I haven't read the novel, hence me not voicing an opinion on this. HOWEVER, I will point out the difference in the medium - books versus games. They use the tools most effective to each situation: in the book, it's more effective to have them trapped inside their own mind as you can SEE inside their mind. In a game, you want the player to directly feel the emotions of the character they play. Therefore the indoctrination happens to the player, slowly and subtly.AD-Stu said:
Why do you not believe the indoctrination theory? *Major Spoilers*
- Thread starter SS2Dante
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Personally I prefer my endings to actually contain an ending, but to each their own.SS2Dante said:
For ease of readingSS2Dante said:
Oh, well now you have done it now I am in my 'heres how it should have gone mood' 
Firstly, it didn't take the WHOLE alliance fleet it only took one alliance fleet, the nearest one (the fifth fleet I believe) there are at least two other alliances fleets mentioned and suffice to say there are other much larger fleets out there too (the geth heretic fleet was larger than the fifth fleet and thats apparently a fraction of all geth ships.
So, yes it took a lot of force to beat sovereign however there have been some big advances. Look at the normandy SR2 as an example.. We had hints of new shield technology, reaper based technology like the thanix cannons and each race having specific weapons, shielding and armor which when everyone worked together would give a substantial advantage. Its not like after capturing sovereign everyone sat on their backsides eating cakes.
What I was expecting was nothing less than this; You go to each major star system and either take a paragon path to save the aliens making friends thus bolstering your own numbers or the renegade path taking advange of the spread thin reaper fleet doing anything nessecary to cut their numbers even at the cost of alien worlds, fleets and friends.
By the final battle you would have either a large enough allied fleet to fight back against the reapers, driving them back into dark space.. breaking them before the united might of all the races of the galaxy. (im thinking like ME2 approaching the collector base, cut scenes changed for each new allied fleet added. Damnit I wanted to hear joker say.. its the rachni, and see some wierd spider bug organic ships warp in to joint he fight)
Or to have cut reaper numbers enough, stole enough technology and resources, used terrible cereberus collector science etc that the alliance fleet can just about beat them and with the only remaining military dominate the galaxy.
See a renegade and paragon ending to suit your play style. Different people get different ending, not all get the same based on bloody EMS.
Firstly, it didn't take the WHOLE alliance fleet it only took one alliance fleet, the nearest one (the fifth fleet I believe) there are at least two other alliances fleets mentioned and suffice to say there are other much larger fleets out there too (the geth heretic fleet was larger than the fifth fleet and thats apparently a fraction of all geth ships.
So, yes it took a lot of force to beat sovereign however there have been some big advances. Look at the normandy SR2 as an example.. We had hints of new shield technology, reaper based technology like the thanix cannons and each race having specific weapons, shielding and armor which when everyone worked together would give a substantial advantage. Its not like after capturing sovereign everyone sat on their backsides eating cakes.
What I was expecting was nothing less than this; You go to each major star system and either take a paragon path to save the aliens making friends thus bolstering your own numbers or the renegade path taking advange of the spread thin reaper fleet doing anything nessecary to cut their numbers even at the cost of alien worlds, fleets and friends.
By the final battle you would have either a large enough allied fleet to fight back against the reapers, driving them back into dark space.. breaking them before the united might of all the races of the galaxy. (im thinking like ME2 approaching the collector base, cut scenes changed for each new allied fleet added. Damnit I wanted to hear joker say.. its the rachni, and see some wierd spider bug organic ships warp in to joint he fight)
Or to have cut reaper numbers enough, stole enough technology and resources, used terrible cereberus collector science etc that the alliance fleet can just about beat them and with the only remaining military dominate the galaxy.
See a renegade and paragon ending to suit your play style. Different people get different ending, not all get the same based on bloody EMS.
He does say that is -how- the reapers have won every time, sure he doesn't say its the ONLY way they could win. However the implication at least to me suggested that the prothean reprogramming of the keepers was the break in the reaper plan giving us the chance to fight back.SS2Dante said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MIpsejZRq0
So far bad dreams haven't been said to be indoctrination. We have waking dreams, and hearing voices as well as degeneration of the indoctrinated persons abilities making them less and less capable eventually turning them into a vegtable unable to even survive on their own.SS2Dante said:
edit: I mean, if shep had started seeing the kid when awake, like out of the corner of his eye.. now that would be something to go on.
We've seen scenes told from jokers perspective in the cockpit before. One example is when he either saves or ignores the ascension in ME1.SS2Dante said:
Expecting what someone presents me with to be consistant with the mechanisms introduced so far is I think the correct default position when it comes to narrative expectations. I had the same thoughts as you, the ending doesn't make sense. However when I compare it to other oddities in the game, the ones I've mentioned, I find poor development the preferred explaination.SS2Dante said:
Why shouldn't it. Sadly the ending doesn't give us anything to really go on it could be a lot of things, but without something more than that it doesn't get me past the poor development position.SS2Dante said:
The idea is that the player isn't supposed to realise they are being indoctrinated. Empathy is the most powerful effect of a videogame.Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
The reapers aren't showing Shepard this, its a symbolic view of Shepard's, showing the hoped for results of your actions. Shepard makes a choice, and that choice cause him/her to see the crew somewhere far away, happy, together, on a beautiful planet. Either that or they get there by MAGIC
I can accept your point about the fight, I suppose.xorinite said:For ease of readingSS2Dante said:
Oh, well now you have done it now I am in my 'heres how it should have gone mood'
Firstly, it didn't take the WHOLE alliance fleet it only took one alliance fleet, the nearest one (the fifth fleet I believe) there are at least two other alliances fleets mentioned and suffice to say there are other much larger fleets out there too (the geth heretic fleet was larger than the fifth fleet and thats apparently a fraction of all geth ships.
So, yes it took a lot of force to beat sovereign however there have been some big advances. Look at the normandy SR2 as an example.. We had hints of new shield technology, reaper based technology like the thanix cannons and each race having specific weapons, shielding and armor which when everyone worked together would give a substantial advantage. Its not like after capturing sovereign everyone sat on their backsides eating cakes.
What I was expecting was nothing less than this; You go to each major star system and either take a paragon path to save the aliens making friends thus bolstering your own numbers or the renegade path taking advange of the spread thin reaper fleet doing anything nessecary to cut their numbers even at the cost of alien worlds, fleets and friends.
By the final battle you would have either a large enough allied fleet to fight back against the reapers, driving them back into dark space.. breaking them before the united might of all the races of the galaxy. (im thinking like ME2 approaching the collector base, cut scenes changed for each new allied fleet added. Damnit I wanted to hear joker say.. its the rachni, and see some wierd spider bug organic ships warp in to joint he fight)
Or to have cut reaper numbers enough, stole enough technology and resources, used terrible cereberus collector science etc that the alliance fleet can just about beat them and with the only remaining military dominate the galaxy.
See a renegade and paragon ending to suit your play style. Different people get different ending, not all get the same based on bloody EMS.
He does say that is -how- the reapers have won every time, sure he doesn't say its the ONLY way they could win. However the implication at least to me suggested that the prothean reprogramming of the keepers was the break in the reaper plan giving us the chance to fight back.SS2Dante said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MIpsejZRq0
So far bad dreams haven't been said to be indoctrination. We have waking dreams, and hearing voices as well as degeneration of the indoctrinated persons abilities making them less and less capable eventually turning them into a vegtable unable to even survive on their own.SS2Dante said:
We've seen scenes told from jokers perspective in the cockpit before. One example is when he either saves or ignores the ascension in ME1.SS2Dante said:
Expecting what someone presents me with to be consistant with the mechanisms introduced so far is I think the correct default position when it comes to narrative expectations. I had the same thoughts as you, the ending doesn't make sense. However when I compare it to other oddities in the game, the ones I've mentioned, I find poor development the preferred explaination.SS2Dante said:
Why shouldn't it. Sadly the ending doesn't give us anything to really go on it could be a lot of things, but without something more than that it doesn't get me past the poor development position.SS2Dante said:
And yes, I also agree about the prothean reprogramming being the thing that gave us a chance, but I'm confused as to your point :S
Also, em, I'm not sure if it's ever explicitly stated, and I'm not saying the dreams are LITERALLY the way they are influencing Shepard. I'm saying it's a representation of Shepards subconscious dealing with the programming. It also states in the codex it causes victims to see 'ghostly' presences. (child)
We have, yes. And we've also had the camera swaying when Shepard is drunk, and cutting out when Shepard is unconscious. The third person narrative is inconsistent at best.
I get what you're saying, but it's the fact that this theory keeps standing up to tests that makes me support it. I'm the first person to call bull on conspiracy theories, because due to the illogical nature of their construction they are full of holes. People haven't pointed me out a hole yet. I just think the fact that it fits so perfectly is a pretty unlikely event.
Edited for mistake I made when referring to the Protheans.
I get the red ending thing. But I don't think it effects the context of the stargazer.SS2Dante said:
Look, correct me if I'm wrong, but that sequence plays the same in every ending:
ending -> credits -> stargazer -> Buy DLC.
Which means that:
Shepard takes a breath in some rubble in the best red ending -> credits -> STARGAZER! -> Buy DLC.
The Stargazer is, as far as I know, the exact same in every ending and the absolute final cutscene of the game.
If he's some alien from a subsequent cycle, then the cliffhanger is irrelevant. Shepard is apparently alive in the immediate future but for there to BE a subsequent cycle the Reapers have to win the current one. Which means that even if there is an expansion or DLC, you still lose. Your failure has been preordained by showing subsequent events (the Stargazer). Plus, if he is supposed to be an alien, they could've made that clear and did not. As it is, them being aliens in another cycle is pulled out of thin air. The only evidence that supports the idea is the indoctrination theory itself.
If he's a human on some extraterrestrial world, Shepard won, the galaxy is saved regardless of the details of the ending. Regardless of ending color choice. That means that "giving in" to the indoctrination, according to the theory, via the blue and green endings has no impact versus "resisting" it in any red ending.
If he's another happy hallucination, the best red ending makes no sense because they show what is supposed to be, according to the indoctrination theory, real life BEFORE jumping back into the hallucination.
The only ways I can see around it are:
Making Shepard waking up in the rubble another hallucination, consistent with the following scene, but making the indoctrination theory a global it's-all-a-dream. Other people have pointed our, you can justify anything with its-all-a-dream. It's pretty weak and Shepard in the rubble is no longer really support for the indoctrination theory, or at least the red ending being the true fight on/resisting the indoctrination ending.
Ignoring the inconsistency of Shepard apparently resisting, and saying that they show another hallucination anyway for some reason. This just goes back to being a bad/inconsistent ending. Basically forces what we see to conform to the external theory. If he resisted the indoctrination, we should not be seeing it.
The Stargazer is a hallucination or an alien in every ending except the best red ending. The exact same scene is reused to show humans (or aliens in the current cycle) remember Shepard saving the galaxy. After waking up in a pile of rubble from a crazy indoctrination dream of saving the galaxy via stupid ghost child ending I guess. This is just bad, the exact same cutscene is supposed to mean two diametrically opposed things predicated entirely on the indoctrination theory? Again, that's forcing the evidence to fit the interpretation, not accounting for it.
Ignoring the stargazer completely, declare him non-canonical and move on. Hey, if you want to. The point of this thread was, I thought, to discuss why we don't believe the indoctrination theory. I haven't seen any credible way to interpret why the Stargazer appears after all the endings without forcing some kind of inconsistency into the theory, the scene itself, or the supposed best red ending.
On the other hand, the literal/it's bad theory neatly accounts for this. The goal of the games has been to defeat the Reapers and save the galaxy. You accomplish this in essence regardless of color choice or even military resources (the earth just gets more or less screwed over). The Stargazer is the only (weak) closure provided, affirming that you have prevented the cycle and indeed saved someone on some colony somewhere.
EDIT: Actually, another problem that occurs to me with the ending is that if it is a hallucination, why isn't it happier? Why is the Earth screwed in one of the destroy endings, and why are the crew shipwrecked on some jungle world somewhere and not in the sol system where there might at least be enough ships and mutually usable resources to pool for (potentially) Tali and Garrus to survive? As it is, Shepard's happy delusion is them dying of malnutrition once the Normandy's stock of dextro-edibles runs out? Cold. Or the reverse, of course, not that is any better.
It didn't work for the protheans, they only reprogrammed the keepers after the reapers left and their species was dropped to unsustainably small numbers. The point was I believe that was the original story arc set up and 3 veered madly away from it to give us a magical super device of unknown ability or function which also requires an unknown additional element. Which may add weight to the argument the ending reflection of the degeneration of the writing.SS2Dante said:
Sure, and in ME2 we see those 'ghosts' are described as grey things on the edge of vision moving through walls etc. Again if shepherd had seen the kid while awake in the corner of his eye, but when turned to look like the cerberus agents on the dead reaper did.. then great stuff.SS2Dante said:
Well lets see this. The reapers don't want Shepherd to pick destroy. So they colour it like the renegade option. What if you are playing a renegade shepherd. Why colour it to make you pick it if its not what they want?SS2Dante said:
However, with a more serious thought. I could equally say the entire thing is a dream from the prothean beacon shepherd encountered on Eden Prime but theres a bug between him and the beacon which is why the protheans change from looking like tentacle faces to bugs. It could be, but development reasons seem more likely. I bet it would have been harder to animate those tentacle fingers, probably need a new skeletal model.
I don't really think this is a theory, I thought Bioware intended to have a section of the game where you lose control of Shepard due to indoctrination but they took it out?
Anyways, an ideal ending should have a decent amount of closure at face value as well as some speculation on the side (maybe, personally I think you should close off everything if you want to end a story). You should not have to rely on what is more or less wild mass guessing to have your ending make sense to people.
Anyways, an ideal ending should have a decent amount of closure at face value as well as some speculation on the side (maybe, personally I think you should close off everything if you want to end a story). You should not have to rely on what is more or less wild mass guessing to have your ending make sense to people.
You're assumptions rest on the false premise that ALL life is destroyed at the end of every cycle. It is not. Some species are left alive. Therefore you could defeat the Reapers with no problem in this scene. Furthermore, we cannot speculate on the cases because we do not know which they are. Lack of evidence, sheer speculation. Like I said, if they are not human this works for all cases. Hell, even if they are human, it's not very easy to come up with the theory that some survived, thanks to the advance warning(see protheans). But I agree, it cannot be in Shepards head, that makes no sense.Xpheyel said:
The final insult of the stargazer scene, is that it's deliberately framed as being wrong. It's implied to be so far into tthe future as to make Shepard an almost religious figure 'the shepard' and the man states the details have been lost. This allows him to give the wrong endings with no problem.
EDIT - I said the stargazer scene was implied to be 'so long ago'. D'oh!
I'd ask you to read the article first and point out the parts you think are bullshitFishyash said:
And they did, but the mechanics proved to difficult to implement because you lost control of shepard fully. With this theory they kept the idea but did it in a way requiring less time (less new mechanics).
xorinite said:
Again, not really arguing about the main story arc.xorinite said:
Shepard does see the child. I'm not sure I've said this to you (forgive me If I'm repeating) but the premise is that the child is never real. No one ever sees him, the scenes are deliberately staged so that it is Shepard alone who ever talk, sees, or interacts with the boy on any level.
Shepard doesn't know about Paragon or Renegade. The player does. Therefore the player sees the two colours and associates one of them with the 'bad ending'.
Actually, the Prothean appearance change is explained in the dlc I believe
But the analogy is not the same. I'm not claiming the whole game, or even a small part of it, was a dream. I'm saying one point, spanning about 12 minutes, with a definite end and definite beginning, are a dream. They contain the entirety of the inconsistency, and can easily and elegently be explain various other things that happen throughout the game.
Way I see it, I have 2 non-provable hypotheses:
1. The people who make mass effect suddenly forgot how to make mass effect.
2. The indoctrination theory.
The odds of the first are (I believe) very low compared to the odds of the other. hence my decision.
I skimmed through the article initially, and then after reading Bioware's comment, I have no doubt about the indoctrination. I'm also about to go to sleep so I am unwilling to read it in detail, and also... I decided to spoil the game for myself (I decided not to buy ME3 on release, and am considering not buying it alltogether at this very moment).SS2Dante said:I'd ask you to read the article first and point out the parts you think are bullshitFishyash said:
And they did, but the mechanics proved to difficult to implement because you lost control of shepard fully. With this theory they kept the idea but did it in a way requiring less time (less new mechanics).
But not everyone is willing to discuss or research an ending. There needs to be that closure at face value or they will feel betrayed. Especially for a story intensive trilogy like the Mass Effect series. It seems like the line was crossed, and they should have found a better way to show the ending.
So, while everything was seemingly laid out, it just didn't seem to come together at the final chapter. Definitely not enough for everyone to understand.
Good lord man, why would you be on this thread? I can never understand people choosing to spoil things for themselves.Fishyash said:I skimmed through the article initially, and then after reading Bioware's comment, I have no doubt about the indoctrination. I'm also about to go to sleep so I am unwilling to read it in detail, and also... I decided to spoil the game for myself (I decided not to buy ME3 on release, and am considering not buying it alltogether at this very moment).SS2Dante said:I'd ask you to read the article first and point out the parts you think are bullshitFishyash said:
And they did, but the mechanics proved to difficult to implement because you lost control of shepard fully. With this theory they kept the idea but did it in a way requiring less time (less new mechanics).
But not everyone is willing to discuss or research an ending. There needs to be that closure at face value or they will feel betrayed. Especially for a story intensive trilogy like the Mass Effect series. It seems like the line was crossed, and they should have found a better way to show the ending.
So, while everything was seemingly laid out, it just didn't seem to come together at the final chapter. Definitely not enough for everyone to understand.
Boredom mainly. I'm about to sleep, and since I lost interest in the mass effect series I decided to see what the commotion about the ending was about. Why I ended up not buying it is a seperate matter though.SS2Dante said:
Come to think of it, I seem to be drifting off topic already. I guess there isn't much for me to discuss about since I didn't play the final game.
The whole indoctrination theory smacks of conscpiracy theory-esque desperation; 'that awful ending couldn't be all there is to it, clearly there has to be some deeper meaning'.
Who is the Catalyst? An A.I. that is/created the Reapers.
How did Anderson get ahead of you on the citadel? He teleported to a different location, like he said.
How did the Illusive man get on the Citadel? He landed on it with a ship before it was closed. He could have been on it for quite a while for all we know.
why did Joker run away, how did your squadmates all end up on the Normandy from earth? The war was still unfolding on Earth while Shep was on the cit. Perhaps Alliance forces were retreating concidering they asumed hammer team had failed and the Normandy picked up the crew to evacuate earth.
Why isn't the galaxy destroyed by the mass relay explosions? It wasn't really an explosion, it created some sort of field that alterted the Reapers (or all living things depending on the ending). It wasn't a kinetic explosion of energy.
how did Joker survive the explosion to land on a planet? People crash land plans all the time after they take damage.
Also, (and this is key) the extra scene you get if you choose the destroy ending. What about it?
The moral of the story is that the literal ending makes perfect sense and there's no reason to believe there is any deeper meaning to it. You can do the 'well if this symbolizes this and that symbolizes', but at the end of the day there's no reason to believe that it's anything more than what we are seeing.
Who is the Catalyst? An A.I. that is/created the Reapers.
How did Anderson get ahead of you on the citadel? He teleported to a different location, like he said.
How did the Illusive man get on the Citadel? He landed on it with a ship before it was closed. He could have been on it for quite a while for all we know.
why did Joker run away, how did your squadmates all end up on the Normandy from earth? The war was still unfolding on Earth while Shep was on the cit. Perhaps Alliance forces were retreating concidering they asumed hammer team had failed and the Normandy picked up the crew to evacuate earth.
Why isn't the galaxy destroyed by the mass relay explosions? It wasn't really an explosion, it created some sort of field that alterted the Reapers (or all living things depending on the ending). It wasn't a kinetic explosion of energy.
how did Joker survive the explosion to land on a planet? People crash land plans all the time after they take damage.
Also, (and this is key) the extra scene you get if you choose the destroy ending. What about it?
The moral of the story is that the literal ending makes perfect sense and there's no reason to believe there is any deeper meaning to it. You can do the 'well if this symbolizes this and that symbolizes', but at the end of the day there's no reason to believe that it's anything more than what we are seeing.
An unexplained hand wave.dagens24 said:
Where? He says he's in a room that looks just like yours, but there are no other ways onto that final platform. it's a straight walk down one corridor.
The illusive man landed on the citadel, AFTER the failed cerburus coup and looking like a husk? Also, if he was there, why is he not dead or a full husk? He's useless as a tool if he's locked in the citadel.
It's stated several times that this mission is a succeed or die trying thing. Also, the timing of that doesn't work by a long shot.
It was. The relays overload and explode. The child states this.
Yeah, but where? he was doing a jump when he was hit. Either he's be NOWHERE near a planet, or he got out the jump, only to blown to shit by the relay explosion.
It's key because this theory states that you are unconcious in London, and the only way to wake up is to choose to fight (the red choice). And Tada, if you choose red, you get an extra scene of Shepard in dull grey rubble, waking up. It can't be true if literal, because the citadel explodes with Shepard on it. He/She's not even wearing a helmet.
I've answered these before. Please read the article and a few of the other posts.
Damnit, I was going to paraphrase Hanlon's razor >_<Zhukov said:
Eitherway, this theory leaves us between a rock and hard place:
Either they dropped the ball and produced one hell of an aweful ending to a brilliant trilogy, or they tried being, a, too clever for their own good and wrote a scene way too obscure for 99.9% of people to get and, b, too damn greedy by selling us the actual ending to the game later.