hate-the-indoctrination-theory-with-a-fiery-passion/] shoots some nice holes in the theory quite well.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

I voted neutral; but since then, I'm now against the indoctrination theory.

This here [http://iamrodyle.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/why-i-hate-the-indoctrination-theory-with-a-fiery-passion/] shoots some nice holes in the theory quite well.

This bit stuck out for me: "It Prevents the Game from Being Fixed: Instead of unifying the community around a battle cry of ?Bring back Harbinger? we have people defending the God-Kid McBullShit segment."

Seriously, the Star Child encapsulates nearly everything that's wrong about the ending. Everybody hates this character. You'd think we would all be desperate to just plain get rid of him.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Well as it stands, the poll says that most people are not convinced IDT is needed.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Yet Bioware still hasn't dismissed the theory even though it's the largest topic with over 1000 pages on BSN. That doesn't prove anything but it's kinda weird. Maybe they just don't want more angry fans if they officially dismiss the theory. Which is not a good idea. If the theory is wrong they should really just come clean and say it. If they don't they risk a big backlash from IT supporters when the actual DLC is revealed.

 

[Moth_Monk]

Yet Bioware still hasn't dismissed the theory even though it's the largest topic with over 1000 pages on BSN. That doesn't prove anything but it's kinda weird. Maybe they just don't want more angry fans if they officially dismiss the theory. Which is not a good idea. If the theory is wrong they should really just come clean and say it. If they don't they risk a big backlash from IT supporters when the actual DLC is revealed.

Well Bioware has released an announcement which says they're not changing the ending; just expanding on it with extra cut-scenes so I think that's pretty much IDT dashed.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Yet Bioware still hasn't dismissed the theory even though it's the largest topic with over 1000 pages on BSN. That doesn't prove anything but it's kinda weird. Maybe they just don't want more angry fans if they officially dismiss the theory. Which is not a good idea. If the theory is wrong they should really just come clean and say it. If they don't they risk a big backlash from IT supporters when the actual DLC is revealed.

Well Bioware has released an announcement which says they're not changing the ending; just expanding on it with extra cut-scenes so I think that's pretty much IDT dashed.

Actually according to this cryptic tweet there will be gameplay

 

[Moth_Monk]

Yet Bioware still hasn't dismissed the theory even though it's the largest topic with over 1000 pages on BSN. That doesn't prove anything but it's kinda weird. Maybe they just don't want more angry fans if they officially dismiss the theory. Which is not a good idea. If the theory is wrong they should really just come clean and say it. If they don't they risk a big backlash from IT supporters when the actual DLC is revealed.

Well Bioware has released an announcement which says they're not changing the ending; just expanding on it with extra cut-scenes so I think that's pretty much IDT dashed.

Actually according to this cryptic tweet there will be gameplay

:O Wha-

 

[SajuukKhar]

I hope part of the playable parts is a option to tell the catalyst your dumb, regardless if it affects anything or not.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I hope part of the playable parts is a option to tell the catalyst your dumb, regardless if it affects anything or not.

I hope not because then The Catalyst could retort by saying it's "you're" not "your", Shepard.

I'm sorry. I had to do it. If they decide not to ditch The Catalyst then I agree with you. We need an option to yell at him, tell him to go fuck himself and stuff like that.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I hope not because then The Catalyst could retort by saying it's "you're" not "your", Shepard.

I'm sorry. I had to do it. If they decide not to ditch The Catalyst then I agree with you. We need an option to yell at him, tell him to go fuck himself and stuff like that.

That actually makes me kinda want to see Shepard say "you're dumb" but the subtitles show "your dumb", and the Catalyst says "It's you're not your" and Shepard is just like "what?"