tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post7208173528626269828..comments2014-09-09T22:45:29.364-05:00Comments on Ways of the World: Dissecting Indoctrination Theory (Mass Effect 3)- Martin -http://www.blogger.com/profile/03662522456246487211noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-15204957933391434312013-12-08T21:35:02.039-06:002013-12-08T21:35:02.039-06:00It was actually the exact way with my character. W...It was actually the exact way with my character. What's more, even before you choose during his conversation with the Star Child, his eyes are a slight bluish color. Choosing either Control or Sythesis makes them a deeper blue while Destroy makes them their original color. This takes place even after the updated version with the extended cut and final dlc making it difficult to believe that BW just decided not to fix that. <br /><br />As far as the arrival dlc on ME2, Dr. Kenson was a physical entity meaning that her physical eyes would not have changed due to no cybernetic implants being placed inside her body. In the final scenario with Shepard, if the IT is to be believed, this is taking place in Shepard's mind where it is meant to symbolize the indoctrination from the reapers. <br /><br />Standard Eye Color (default brown) = No control <br />Light/ "Brilliant" Blue Color = Increased control <br />"Full" or "Deep" Blue Color = Full Control<br /><br />Considering after the game's release and all the dlc patches that have come out, if this was an error on BW, it should have been dealt in some point and makes no sense that it wasn't considering actual dialogue as well as cutscenes were added and changed multiple times. <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-71223368859342968802012-10-29T16:52:47.732-05:002012-10-29T16:52:47.732-05:00The newt character though is not at all the same, ...The newt character though is not at all the same, it is a child that has been surviving for god knows how long on it's own in a pit of monsters which had left her detached and emotionless. The ME3 child was alone the entire time and exhibited very directed and manipulative behaviours. Everything the ME3 child did was directed at Sheppard and at no other character.<br /><br />And that is just ignoring the fact altogether that the entire game started and ended with the same unusual child - toying with Sheppard. The lack of interaction is unusual for ME3, the animators almost always show characters interacting with one another and helping one another... to suddenly leave that kind of interaction out can't be an accident, especially when it involves a helpless child.<br /><br />And why is a kid hanging around a command center with no supervision on the eve of an alien assault? All signs point to him being not really there other than in Sheppard's head from the start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-4912747798069304222012-05-30T13:49:53.714-05:002012-05-30T13:49:53.714-05:00To your three points:
1. The boy is real. There&#...To your three points:<br /><br />1. The boy is real. There's no really good reason to think otherwise. The Catalyst chooses the image of the child that has been haunting Shepard's dreams, because it is the goal of the Catalyst to convince Shepard to choose synthesis. In other words, the Catalyst dug into Shepard's mind, found the image that would have the greatest emotional impact, and went with it. It also, stepping out of the game, provides some nice imagery.<br /><br />2. The radio chatter calls for a regroup. If Shepard and Anderson could survive when everyone else has died, it doesn't seem to be too big a stretch to assume that the other squadmates also survived. Harbinger was sloppy; I think he was distracted by the armada of spaceships trying to stop him from doing what he very nearly did. So, the survivors of your squad fall back to the Normandy, which then joins the fleet. Moving to get away, it jumps to light speed, only to be overtaken by the Crucible explosion. The planet is some uncharted planet near to Earth - over and over we hear that the Galaxy Map is incomplete.<br /><br />3. On the Citadel. OK, the rubble looks more like what you would find in destroyed London than what you would find in the destroyed Citadel. But in the background of the Shepard breathing in video is the distinct sound of creaking. I think it's the sound of the backbone of the Citadel straining against forces it simply has never faced before.<br /><br />I don't buy the ID. And nothing in the ending seemed overly mysterious to me. Not explicitly spelled out, which is a bit of a switch for the ME games, but not incomprehensible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-74268542403893478832012-05-19T17:41:22.148-05:002012-05-19T17:41:22.148-05:00That video doesn't do much for me. I was real...That video doesn't do much for me. I was really excited when I first started watching it because it appears to be really well done. However, the vast majority of it is more IT conjecture. Making giant assertions that don't have actual proof that shape the rest of the entire IT theory. Yes, there a few good points (stacks of dead bodies by the Citadel beam, caution signs by the child), but it's mostly wild conjecture. For instance, saying the StarChild left "angrily" when you choose the destroy option is silly.- Martin -https://www.blogger.com/profile/03662522456246487211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-9508417324098327652012-05-19T16:08:36.928-05:002012-05-19T16:08:36.928-05:00http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caAqFFhBn2U
I'...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caAqFFhBn2U<br /><br />I've been wavering in and out of believing IT, but until something beats this mammoth movie, IT looks more promising to meAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-17517595834708459342012-04-14T16:44:49.984-05:002012-04-14T16:44:49.984-05:00Great read, Martin. Kept me more entertained for 2...Great read, Martin. Kept me more entertained for 20 minutes than the Indoctrination Theory video :D. At least I wasn't yelling at the screen. <br /><br />I think a lot the people that look very deeply into Mass Effect 3 are forgetting that at the end of the day its still a videogame, and that means limits within the real world due to time and budget concerns of the developer.<br /><br />You can very easily find yourself reading deeply into something that was just a byproduct of the game development process. Do you remember the MSV Cornucopia in Mass Effect 2? Did you know the cargo hold is exactly the same as Space Station Sigma-23 in the mission UNC: Depot Sigma-23? If you looked too deeply into that you might start making random theories about random things, making connections where there are none. When the actual answer is that they reused the environment for a different level because this saves time and effort on the part of the developer and map designers. They likely changed it enough so that you probably didn't even notice when you were playing.<br /><br />This also applies for one of the satellite supporting facts that the Indoctrination Theory uses: That the trees around the beam are the ones in his dreams: You also don't need to pay an artist and modeller to make a million different trees unless its absolutely essential to the plotline or you've got money and time in development to burn. They needed a tree asset, they had some made already from the dream sequence, so they used those same ones. It's pretty cut-and-dry.<br /><br />As for the Boy, I'm fairly certain he was real.<br />Unfortunately throughout the game what should have been a gentle tug in Shepard's mind was used by the writers like a cudgle; you are beat, repeatedly in the face by the fact that the death of this kid is an issue for Shepard; an emotional hook.<br /><br />The pre-launch Mass Effect 3 marketing materials made a very big deal of "some people are going to die, you can't save everyone." This has actually been a running theme throughout Mass Effect. Mass Effect 1 saw a trailer where you're receiving a distress call from two planets and Shep has to make the decision on where to go. They took that concept a step further in Mass Effect 2 but they very obviously wanted it to resonate in Mass Effect 3; The dream sequences are like the cudgel; "Did you forget that Shep feels bad for not saving that kid? Here's another reminder!" *whack*.<br /><br />The Star Child likely takes the form of the kid due to it being a hook in Shep's mind. Have you ever seen Contact? Shit I hope you did because I just basically gave away the ending; but anyways, the Star Child sequence would make a whole lot more sense if you watch Contact. Another example: Why did Shepard see the Quarians in their enviro suits when he was being relayed the memories of the Morning War? Because that was how his brain could construct the events in his mind's eye. He didn't know at that point what a Quarian looks like outside of the Envirosuits so his mind filled in the blanks. I think we're seeing a similar theme here with the Star Child. The AI/VI/whateverItIs just chose to project itself as the child. Why not a family member or maybe a romantic interest like Liara? Because that wouldn't of continued to push the whole "didn't save the kid" plot the game plagues with you dream sequences over.<br /><br />That singular ventilation duct scene with the kid was nothing but a vehicle to establish the existence of the kid and Shep's attempt to save him, thus laying the framework for the entire plotline I outlined above. I wholly reject the notion that Anderson didn't see or hear the kid. You did a great job of picking apart the specifics. There's just too much conjecture there on the part of the Theory.Diffusion9noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-36096020754393883872012-04-13T15:29:19.652-05:002012-04-13T15:29:19.652-05:00TIM's eyes were a result of cybernetic implant...TIM's eyes were a result of cybernetic implants, they were the result of him being partially indoctrinated back in Mass Effect: Evolution. Before he became the TIM, Jack Harper was a mercenary. This team encountered a reaper object that transformed one of his teammates into a husk-like creature when his teammate touched the object. TIM grabbed the man's hand to pull him away from the reaper artifact, but in doing so, he got huskified partially as a side effect. His eyes changed, but his mind seemed intact.<br /><br />It's a subtle hint that indoctrination can happen quickly and slowly. TIM's indoctrination just took a few decades to fully explode out, esp. after he had more reaper technology purposely implanted into him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-75362690105010395972012-04-06T05:00:42.563-05:002012-04-06T05:00:42.563-05:00The child is acting just like Newt from Aliens. Sh...The child is acting just like Newt from Aliens. She was a right bundle of laughs and was unconvinced that Ripley could help her (when they first met). Newt and GodBoy had the same flat delivery.<br /><br />So that part wasn't unusual it was cliché.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-49796101846439704822012-04-02T11:09:07.981-05:002012-04-02T11:09:07.981-05:00The pattern in TIM's eyes are from cybernetic ...The pattern in TIM's eyes are from cybernetic implants, not Indoctrination. Shepard also has lots of cybernetic implants, his eyes most likely being included(like TIM's). I think it could be argued that the eye color and patterns shown are due to his cybernetic implants being revealed when selecting the control/synth options and becoming basically cooked alive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-91681072981984020252012-03-31T03:08:32.733-05:002012-03-31T03:08:32.733-05:00That's a very good point about the eyes, I com...That's a very good point about the eyes, I completely overlooked that you can make Shrpard's whatever color you want. Did your character's brown eyes change color at the end then? How do you explain Dr. Kenson's yellow, non patterned eyes in The Arrival DLC?- Martin -https://www.blogger.com/profile/03662522456246487211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-11862327960065371792012-03-31T03:00:51.760-05:002012-03-31T03:00:51.760-05:00About the eyes though - it is not just the colour ...About the eyes though - it is not just the colour of TIM's eyes that have significance, it's the pattern. At the end Shepard seems to have the same pattern, and colour. I read the argument about the eyes not having to be a specific colour, but the pattern does seem weird. This article also says that the colour of Shepard eyes do not change, as the control/synthesis options merely highlight his 'brilliant blue eyes'. This is simply not true, as you can choose Shepard's eye colour at the beginning of the game - you may have had a Shepard with blue eyes; mine had brown eyes. This is not concrete proof for IT, but I cannot find another way to explain it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-724346282861827782012-03-29T20:48:14.102-05:002012-03-29T20:48:14.102-05:00First of all, I think that IT fits perfectly well ...First of all, I think that IT fits perfectly well within the story arc of all 3 games. One point that doesn't seem to get discussed too often is: Why would Shepard be immune to Indoctrination? S/He has been exposed to more reapers and reaper tech than any other person in all 3 games combined (except maybe TIM, and he was pretty clearly indoctrinated). Wouldn't it then make perfect sense that one of his final battles with the reapers is the one for his own mind? That would push my Shepard to an entirely different level of badass, being the one and only organic life form to resist reaper indoctrination. <br /><br />Also, why is it so hard to understand that just because BW left this ending open ended (or unsatisfying as the case may be), that doesn't mean that they left the whole story with a crappy collection of endings? Unlike movies and books in print, BW has the ability to modify their work of art at any time they choose to. The sixth sense could not have gotten away with a gotcha ending and released the "real" ending as a 5 or 10 minute clip to be downloaded later (hey hope movie producers aren't reading this...that would be a terrible idea lol). BW can and will I suspect, although the only thing that would make it bad in my mind would be to charge for the "Truth" DLC ending that they will certainly release. If they charged for the true ending, then they did actually sell everyone an incomplete game. If IT is correct then the last thing we know (if chosen properly) is that Shepard has awoken from his mental battle and can now progress to destroy the reapers, for realz this time. I also think that if BW did construct their story in this way, they are brilliant. Just the fact that the interwebz has been on fire with hate over the ending to their game is praise enough...obviously more than a few people were so emotionally involved with this video game that the outcry was almost as loud and united as the SOAP/PIPA issue recently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-45922116318554936612012-03-28T15:30:00.717-05:002012-03-28T15:30:00.717-05:00Thank you for this! I too am fascinated by this th...Thank you for this! I too am fascinated by this theory but there is no question in my mind that people are grasping for straws here. My main point is that this theory assumes that Bioware knowingly shipped an incomplete ending. No company in there right mind would do that. <br /><br />After reading the original leaked script where they call the child the "guardian". It unfortunately seems as they were rushed and got lazy with a few things leading to a bad ending. Confirmed by the Final Hours app where they admit they waiting until November to get Mr. Sheen's voice recorded. Occam's razor at its finest.S.http://masseffect3.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-5434570924744259422012-03-27T04:27:49.950-05:002012-03-27T04:27:49.950-05:00Thanks for musings, I'm glad to see I'm no...Thanks for musings, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who doesn't like ID. It's too cute, too contrived and too out of pace with the rest of the story arc. If ID is true, it isn't awesome - it's a case of bad storytelling. Think of works of fiction with similar endings - they are all foreshadowed throughout the work. Sixth Sense, Jacob's Ladder, An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, Blade Runner (Director's Cut, that is)... these all heavily foreshadow their ending from the start. Where is the foreshadowing in ME2? In the first game? Perhaps ID theorists will find a way to shoehorn bits of the older games into it but it won't make ID fit Mass Effect's style. It simply doesn't fit the type of story Mass Effect has been developing.<br /><br />Indoctrination Theory displays classic conspiracy theory logic - what we have doesn't make sense, so ID MUST be true. You could just face the fact that Bioware cocked up the ending just like they cocked up Dragon Age 2's ending, because they suck at tying up loose ends.J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-71889057768476718222012-03-26T21:06:44.204-05:002012-03-26T21:06:44.204-05:00The child next appears in dream sequences. We see ...The child next appears in dream sequences. We see shadowy figures throughout the dreams, a few park benches as well (not sure what these mean). And what happens when Shepard reaches the child? He stops, because the child catches fire. To me, this is a warning from Shepard's subconscious - don't get too close to this being, because it's dangerous. This happens repeatedly. And in the final dream sequence, Shepard sees himself approach the child and put his arm around the child - and they both catch fire. This is OBVIOUSLY a warning - Shepard best stay away.<br /><br />And in the final moments of the game, the child is seen again. His voice is made up of Shepard's own - an artistic choice? Or a symoblic choice, recognizing that the essence of the child is made up, partly, of Shepard's own? The child's assertions are confusing, the choices ridiculous, and Shepard has no way of finding out more information - this is a very closed-ended sequence. But once again, we're left with some very same circumstances of the Child and Shepard - in no sequence is the child interacted with, seen, or witnessed by any other character. At this point, he appears like an apparition. <br /><br />And if it indeed the Catalyst within the Citadel choosing a form to represent itself physically to Shepard, it has obviously chosen the image of the same child from the opening scenes of the game. Why has it chosen THIS specific form? This child has brought distress to Shepard, been the subject of Shepard's nightmares. Why would choosing THIS specific form be helpful or even logical? And if the Catalyst CAN choose this form, it is obvious that the Catalyst at this point of the game has some capacity to get INTO Shepard's head to create this specific apparition. If it has not gotten into Shepard's head as yet, it certainly has done so now. <br /><br />Could it be Shepard's own projection here? The child has been weighing on him, and so the child naturally appears when the Catalyst wants to interact with him? Well, if this is the case, it is still an odd and symobolically STRANGE choice - the child has been the subject of nightmares and distress before. NOW THE CHILD IS THE CAUSE OF SALVATION? That is totally counter to the child being on fire in Shepard's dreams.<br /><br />In my mind, it all boils down to this one important character - the Catalyst/Child. Too much about the story indicates that he was never an ordinary child to begin with. So until the child is figured out, I'm going to a firm believer in ID.Danny Boynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-41683430420284079072012-03-26T21:06:16.047-05:002012-03-26T21:06:16.047-05:00I think you've got some good points here - ult...I think you've got some good points here - ultimately, Indoctrination Theory as it stands right now, is a THEORY and not guaranteed fact. A lot of the things that support Indoctrination Theory can be explained away in some other way.<br /><br />BUT, there are some bits, the massive plot holes namely, that just don't make sense. For me, I've been thinking about it the last 24 hours or so, and I think the ultimate key to whether ID is real or not boils down to the Catalyst/Child character. And based on what I've seen, and what he has said - and he doesn't really have all that much dialogue anwway, so I encourage everyone to think about it - there's significant evidence that supports ID.<br /><br />Right at the start of the game, after it has been established that an invasion is imminent, what is the first scene of the game within Shepard's vantage point? It it the NORMANDY (a toy one), and it is being played with by the same Catalyst/Child. Symbolically, this speaks volumes - right from the beginning, the Star/Child is seen toying with Shepard's vessel. And shepard looks on at the child. The child is playing by himself, seems to be having a good time. Ok, it is possible that this child happens to be a very independent and autonomous child and is just innocently having fun playing with the Normandy.<br /><br />BUT... what about Shepard's actual interaction with the child at this stage of the game? I'm talking about the child-in-vent-but-Anderson-can't-hear-him scene. Shepard offers to help the child, and how does he respond? "You can't help me". No matter how you look at it,this is a very unusual thing for a child to say, and in the manner that it was said, given the circumstances.<br /><br />The child does not seem to be emotional, no "Mommy" or "daddy" comments, he just ASSERTS that Shepard can't help him. I think any child in similar circumstances would ASK for help or be emotional/upset/in shock. And given that the kid was previously seen playing with the Normandy, it's not too much to expect that he would RECOGNIZE Shepard given that Shepard is the famous CAPTAIN of the Normandy. <br /><br />No, I think the only reason why the child has been inserted into this part of the game is to plant doubt in Shepard's mind - doubt about whether Shepard can actually save the galaxy. It's too contrived - in other words, the child does not present in a way that we can expect an ordinary child to present in such circumstances. He's too controlled, too assertive.. AND HE MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEARS?!? Why, after hiding out in a vent, and being in the same vicinity of soldiers would he HIDE, when moments later he's seen going TOWARDS soldiers to get on the ship (that ultimately gets blown up)? It's also obvious that the child and Shepard make eye contact when he gets on the ship - this is also unusual; why would the child, who has just frantically and just in time climbed on to a ship, immediately make eye contact with a soldier on a ship a few hundred metres away? The most logical and expected thing for him, you'd think, is to look within the ship for help, for his mom, or dad, or a familiar face. No - he looks straight at Shepard instead. Weird.Danny Boynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2101059341950172245.post-42163119849827163722012-03-26T16:42:11.356-05:002012-03-26T16:42:11.356-05:00for rederence, this site has a list of all the end...for rederence, this site has a list of all the endings: <br />http://bit.ly/H76zsFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com