There was a theory back in ME2 that Shepard COULD have been rebuilt with experimental Reaper tech. Not sure how that hold up, but it's interesting to say the least.Vault101 said:
Mass Effect 3, Indoctrination theory (new and extended)
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
See the number one problem with the indoctrination theory is that if you had a low reputation meter (or whatever it's called) at the end you will only have the destroy option.Vault101 said:
Why would the Reapers give you the only option that lets you win? Especially since it's under the circumstances that you technically have the least amount of willpower.
If you got all three choices no matter what then I would be willing to except the theory as plausible.
I really wanted to believe that they had secretly been building towards this ending when I saw the first video. I wanted to believe their writers were geniuses.
But because of that one big flaw in the theory, I cannot believe it.
If this was actually the case and it created one super ending from two stories that I absolutely loved but was incredibly let down by their endings, I would literally cry with happiness.Mikeyfell said:
Fuck it. If their new ending content still doesn't make sense, I'm just gonna make my own ending in my head that will go along with yours.
if you have "low" galactic rediness..and destruction is your only option...does shepard "wake up" (you know the shot..shepard surround by concrete/rubble and a *gasp*..I haer that only happens if you choose destruction)Wakikifudge said:
because if he/she doesnt..then mabye that indicates shepard dies while in his/her reaper-fever dream, mabye from the indoctrination attempt itself or sraty enemies, injurys or god knows
wild guessing there..but still
You ONLY get the "Shepard's Alive" scene if you choose destruction AND have the sufficient amount of War Assets/Galactic Readiness.Vault101 said:
Really, indoctrination is just a way of softening the blow of the indescribably awful ending. It all comes down to Shepard's behavior and motivations.
If the savior of humanity blindly and unquestioningly follows the orders of an ancient AI and fucks over the galaxy, thats character defilement of the highest level. Especially when you consider that catalyst's reasoning that sentient life can't play nicely together was blown out of the water by Shepard's actions in the past three games.
However, if we take Shepard's actions as the result of Reaper indoctrination, then it exonerates Shepard. Instead of a moron who didn't think to question the creator of the omnicidal cosmic horrors, Shepard becomes a victim, a tragic hero who thought he was saving the galaxy when instead he was playing right into the Reapers' hands.
In the end, just what was going through Shepard's head when he stepped into those beams of light is immaterial. Whether a fool or a puppet, the horrific consequences of his actions still happened.
If the savior of humanity blindly and unquestioningly follows the orders of an ancient AI and fucks over the galaxy, thats character defilement of the highest level. Especially when you consider that catalyst's reasoning that sentient life can't play nicely together was blown out of the water by Shepard's actions in the past three games.
However, if we take Shepard's actions as the result of Reaper indoctrination, then it exonerates Shepard. Instead of a moron who didn't think to question the creator of the omnicidal cosmic horrors, Shepard becomes a victim, a tragic hero who thought he was saving the galaxy when instead he was playing right into the Reapers' hands.
In the end, just what was going through Shepard's head when he stepped into those beams of light is immaterial. Whether a fool or a puppet, the horrific consequences of his actions still happened.
If you have high galactic readiness and you choose destroy, Shepard will live. Destroy is the only option that defeats the Reapers according to the theory. So why is it that if you have a low galactic readiness, the destroy option is the only one you get? If the Reapers were really putting you in a forced dream where they give you multiple options (two resulting in them winning, destroy resulting in them losing) why would they on the low galactic readiness occasion only give you the choice that kills them?Vault101 said:
IT's a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Trying to bend the facts to fit some sort of truth that only you can see. Yes, it's a nice theory in that it explains why the ending sucked, but it's not the real ending and never will be. Why on earth would Bioware make such a cryptic story anyway? They couldn't even concieve of something this fucking complex.
The fact that someone has made an hour and a half documentary about this is incredibly sad, may I add. Whoever the creator of that video is needs to get a life, and a different hobby. MAybe a job. What a waste of human endeavour.
In summary - Indoctrination theory IS NOT THE REAL STORY. And if Bioware add it in the DLC, which I highly doubt and if they do I'll eat my Xbox, it's purely because of the people saying it's true and how it explains stuff. And then the people who first said it will think it's evidence that they were right.
The fact that someone has made an hour and a half documentary about this is incredibly sad, may I add. Whoever the creator of that video is needs to get a life, and a different hobby. MAybe a job. What a waste of human endeavour.
In summary - Indoctrination theory IS NOT THE REAL STORY. And if Bioware add it in the DLC, which I highly doubt and if they do I'll eat my Xbox, it's purely because of the people saying it's true and how it explains stuff. And then the people who first said it will think it's evidence that they were right.
but (as Ive just been told) even though destroy is the only option if you have "low" galatic readyness...you dont get to see shepard surviveWakikifudge said:
(If Im going to put on my tin foil hat) mabye thats saying for whatever reason not having high enough galactic readyness means shepard can't survive eather the indoctrination attempt istelf or the battle ranging on outside (mabye a brute steped on his/her head because there weren't enough forces to prevent that)
I did wonder as to why they would give you the destroy option in the first place if they are constructing this seaqunce...but perhaps because shepard is so strong willed he/she has to be carfully guided and they cant outright force the indoctrination, it is obvious that the starchild is "perseuding" you to choose synthasis/controll...and as I've said those options (particually synthasis) seem "correct" for a paragon or somwhat genre savvy player, eather way it all goes agaisnt the pattern weve played in game
STOP HAVING FUN GUYS!! SERIOUSLY!!razer17 said:
in all seriousness calling it "sad" is pretty arrogant...if thats sad then why are you on forums? why are any of us here? why do any of us do anything?
it doesnt actually matter if the theory is true or not, hell pretty much EVERYONE is saying "hey bioware! do this! seriously we don't care if you intended this or not just do it! are you listening bioware?!"
we arnt saying its true for sure, hell have you seen the amount of times I have said myself that its probably not true? it doesnt matter if its true or not..its facinating, so on behalf of the fans I sincerely apologise for us looking into thease things..really, because we shoudl all just curse bioware/EA and talk about how much they suck...as opoase to this I supose
It's not about not having fun, it's about the ridiculous lengths this guy has gone to. I'd say the same thing about other conspiracy theorists who make similar videos and writings, but about real life.Vault101 said:
I don't have an issue with doing videogame things. Hell, I do Let's Plays, a videogame blog, podcast and reviews, so it really isn't that I think just playing videogames, or doing further things with them, that is sad.
Onto the actual theory, I personally feel that Bioware has ruined the story. If they back track and then tack on the indoctrination theory and make that the official version of events, it will be even worse. It's too late, it's done, they can't just retroactively fix it. Not to mention that doing that would completely undermine the writers and the official company line that the ending was fine.
OK, that depends totally on our goal. What specifically do we want to accomplish with Shepard being indoctrinated? We want to fuck with the player, show how scary the Reapers really are, and foreshadow the fact that the organic/synthetic conflict is really the heart of the story. We have two ways of doing this: 1) foreshadow that Shepard isn't in full control of himself, and 2) manipulate the player to arrive at the same "organics and synthetics will always cause trouble" conclusion the Reapers want him to come to, shocking him when he gets to the ending, suddenly forcing him to wonder, did I really arrive at this conclusion through being reasonable, or was the game/the Reapers manipulating me all along?Vault101 said:
Off the top of my head:
1. Have Miranda tell Shepard, preferably in ME2 but at least in ME3, that the Illusive Man did have an opportunity to cross some wires in Shepard's brain. If it's in ME3, have her say that she spent the last few months sneaking into Cerberus facilities to find out if it's true or not, but found nothing. Still, she can't take being the only person who even suspects that something might be wrong, so she decides to tell him after all. But as there's no way of knowing for sure, all we can do is hope that she's wrong. But she should suggest an alternate motivation, so while we know SOMETHING is wrong, we have no idea what it is. For example, she might say that TIM possibly implanted a surveillance chip in Shepard's head, meaning he can see everything Shepard does. State over and over that humans are not capable of creating control chips. It's impossible, so Shepard has no reason to worry about that. (Doesn't mean the Reapers aren't capable of it, and TIM is using Reaper tech...)
2. Give the Quarians and Geth a bigger role, and make them even less reasonable. This will give players more incentive to be rude when they have the opportunity to be rude, making brokering a peace between the races even more difficult when it comes down to the wire. In the end, it should be more difficult to manage than it was in the final game.
3. Give Shepard an opportunity to convince other characters on his team that "organic vs. synth" is a very serious problem. Multiple opportunities (each of which can be ignored), and don't make any of them blatant "There goes wacky Shepard again!" moments. The Prothean is already on his side, which is really great for this. Garrus might start out as a skeptic, but let Shepard talk him into seeing the Geth for the threat they really are, especially since despite Legion's help, they were once again taken in by the Reapers. Very subtly shift the focus of Shepard's aggression from the Reapers to the Geth in these situations.
4. Dick around with the Paragon/Renegade options. There's a semi-explicit understanding that the blue option is always the heroic option. What we want to do, subtly, is have the game tell the player what to think. Use the blue option to make him do worse and worse things, or use the red option to make him do stuff that is targeted more and more specifically at the Geth and Quarians. In Vancouver, clicking top left should lead to Shepard saying "let's unite all the races and save the galaxy!" Over time it gets slowly worse and worse, until you get to London, where clicking top left should lead to Shepard saying "this iteration of the life cycle in the galaxy has failed, the best thing we can do now is give up our genetic code to the Reapers in the hopes that they can do something useful with it, meanwhile we need to move over and let some other organics have their day in the Sun, and hopefully they won't create any synthetics like we did. Our time is over. We should stop being selfish." The bottom left option might say, "The only way to defeat the Reapers is to beat them at their own game. Instead of throwing our lives away pointlessly, we can merge with them and keep our genetic code completely intact. One day, when someone in some other cycle does figure out how to beat them, they can extract us out. For now we have to do whatever it takes to survive."
In no way do I expect/want players to pick that "Paragon" or "Renegade" ending - they SHOULD realize how crazy it is - but the point is the Reapers are making it difficult for Shepard to distinguish between his own ideals and theirs. And if this isn't Shepard talking, at what point did Shepard stop having a voice? How much has he already done that was steered toward the Reapers' misguided goals?
This Paragon/Renegade option would be contrasted with a single regular talk on the right side of the screen saying something distinctly ignoble, like, "Our individuality is more important than anything else in the galaxy." Click that, you again get a choice of three similar to before. Select the non Par/Ren choice AGAIN, and you get just two options: Paragon and Renegade. This time REAL Paragon and Renegade options, because Shepard has finally succeeded at exerting his own will over the Reaper indoctrination. Neither of these two last options ends with Shepard dead, and both of them show and explain in detail what happens to Shepard, what happens to Garrus, EDI, Joker, Liara, Tali... eeeeverybody.
This is one way of making an indoctrination ending fit thematically and stylistically with the content of the entire game. It's bold and it makes a very concrete statement, none of the current vagueries. That said, I'm not convinced that it works in the context of the first two games. On the one hand, it would have been a very interesting way to send off the current generation of simplistic dialogue wheels and morality systems, in preparation for adopting more complex, more intricate systems that allow us to express ourselves even better through our avatars. It would have made the Reapers seem even more formidable, and allowed a Shepard who doesn't blindly click blue/red to stay true to who he is.
On the other hand, it STILL takes control away from the player in a certain way despite the first two games not really doing any of that. I mean, it wouldn't necessarily be any worse than the auto-dialogue already is, and people have been able to largely overlook that feature. And it would be thematically meaningful. But still, I'm wary of doing something in the final installment of a trilogy that has such irrevocable effects.
1. Have Miranda tell Shepard, preferably in ME2 but at least in ME3, that the Illusive Man did have an opportunity to cross some wires in Shepard's brain. If it's in ME3, have her say that she spent the last few months sneaking into Cerberus facilities to find out if it's true or not, but found nothing. Still, she can't take being the only person who even suspects that something might be wrong, so she decides to tell him after all. But as there's no way of knowing for sure, all we can do is hope that she's wrong. But she should suggest an alternate motivation, so while we know SOMETHING is wrong, we have no idea what it is. For example, she might say that TIM possibly implanted a surveillance chip in Shepard's head, meaning he can see everything Shepard does. State over and over that humans are not capable of creating control chips. It's impossible, so Shepard has no reason to worry about that. (Doesn't mean the Reapers aren't capable of it, and TIM is using Reaper tech...)
2. Give the Quarians and Geth a bigger role, and make them even less reasonable. This will give players more incentive to be rude when they have the opportunity to be rude, making brokering a peace between the races even more difficult when it comes down to the wire. In the end, it should be more difficult to manage than it was in the final game.
3. Give Shepard an opportunity to convince other characters on his team that "organic vs. synth" is a very serious problem. Multiple opportunities (each of which can be ignored), and don't make any of them blatant "There goes wacky Shepard again!" moments. The Prothean is already on his side, which is really great for this. Garrus might start out as a skeptic, but let Shepard talk him into seeing the Geth for the threat they really are, especially since despite Legion's help, they were once again taken in by the Reapers. Very subtly shift the focus of Shepard's aggression from the Reapers to the Geth in these situations.
4. Dick around with the Paragon/Renegade options. There's a semi-explicit understanding that the blue option is always the heroic option. What we want to do, subtly, is have the game tell the player what to think. Use the blue option to make him do worse and worse things, or use the red option to make him do stuff that is targeted more and more specifically at the Geth and Quarians. In Vancouver, clicking top left should lead to Shepard saying "let's unite all the races and save the galaxy!" Over time it gets slowly worse and worse, until you get to London, where clicking top left should lead to Shepard saying "this iteration of the life cycle in the galaxy has failed, the best thing we can do now is give up our genetic code to the Reapers in the hopes that they can do something useful with it, meanwhile we need to move over and let some other organics have their day in the Sun, and hopefully they won't create any synthetics like we did. Our time is over. We should stop being selfish." The bottom left option might say, "The only way to defeat the Reapers is to beat them at their own game. Instead of throwing our lives away pointlessly, we can merge with them and keep our genetic code completely intact. One day, when someone in some other cycle does figure out how to beat them, they can extract us out. For now we have to do whatever it takes to survive."
In no way do I expect/want players to pick that "Paragon" or "Renegade" ending - they SHOULD realize how crazy it is - but the point is the Reapers are making it difficult for Shepard to distinguish between his own ideals and theirs. And if this isn't Shepard talking, at what point did Shepard stop having a voice? How much has he already done that was steered toward the Reapers' misguided goals?
This Paragon/Renegade option would be contrasted with a single regular talk on the right side of the screen saying something distinctly ignoble, like, "Our individuality is more important than anything else in the galaxy." Click that, you again get a choice of three similar to before. Select the non Par/Ren choice AGAIN, and you get just two options: Paragon and Renegade. This time REAL Paragon and Renegade options, because Shepard has finally succeeded at exerting his own will over the Reaper indoctrination. Neither of these two last options ends with Shepard dead, and both of them show and explain in detail what happens to Shepard, what happens to Garrus, EDI, Joker, Liara, Tali... eeeeverybody.
This is one way of making an indoctrination ending fit thematically and stylistically with the content of the entire game. It's bold and it makes a very concrete statement, none of the current vagueries. That said, I'm not convinced that it works in the context of the first two games. On the one hand, it would have been a very interesting way to send off the current generation of simplistic dialogue wheels and morality systems, in preparation for adopting more complex, more intricate systems that allow us to express ourselves even better through our avatars. It would have made the Reapers seem even more formidable, and allowed a Shepard who doesn't blindly click blue/red to stay true to who he is.
On the other hand, it STILL takes control away from the player in a certain way despite the first two games not really doing any of that. I mean, it wouldn't necessarily be any worse than the auto-dialogue already is, and people have been able to largely overlook that feature. And it would be thematically meaningful. But still, I'm wary of doing something in the final installment of a trilogy that has such irrevocable effects.
If I could summarize my wandering thoughts, I would say that even though an indoctrination ending is absolutely possible to get right in a way that is meaningful and consistent with the rest of the game (although it takes EFFORT and lots of painstaking foreshadowing), even if you get that far, it doesn't mean it was automatically great. If the first two games didn't do it, it's still anyone's guess whether you'll execute it perfectly, whether people will respond positively...
A reasonable question at this time would be "what ending was ME3 meant to have, based on the way ME1-3 were written and designed?" Cut the London missions as they are, they're crap. Replace them with something like the Suicide Mission, but five times more epic. Every single surviving character comes in to bail you out. Every single race you got on your side flies in with their fleet to draw the Reapers off your back. Every loyalty (or not) pays off, every surviving character pays off, all your big and small decisions pay off, over a single 2-hour extravaganza. You run up the Citadel, same confrontation between Anderson and TIM, you get to the control room and we get the original Dark Energy ending. Paragon - screw you, we'll try our own thing. Renegade - screw you, we'll try our own thing. Other - let's join with you guys in the hopes that it does something. Then you have a 10 minute reunion with everyone who survived, and a lengthy epilogue, final shot is of scary space with Dark Energy that'll eventually come for us, hope we get a solution. Unless you joined with the Reapers, in which case you get a lengthy epilogue saying how 500 years later they devised some chemical reaction and saved the galaxy, cut to: some single-celled organisms splitting into two-celled ones on a planet that will never know the danger of Dark Energy. Optimistic and happy. Our sacrifice was not in vain.
That's the ending ME3 needed to have.
the fuck?.....people go to extreme lengths to play videogames..speding thousands of dollars on rigs pre-ordering, taking sick days off work they put time and efforting to film themselfs playing then entirty of a game, they make machima, fan-art erotic fan fic...should I critcise them becuase I think its rediculous?razer17 said:
ALL he has done is gathered together all the main points made in favor of IT and assesed weather or not they seem credible, he debunked a few (like the trees post-harbinger lazer) he's also added a few new ones (the piles of bodies)
[quote/] I'd say the same thing about other conspiracy theorists who make similar videos and writings, but about real life.
I don't have an issue with doing videogame things. Hell, I do Let's Plays, a videogame blog, podcast and reviews, so it really isn't that I think just playing videogames, or doing further things with them, that is sad. [/quote]
does this guy look angry/crazy/dead serious to you? is he sitting there with a tin foil hat yelling about the government or the aliens? its just some guy making a video about somthing hes passionate about..about somthign harmless..about somthing interesting
its not even a conspiricy theory, its an interpretation an anlysis
the line youve drawn between "sad" and "acceptible" is fucking stupid....its abrtrairy, its your god damn opinion
do I call the nostalga critic sad because he makes videos ripping apart old movies? no , thats his thing his videos are for entertaiment , same with he AVGN andf same with indoctrination theory..its not different from your podcasts/reveiws, and your lets plays
"who the fuck videos themslefs playing a game and expcts people to watch that?"<- see I can do it too (not my opinion)
its about as rational as me saying "COD is awsome!..but RPG's? pfft those are for losers with no lives!!"
gaming sites, videos thats what all this is all about,its just fucking entertainment...apologies if its not a lets play or a reveiw...should we also disaprove of parodys and funny videos?
[quote/]Onto the actual theory, I personally feel that Bioware has ruined the story. If they back track and then tack on the indoctrination theory and make that the official version of events, it will be even worse. It's too late, it's done, they can't just retroactively fix it. Not to mention that doing that would completely undermine the writers and the official company line that the ending was fine.[/quote]
Bioware are NOT changing the ending...indoctrination theory does not require them to change anything..thats the entire point of IT...
thats what they said...Im just wating to see what they come up with, because Im honestly really interested to see what they can do with a few poxy cutscenes if the ending is to be taken at face value
Yes, but this video wasn't made by BioWare. It's a fan-made breakdown of the ending. I see nothing odd about it being longer.x EvilErmine x said:
STOP HAVING FUN GUYS! (I know Ive already said that..)poiumty said:
in all seriousness though...its just an interpretation an analyisis..other than being sick of hearing about ME3 for the past few months I don;t get why people are so hostile
liek I said to the other guy..how is this any different to a reveiw, a lets play or a funny video? this IS different, we arnt sitting here preaching about the underground reptile people or how jesus was a protheain
Okay, so I watched all but the last 5 minutes of that video. I found him to be as irritating as some of the worst of the pro-Mass Effect ending crowd. He displayed a number of misunderstandings of the lore and a number of logical falicies. For the latter, a particular favorite of his was circular logic - at several points he raised the following as proof for Indoctrination theory:Vault101 said:
Just my 2 credits.Paraphrased Video said:
Thank you Vault, I appreciate being sent the video. I do think he was wasting our time though.
Oh lordy that is a long video... I could watch a movie in that time. I'm already fairly convinced that the IT is true or on the right track. The theory has problems, but there is some evidence for it that is extremely convincing that I haven't ever heard explained away by its critics. We just have to wait and see, everything is speculation at this point.
The only thing worse than making another ME3 post, is the Masshole that spent 90 minutes blabbing about the Indoctrination Theory. They cry because they spent 100 hours playing and sculpting their story only to have it destroyed in minutes, so instead of cutting their losses and moving on they spend another 100 crying about it. Like playing another game already!! Jesus Christ.....
For one: snip parts of my quote for space. Repeating my talking to Vault is irrelevant and only serves to clutter up the thread.TomLikesGuitar said:
For two: for the love of all that is holy, get off your high horse. You're getting a nosebleed.
Because guess what?
I can tell by your comments that you didn't actually read my post.[footnote]A cursory glance, yes, but not too much more.[/footnote]
You say that I said something that I never said.[footnote]Look at the bolded portion. I am only paraphrasing something said only a few times. You say that I was us[/footnote]
So if you actually read it and are willing to admit your comments were incorrect, I'll debate the video for a moment longer and the Theory all day if you like, but otherwise you're not giving it a fair shot.
Zen Toombs said:
If you read the italiciced part, you'd notice that I have a distaste for those who think that the ending to Mass Effect 3 was glorious and wonderful (like Casey Hudson does). This implies that I am not your enemy, but you seem to be convinced that I am. On the contrary, I'm a huge fan of Indoctrination theory. I'm only not a fan of the video maker.
If you read the bolded part, you would notice that I said "several points" which means at more than one point. I recall noticing the basic form I mentioned being used at least at two points. He did not always use that form of logic, and he brought up a number of good points. I will argue that all of those points have been brought up better by others, but that is neither here nor there.
Please do not slander me, and please actually read the posts you are commenting on. Finally, please do not be hostile to others if you do not want hostilities directed at you.
If you read the bolded part, you would notice that I said "several points" which means at more than one point. I recall noticing the basic form I mentioned being used at least at two points. He did not always use that form of logic, and he brought up a number of good points. I will argue that all of those points have been brought up better by others, but that is neither here nor there.
Please do not slander me, and please actually read the posts you are commenting on. Finally, please do not be hostile to others if you do not want hostilities directed at you.