SS2Dante said:
You are positing that Shepards mental world doesn't change enough. That, apart from being impractical in execution, is simply your opinion on what indoctrination does. You are saying that the dream is isn't dreamy enough. I don't understand your logic. Shepard is given a view of the entire battle, and earth. You can literally see everything that is at stake. This stays consistent throughout each ending. What else do you want? Floating objects? Upside down stairs?
I'm positing that if the world is a giant metaphor for Shepherd's mental state as IT suggests, then it had horrible execution, which is rendered even worse by the fact that IT's logic necessitates that Shepherd's mental state not be consistent throughout the partitianed branches.
As for what I'd expect, if the scene is intended to be a dream I'd expect some things that seem more out of place than what is just as explainable with poor execution and/or implementation, something that much more overtly implies that the world you see isn't real. If TIM is simply a reconstruction of Saren in Shepherd's mind, have TIM's dialogue slip into Saren's voice from time to time or even better yet, give us a phantom model of Saren which either overlaps or mimics TIM's actions from behind. If Anderson is Shepherd's will, have Shepherd's voice fade in saying the exact same thing as he speaks. Heck, use the slow-mo motion from the dream sequences actually used in the course of the game. Use the static seen during scene transitions in Assassin's Creed (or those blurring extras in the dream sequences) to hint that what we're seeing isn't real...and for pete's sake, if some of the endings actually have Shepherd turning into a husk, have the scene at the end show a husk, because otherwise it's nothing but ill-concieved speculation. There are a LOT of things that could be done to lend credence to the idea, but instead we get a lot of miniscule details that people cherry pick and say that the ending wasn't real. As it is, the indoctrination theory comes off as sloppy because there is no data that truly makes for a strong case and the data we do have (Notably the Final Hours bit) points to a lot of cut content in the final stages of development rather than Shepherd tripping out on reaper waves.
SS2Dante said:
Also, I have said several times now, it is NOT his attempting to rebel. It is him considering the choices given buy the indoctrination. Only in retrospect could it be labelled a personification of choice to rebel. Before this scene, our position is that Shepard is not indoctrinated, unless you chose to keep the Reaper base, and then barely even. Nor is he indoctrinate DURING this scene.
Which thereby invalidates the things IT points to before that scene as evidence, and the last criteria fails to explain the lack of difference in gameplay in ME3 up until that point.
SS2Dante said:
Also, explain these two mutually contradictory positions I am apparently taking. I can see no contradiction in my explanations, so I think we may have crossed wires here. Possibly this is caused by you thinking that I assume physical attack and indoctrination to be the same thing, or have the same requirements with regards to focus? Not sure.
Well the misunderstanding is certainly a possibility, but it's more that you over the course of the argument you've seemed to be altering your premises directly in response to the things I and others have said.
SS2Dante said:
This part is the EASIEST to prove wrong. If you can find me some combination of variables that does not follow the logic I have given, fine, it's wrong. If you have high EMS and cannot do control or something, I am wrong. I did not know all positions at the start, gave my scale for predicting the results, and thus far everything has followed that pattern. Also, if we briefly assume that this theory is correct, can you prove it wrong? Just saying, that if it is actually correct, then there should be no contrary evidence to beat it. Imagine trying to convince me logically that Quirrel did it in Hp 1
Before the end scene it'd be easy to get close to disproving, after the end scene it's be utterly impossible to disprove. I've given my conditions in another post, but thus far the evidence works.
Actully, given the variety of points alluded to this acts more as a gish gallup than an 'easily refutable point'. Everything 'follows the pattern' because the idea was tailor made to explain that pattern (which I maintain is done in a very counterintuitive way). The pattern is not predicted, the concept was built around it. Asking me to show evidence against the pattern of the endings that the hypothesis attempts to explain is like asking me to disprove the plum pudding atomic model by proving that atoms don't exist. Let me turn that question around. If the idea was
incorrect, what would you expect to find, bearing in mind that the theory formed specifically to try to explain the scenes in question?
SS2Dante said:
You're missing the point of the Anderson scene. The Illusive man represents the part of Shepard succumbing to the indoctrination, Anderson represents the part that can resist. Because Anderson is alive, you always win. If you allow the indoctrinated part to kill him, you lose as surely as if you'd skipped to the control ending. But the effort of the struggle kills him every time (literally, the indoctrinated part forces you to shoot him. COME ON). Anderson is the last part of you utterly sure that what you're doing is right. That is why in the next scene everything is more palatable. Besides, which, can you explain the blood on Shepards hands?
Again, that doesn't work out. If you want to argue that symbolism then the scenario plays out far better if Anderson, TIM and Shepherd are in a mexican standoff, and shepherd has to choose which of them to kill, or whether to just let things play out. TIM survives and Anderson dies? Shepherd's indoctrinated. Anderson survives and TIM dies? Shepherd successfully fights off Reaper influence. Instead it just pans out like a would-be villain killing your mentor rather than a personification of your inner conflict. Even more oddly, despite the idea that the Reapers are trying harder to convince shepherd to live, those sources I've seen imply that you can only really save Anderson from TIM at high EMS levels (he still bleeds out though). (And a further monkey wrench in the idea is that you can actually get TIM to commit suicide under the right circumstances rather than executing Anderson)
As for the blood...I might consider looking in a mirror, honestly. Levity aside, Shepherd enters the scene in a pretty bad state, bloody, bruised, limping. The most probable
SS2Dante said:
Again, you misunderstand. Shepards iron conviction is gone. Shepard has no 'will'. WE are Shepards will. Without Anderson, we see the whole thing differently. This is key to the whole theory - it's not about tricking Shepard, it's about tricking US.
If the ending's truly about tricking the userbase, then I am obliged to take an even darker opinion of the writer's ability, as the first obligation of writers is to tell a story, not troll their readers in the conclusion, especially in an otherwise straightforward narrative.
SS2Dante said:
Ending before the climax does? How?
According to IT and by your own testamony, Shepherd never makes it to the crucible, and the game effectively ends with Harbinger's attack. Everything after that is fluff with all but the destroy options also bearing the insult of having the same end result (Read: instead of 6 mildly different endings, we get six mildly different endings MASKING an even lesser variety in how things played out in the real world). Under IT, the game ends during the final assault on earth, in the middle of that same battle, without so much as offering closure on how the battle turns out, how the Reapers are
actually beaten (if they even are), to say nothing of whatever aftermath may or may not exist. Essentially, IT posits something akin to if Return of the Jedi ended with a fade out as Luke was being electrocuted by the Emperor. In its attempt to make sense of the mess that is the conclusion we were given it forgets that the very premise of their interpretation takes place during the final assault rather than after it and thereby all events that it posits takes place at an even less convenient point in the story, ultimately offering less closure than the ending it tries to supplant.
SS2Dante said:
Ah, right, sorry, had this conversation before with other, people, keep forgetting which bits I've talked about with whom. There is only one situation my theory says that you could not get the option for blue. Apart from this I agree, blue should always be a choice. The one time you don't get blue should be at low EMS, having saved the collector base. This is the only situation where your Shepard has willpower and they are not actively trying to indoctrinate you. Conversely, if you kept the Collector base, you've got low willpower, so you should only get the blue ending.
I'm guessing that first 'save' was meant to be 'destroy'
Either way though, I debate the logic, given the apparent attitude of the Reapers towards Shepherd in ME2. Do recall that in addition to the various pieces of dialogue Harbinger had which actually addressed Shepherd by name, they also had the Collectors buy Shepherd's spaced body from the Shadow Broker. This does not fit the profile of a group that's indifferent to him and even with low war assets, Shepherd had proven over the course of three games (at that point) to be a rather persistent (and likely unprecidented) thorn in their side.
SS2Dante said:
I tried to link to a guide that shows the ending you can get, but every one I've seen seems to be wrong. They either show ONLY the 'best' option at each war asset level, or don't show the split between the collector base choices. Here's the 3 I saw.
http://uk.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings
http://www.justpushstart.com/2012/03/mass-effect-3-endings-guide/
http://www.rarityguide.com/articles/articles/1739/1/Mass-Effect-3-Endings-Guide---HEAVY-SPOILERS/Page1.html
(as I read the second one I was on the verge of admitting my theory had just developed a huge hole. Then I noticed that it said on my game type (over 5k, collector base kept) only the DESTROY option. Since I know I can choose all 3, waiting for a more comprehensive guide.
Probably a good idea, though offhand I'd venture to guess that you could just assume that any option also includes the most recent variant of the destroy/control options in addition to the one alongside the war assets. The guides always read as 'this level
unlocks this option' to me
SS2Dante said:
Sorry, but you're speaking to a computer scientist here. Trust me, these partitions are not simple if then else statements, or CASE statements. The amount of testing alone necessary to make sure the right endings happen correctly every time is...large. *sweats just thinking about it*
Isn't that mostly testing to make sure that the game increments your war assets correctly rather than making sure that the right endings proc under the right circumstances (which you ostensibly could test in isolation by manually setting the war asset variable), though? Call me crazy, but I think we might be talking about two different things here.
SS2Dante said:
I do agree about the possibility of the ending having been changed. Thing is, according to this theory, they got the stuff they'd already done out the door and added this clever, but sudden, ending on. This gives them time to work on the proper ending.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see about that then, but the semi-official statement (albeit since rescinded) that 'there are no plans to change the Mass Effect 3 ending at this time' would seem to be a strong point against that idea. Of course, that could be explained as interdepartmental miscommunication, but all the same I like to work with the available data.
SS2Dante said:
EDIT - didn't see it, no. Gonna wait till it's officially out. Very excited
Well, word of warning: the Last Airbender world pretty much went Steampunk. The police force is awesome though.
