We are not trying to make it better. Nothing will make it better. We are trying to understand it. If your only goal is to be angry, you can do it somewhere else.Zeel said:
This exchange is over.
ME3 Indoctrination theory analysis
- Thread starter Adam Jensen_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This exchange is over.
HAHAHAHA I'm not sure that's exactly how it went, but pretty funny nonetheless.Zeel said:
OP: I believe that there definitely is weight to this whole indoctrination theory, but that doesn't change the fact that there's no satisfying conclusions whatsoever and that we have to buy dlc to get the full ending. DEVELOPERS FINISH YOUR GAMES! I like expansions, but this is utterly ridiculous and the absolute tipping point for me into all the dlc problems that have plagued this industry.
According to this info (if it's legit) the DLC will be free: http://i.imgur.com/xjXdX.pngNeotericity said:
I doubt it, but without hope we may as well be machines, right?
Sadly, I don't really like this theory. I mean, yeah it can work, but there isn't exactly a lot of foreshadowing for it in the game to support this (unless of course they add some in with DLC and make the Indoctrination an Ending).
Indoctrination was never some big dream sequence of a battle of wills; it simply made people sway to the Reaper side, and they would almost never know it. Sure, hearing voices or seeing something move on the wall when nothing is there would be probably signs, but having a whole Dream like event happen? Seems to slightly go against what has been established. Characters have shown being able to resist, but they always knew that the Reapers were pressing onto their minds and tried to stop them. Benezia from ME1 and Paul Grayson from the novels are prime examples.
Ugh, I'm having a real hard time trying to get my thoughts down correctly. Basically, a battle of wills against the Reapers Indoctrination or Harbinger himself I don't mind. However, I don't believe thinking it starts right when Harbinger fires his laser at you is the right way to go about it; nor thinking that the Reapers are tricking you with the 3 big choices. I would see it similar to the Morinth situation in ME2, where she tries to convince you to have meld with her and you have to pass Renegade/Paragon checks. Indoctrination would sort of be like that, though considering it is Reapers and not an Asari Vampire, it would probably be different.
I mean, there is nothing that says we can't have a level where we fight manifestations of Harbinger or other Reapers in the confines of our own mind, using the memories of what we have done so far like our choices and reactions to our friends as "ammo" for our weapon as we kick their ass as we work out way to try and make the Crucible work.
Again, sorry if I don't make sense. What I'm trying to say is that while I'm not AGAINST the idea, I just don't think it works given with what's currently been established, as well as what's in ME3 at the present time.
Indoctrination was never some big dream sequence of a battle of wills; it simply made people sway to the Reaper side, and they would almost never know it. Sure, hearing voices or seeing something move on the wall when nothing is there would be probably signs, but having a whole Dream like event happen? Seems to slightly go against what has been established. Characters have shown being able to resist, but they always knew that the Reapers were pressing onto their minds and tried to stop them. Benezia from ME1 and Paul Grayson from the novels are prime examples.
Ugh, I'm having a real hard time trying to get my thoughts down correctly. Basically, a battle of wills against the Reapers Indoctrination or Harbinger himself I don't mind. However, I don't believe thinking it starts right when Harbinger fires his laser at you is the right way to go about it; nor thinking that the Reapers are tricking you with the 3 big choices. I would see it similar to the Morinth situation in ME2, where she tries to convince you to have meld with her and you have to pass Renegade/Paragon checks. Indoctrination would sort of be like that, though considering it is Reapers and not an Asari Vampire, it would probably be different.
I mean, there is nothing that says we can't have a level where we fight manifestations of Harbinger or other Reapers in the confines of our own mind, using the memories of what we have done so far like our choices and reactions to our friends as "ammo" for our weapon as we kick their ass as we work out way to try and make the Crucible work.
Again, sorry if I don't make sense. What I'm trying to say is that while I'm not AGAINST the idea, I just don't think it works given with what's currently been established, as well as what's in ME3 at the present time.
I just recalled that the "Bringing down the sky" DLC was entirely free and it was just as big as most DLC for ME2 (Lair of the Shadow Broker excluded)... You know, just to fuel the hope of a free DLC to revisit the ending in a proper way.
Captcha: oh yes.
Captcha: oh yes.
It's called "Bringing down the Sky", and "The Normandy Crashsite", you stupid insect.Zeel said:
http://www.thevine.com.au/life/tech/mass-effect-3-and-the-ending-debacle20120314.aspx
When you read all those twitter responses in a row it's pretty easy to let the speculative part of your brain go crazy.
I still say it's a long shot, but the fact I'm willing to entertain the idea at all shows how compelling the whole thing is.
When you read all those twitter responses in a row it's pretty easy to let the speculative part of your brain go crazy.
I still say it's a long shot, but the fact I'm willing to entertain the idea at all shows how compelling the whole thing is.
I'm not sure but I think that you get either the control or destroy ending depending on what choice you made at the end of ME2, if you have to few War Assets.Da Orky Man said:
During the Illusive Man conversation, indoctrination is obviously trying to taking place.
But what keeps me sceptical about this theory is the middle option. You need 2,800 war assets to get it, so it's a "reward" for doing well, but how exactly does it fit in this theory? It's the next best thing to Shepard surviving war assets-wise, so clearly preferable to destroy-but-Shepard-dies.
Might also be that I'm biased. You've got a very clear choise of going the way of the Illusive man or Cpt. Anderson ...until you mention the possibility of just fixing everything with green space-magic. I was very weary of indoctrination and doubting the legitimacy of the control option until that whole symbiosis thing totally sidetracked me. Not that the ending of Beast Machines really fits into the ME universe anyways.
But what keeps me sceptical about this theory is the middle option. You need 2,800 war assets to get it, so it's a "reward" for doing well, but how exactly does it fit in this theory? It's the next best thing to Shepard surviving war assets-wise, so clearly preferable to destroy-but-Shepard-dies.
Might also be that I'm biased. You've got a very clear choise of going the way of the Illusive man or Cpt. Anderson ...until you mention the possibility of just fixing everything with green space-magic. I was very weary of indoctrination and doubting the legitimacy of the control option until that whole symbiosis thing totally sidetracked me. Not that the ending of Beast Machines really fits into the ME universe anyways.
Well, I've been trying not to hold out too much hope for this theory until I see some conformation from some kind of authority. But I will say a lot of it fits, especially for an internet theory. The current endings are just so... empty, and are so full of holes that it really does seem like someone deliberately tried to make it seem unreal.
That said, as Godawful as the endings are, I won't consider it to be the end of the world, or even the ruination of the game/franchise. The fact is, all things considered, I still love the game. Yes, the endings suck, so very very hard, but that really is the ONLY thing I didn't love about the game, and the previous two installments are brilliant too, so I refuse to let the ending, as retarded as it is, overshadow all the good there is across the three games. I hope they will be some twist of fate that gives the franchise the ending it deserves, but if there isn't I can make peace with that.
*hold me Liara :'(
That said, as Godawful as the endings are, I won't consider it to be the end of the world, or even the ruination of the game/franchise. The fact is, all things considered, I still love the game. Yes, the endings suck, so very very hard, but that really is the ONLY thing I didn't love about the game, and the previous two installments are brilliant too, so I refuse to let the ending, as retarded as it is, overshadow all the good there is across the three games. I hope they will be some twist of fate that gives the franchise the ending it deserves, but if there isn't I can make peace with that.
*hold me Liara :'(
Adam Jensen said:
As much as I want indoctrination endings to be true, I don't buy this argument. If you choose destroy, EDI and all the geth die as well as the reapers. If you control, no one dies. Not even the "stored life" in the reapers. Having them correspond to TIM and Anderson the way they did might suggest that everything's mixed up, but I think it's more likely that bioware were just trying to make something not quite so ostensibly paragon or renegade.
For me, the biggest factor is the breath following the destroy ending. Provided that is in in fact shepard, and not some random other marine, that would mean that he destroyed the citadel, it exploded with him on top of it, he then fell to earth, and was covered by rubble. There is ABSOLUTELY no way that he could survive this. Yes, it's shepard, and yes he's been killed before, but think about it. If somehow he suvives the explosion from the citadel, he then has to go through reentry into earths atmosphere, he then has to survive the imapact with the ground. And then he has to surivive the impact from all the rubble. Not to mention he's already almost dead. That's a defining point for me. If it somehow plays into a further explanation, then sneaky bioware, but well played. If not, then it just demonstrates the crappy writing in the last few minutes.
That was the part that really made me think there might be some substance to this theory. If what the 'Catalyst' tells you is true, then there should be absolutely no hope of survival, no matter what option you choose. So how come you can (seemingly) survive the Destroy ending is your war assets are high enough? Plus, in the end cutscene, you see the Citadel get wreathed in fire and break up. Shepard, right in the epicenter, already mortally wounded and with his armor destroyed, would have absolutely no chance of surviving that right, unless it wasn't actually happening?hazabaza1 said:
Edit: "see red" OK, these weirdly topical captcha's are now starting to freak me the fuck out! How the hell are they doing this?
I'm all for the indoctrination theory as me and a friend have been talking about the possibility between the paragon/renegade choices, endings and the child being simply a hallucination. Also when you consider, in my ending at least, none of the companions I went with died in the end and ended up on the normandy when it was stranded.Adam Jensen said:
I also like to bring up the possibility that when shepard got hit with the laser in the end, it knocked him unconscious where he experienced a coma like dream which is where the ending comes from. Each choice represents the strength of Shepards will to resist the Reaper indoctrination. Control and synthesis both being, essentially, what the reapers wanted, where destroy represents the repears failure to break his will. Also when you get the "real" ending for having a high galactic readiness, shepard wakes up in the rubble. Now what does this mean? does it mean that everything was destroyed or is he simply waking up from the blast he took on earth and the reapers actually won?
it's EA, they would, you know they would. they don't respect the intelligence of they're customers at all, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did.xorinite said: