57139 réponses à ce sujet

[ynh]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

ynh wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Rob Psyence wrote...


No means of implementing, care to state how they don't have the means when it can be done with psychological cues and suggestions. Last time i checked indoctorination is a big part of the whole series and is mentioned left and right.

Well, to be fair, that is more suggesting an idea rather than implementing it. To me, that information sets the groundwork for a mechanic, which they scrapped. It has to be there for that mechanic to even make sense.

If they scrap the mechanic (i.e. if they planned on it, but then dropped it at the end), then they can't exactly go back and undo everything. They have to leave what's in the game as is and end it as such, without their mechanic being implemented.

And if what you say is true then their many statements of "speculation for everyone" makes sense.
But in my opinion.. those subtle cues are in the game for a reason. Is it so hard to believe that they moved the idea toward a player based interaction? To show us what it was to be indoctrinated? We know they have the writing talent. It just seems to me that the ending is such a heaping pile of crap at face value that it seems it was done intentional. And then with these intentional cues, it just makes IDT much more likely.

My two cents is, unless the DLC somehow makes these hints more apparent, IDT is unfortunately a theory at best. Indoctrination did not even cross my mind when I finished the game. It was only after I saw this thread and re-played it that I saw the hints everyone is pointing out.

We know it''s a theory and full of speculation but my own opinion: The very process of indoctrination is subtle and cannot be detected by the indivdual so easily. That is why it makes sense. We can't know we were indoctrinated unless we go back and look for the intentional cues left by the devs. It's up to the player to decide if we should take the ending at face value.. or if there is something more to it. I believe there is something more to it.

+respect to your opinion. If this is the case, I will be absolutely blown away by the endings. I just need more compelling evidence. There is a lot of noise.

[GBGriffin]

[quote]savagejuicebox wrote...



Uncalled for. I prefer to think of my theory as the "rushed product" theory, because that's what I believe it is.

Can you prove that Mass Effect 3 was not the result of a rushed product?

[/quote]

Can you prove the IT isnt true? (not until april 6th) No? ahh we have ourselves a stalemate, my friend!

[/quote]

And yet...this whole wheel just keeps on turning.

On my end, it's insulting to hear my speculation and evidence called incorrect in the face of other speculation and evidence, when, you're right, it's a stalemate. I'd like to think that the indoctrination theory has more in-game support, but the rushed product theory has more real world support. 

I'm fine leaving it at that, though.

[n00bsauce2010]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


I'm sorry but I refuse to beleive that a dev team would simply give up on a good idea. not even pertaining to indoc theory. But if they just gave up on every idea that they couldn't implement in the way they intended, then the game might just be a pile of crap. Obviously devs have to find workarounds. That's partly the reason why there are so many working with code and so many brainstorming/writing and figuring out the best way to implement those ideas.

It's a matter of beliefs, then. I'm not arguing that it's a poor idea; what I'm arguing is that, for whatever reasons (time, money, etc), they didn't have the resources to pull it off. They may have set out with the idea in mind, but it fell through. That can happen. Look at Peter Molyneux. He had ideas and no way to really execute half of them

You believe that a dev team running out of resources when faced with a good idea is unlikely; I believe it isn't. I don't expect either of us will sway the other, though, so I'm fine leaving it at that.

When they're teamed up with a multi-billion dollar company, yea I find it unlikely. But that's just me.

I agree. This is EA's prized possession. Especially since the critics marks for all 3 games have been astonishinly high. Mass effect 2 alone had a ton of goty awards. EA has pumped a lot of money into the game to make it successful. I highly doubt running out of money became an issue.

[savagejuicebox]

Shelbyman2 wrote...

I opened this in another post, thought I'd mention it here. Something I did realize upon my second play through that I dont think anyone has mentioned yet is that the last system you enter to start your final mission is called "PAX" ... which just so happens to be where bioware will be making their "big" announcement regarding the ending.

MY GOD. MIND= SPLODED

[GBGriffin]

savagejuicebox wrote...

Wasnt an insult, just trying to be humorous. Perhaps i should add some smilies next time?

Coincidentally, I almost wrote my thesis on the use of text messaging and the importance of emoticons, so I approve

[byne]

GBGriffin wrote...


And yet...this whole wheel just keeps on turning.

On my end, it's insulting to hear my speculation and evidence called incorrect in the face of other speculation and evidence, when, you're right, it's a stalemate. I'd like to think that the indoctrination theory has more in-game support, but the rushed product theory has more real world support. 

I'm fine leaving it at that, though.

What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

Modifié par byne, 02 avril 2012 - 04:45 .

[CLB17]

DuskRose wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

CLB17 wrote...

Indoctrination seems to be similar to scizophrania or even split personality disorder. Benezia talks about how she was trapped in her own mind as she watched her indoctrinated self do saren's bidding.

Like Starchild is trying to do to Shepard.

I don't think that's quite the right comparison....

I don't think so either unless... the starchild is shepard. The indoctrinated part of himself that is sympathetic towards the reapers. Might explain why he has both maleshep and femshep's voice. Wild speculation but i'm throwing it out there.

[ynh]

GBGriffin wrote...

ynh wrote...

I agree that desperate people will try to cling to anything they can. However, I think some examples of evidence are much more compelling than others. For example, the '1 m 1' writing on the walls is really reaching at straws in my opinion. The blur and the weird trees you see as you move towards the beam (after being knocked out) are much more compelling.

Again though, IT will stay a theory unless Bioware somehow makes these hints much more apparent.

It's compelling because you want it to be because it confirms your theory. For me, Shepard just got within spitting distance of a Reaper laser and is now wounded. I think the effect was more of a physical trauma experience.

The trees could just be a design element. Recycled texture, put there to mark a boundary. I guess I don't understand why the speculation on my part is "incorrect".

Just to make it clear, IT is not 'my' theory at all. I am commenting as an observer, not as an IT participant. I'm also not saying that you are incorrect either (surprisingly, I agree with a number of points you have made). Until April 6th, we won't know what Bioware's plans are.

[n00bsauce2010]

byne wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...


And yet...this whole wheel just keeps on turning.

On my end, it's insulting to hear my speculation and evidence called incorrect in the face of other speculation and evidence, when, you're right, it's a stalemate. I'd like to think that the indoctrination theory has more in-game support, but the rushed product theory has more real world support. 

I'm fine leaving it at that, though.

What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

That's what I'm saying. I just don't see how EA would discard one of their most popular and critically accalimed franchises. They would've pumped the needed funds into it without question.

[GBGriffin]

byne wrote...


What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

To me, and just off the top of my head,  the reactions of the dev team and Dr. Muzyka by defending the product and acting shocked the fans didn't like it, the silence rather than reassuring fans that the theory has merit, even the rejection of the cupcakes. Why reject cupcakes if they're proud of their work and have something planned? Why stomach the bad publicity, the price drops, the Amazon fiasco....all for the sake of some troll ending they'll sell us later?

Again, you can argue those however you like...I just feel those aren't exactly support for the "they had something planned all along" argument.

Modifié par GBGriffin, 02 avril 2012 - 04:48 .

[n00bsauce2010]

savagejuicebox wrote...

Shelbyman2 wrote...

I opened this in another post, thought I'd mention it here. Something I did realize upon my second play through that I dont think anyone has mentioned yet is that the last system you enter to start your final mission is called "PAX" ... which just so happens to be where bioware will be making their "big" announcement regarding the ending.

MY GOD. MIND= SPLODED

Confirmation on this please?

[GBGriffin]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

byne wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...


And yet...this whole wheel just keeps on turning.

On my end, it's insulting to hear my speculation and evidence called incorrect in the face of other speculation and evidence, when, you're right, it's a stalemate. I'd like to think that the indoctrination theory has more in-game support, but the rushed product theory has more real world support. 

I'm fine leaving it at that, though.

What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

That's what I'm saying. I just don't see how EA would discard one of their most popular and critically accalimed franchises. They would've pumped the needed funds into it without question.

From what I hear, SWTOR, while profitable, is somewhat stale from a design perspective. I have friends leveling the blame at EA over that one. It could honestly be them just wanting to get the product out after the delay.

[ynh]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

byne wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...


And yet...this whole wheel just keeps on turning.

On my end, it's insulting to hear my speculation and evidence called incorrect in the face of other speculation and evidence, when, you're right, it's a stalemate. I'd like to think that the indoctrination theory has more in-game support, but the rushed product theory has more real world support. 

I'm fine leaving it at that, though.

What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

That's what I'm saying. I just don't see how EA would discard one of their most popular and critically accalimed franchises. They would've pumped the needed funds into it without question.

Do keep in mind that EA has to compete with Activision. I am betting EA is trying to match Activision's 1 year release cycles in order to get ahead of them.

[byne]

GBGriffin wrote...

byne wrote...


What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

To me, and just off the top of my head,  the reactions of the dev team and Dr. Muzyka by defending the product and acting shocked the fans didn't like it, the silence rather than reassuring fans that the theory has merit, even the rejection of the cupcakes. Why reject cupcakes if they're porud of their work and have something planned? Why stomach the bad publicity, the price drops, the Amazon fiasco....all for the sake of some troll ending they'll sell us later?

Again, you can argue those however you like...I just feel those aren't exactly support for the "they had something planned all along" argument.

How does that support your rushed product theory over, say, the bad writing theory, though?

[CLB17]

GBGriffin wrote...

byne wrote...


What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

To me, and just off the top of my head,  the reactions of the dev team and Dr. Muzyka by defending the product and acting shocked the fans didn't like it, the silence rather than reassuring fans that the theory has merit, even the rejection of the cupcakes. Why reject cupcakes if they're porud of their work and have something planned? Why stomach the bad publicity, the price drops, the Amazon fiasco....all for the sake of some troll ending they'll sell us later?

Again, you can argue those however you like...I just feel those aren't exactly support for the "they had something planned all along" argument.

To be fair, bioware didn't reject the cupcakes. they donated them to some childrens thing and even kept the card the bakers sent.

Modifié par CLB17, 02 avril 2012 - 04:49 .

[GBGriffin]

byne wrote...


How does that support your rushed product theory over, say, the bad writing theory, though?

Oh, sorry, I should have specificed. I do lump bad writing into that theory as well. I suppose I'd like to think that both played a part. To me, rushed product incorporates bad writing; the script changed from sometime in November to launch, and it presumably couldn't have happened perfectly.

[byne]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...

Shelbyman2 wrote...

I opened this in another post, thought I'd mention it here. Something I did realize upon my second play through that I dont think anyone has mentioned yet is that the last system you enter to start your final mission is called "PAX" ... which just so happens to be where bioware will be making their "big" announcement regarding the ending.

MY GOD. MIND= SPLODED

Confirmation on this please?

Well, the system Noveria is in is indeed called the Pax system

[balance5050]

GBGriffin wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...


Honestly you have less proof about them doing a sh*tty job than we do about the IT. Your theory should have a name too, how about: The sh*t parade theory?

Uncalled for. I prefer to think of my theory as the "rushed product" theory, because that's what I believe it is.

Can you prove that Mass Effect 3 was not the result of a rushed product?

Just so you know, I was presentt when Geoff Keighly did an AMA on reddit, someone asked when he was given the infamous note page that had "Shepard Dies-----> player specualtion" and he said it was handed to him by Mike Gamble LAST SUMMER. So they had been planning the ending for awhile actually. They wanted their DLC to be succesful so they left us with the indoctrination ending for us to speculate on until they release the true ending DLC.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

byne wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...


And yet...this whole wheel just keeps on turning.

On my end, it's insulting to hear my speculation and evidence called incorrect in the face of other speculation and evidence, when, you're right, it's a stalemate. I'd like to think that the indoctrination theory has more in-game support, but the rushed product theory has more real world support. 

I'm fine leaving it at that, though.

What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

That's what I'm saying. I just don't see how EA would discard one of their most popular and critically accalimed franchises. They would've pumped the needed funds into it without question.

From what I hear, SWTOR, while profitable, is somewhat stale from a design perspective. I have friends leveling the blame at EA over that one. It could honestly be them just wanting to get the product out after the delay.

That game for the most part has been a success. 1 million subscribers in the first few weeks is pretty good (especially for  a new pc game and an mmo at that)

But that game was doomed to failure. The delays and neverending betas were ridiculous. And I don't think we can compare an MMO to a popular console title.. just my opinion.

[GBGriffin]

CLB17 wrote...

To be fair, bioware didn't reject the cupcakes. they donated them to some childrens thing and even kept the card the bakers sent.

I would call not eating them (since the message clearly indicated they should taste them) and instead donating them a rejection...just a friendly one.

Like feeding your wife's poorly cooked dinner to the dog instead of just getting up and tossing it in the trash

[savagejuicebox]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...

Shelbyman2 wrote...

I opened this in another post, thought I'd mention it here. Something I did realize upon my second play through that I dont think anyone has mentioned yet is that the last system you enter to start your final mission is called "PAX" ... which just so happens to be where bioware will be making their "big" announcement regarding the ending.

MY GOD. MIND= SPLODED

Confirmation on this please?

checking now

[n00bsauce2010]

byne wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...

Shelbyman2 wrote...

I opened this in another post, thought I'd mention it here. Something I did realize upon my second play through that I dont think anyone has mentioned yet is that the last system you enter to start your final mission is called "PAX" ... which just so happens to be where bioware will be making their "big" announcement regarding the ending.

MY GOD. MIND= SPLODED

Confirmation on this please?

Well, the system Noveria is in is indeed called the Pax system

hmm.. but that system has been named since the first game? If it has then it's just a mere coincidence.

[ynh]

byne wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

byne wrote...


What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

To me, and just off the top of my head,  the reactions of the dev team and Dr. Muzyka by defending the product and acting shocked the fans didn't like it, the silence rather than reassuring fans that the theory has merit, even the rejection of the cupcakes. Why reject cupcakes if they're porud of their work and have something planned? Why stomach the bad publicity, the price drops, the Amazon fiasco....all for the sake of some troll ending they'll sell us later?

Again, you can argue those however you like...I just feel those aren't exactly support for the "they had something planned all along" argument.

How does that support your rushed product theory over, say, the bad writing theory, though?

Something to keep in mind here:
Mass Effect 1 was released in 2007 (development starting in 2005).
Mass Effect 2 was released in 2010.
Mass Effect 3 was released in 2012.

They managed to shave a whole year off of their development cycle. It took them three years to make ME1, three years to make ME2, but two years to make ME3.

There probably was some pressure to release early 2012.