57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Dwailing]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Dwailing wrote...
-big azz snip----

Voila, heavily edited from it's earlier draft, but here is my proof of concept, the ending CAN be made with only cutscenes.

I'm sorry to say... I like the beginning. But in my opiniong you drove right into EA's camp with the clifhanger. Oh.... how lowly the community has fallen.

In order to get this game the way it is, it has to end now and prevent EA from capitalizing on future titles. Aside from MMo's I think.


I loved the beginning. But I completely disagree near the ending. and the ending itself.

They're going to make more, that's the plan already anyway, why not give them something interesting to do it with?

Anyways?.

I'm... apalled by what you've implied by thats your opinion, I dont share it. Things have to end, and is better to end them when they are still at their peak, or near it. Drawing something out for personal satisfaction is a deservice to the series and its fans.

If they plan to do it, is because someone will keep buying a drawn out lore. Are you willing to buy it because you can't let go, or because you honestly believe EA will allow Bioware to keep making good lores?.

Remember one of EA's major policies which they have been VERY successful at, is the acquisition of great ideas gathering an audience and stretching that idea as far as they can. The audience will still buy it regardless of its length.

I should point out that Bioware has said that this is not the end of Mass Effect.  It is, however, the end of Shepard's story.  I don't know thought, considering everything they said but didn't do, they might not do that either.

[LeRavelle]

Dwailing wrote...

LeRavelle wrote...

Why has this thread become fanfic.net?

Uh, we really don't have anything else to do right now, to be honest.

I don't mind it but it clutters this thread a bit and it's confusing picking apart fanfaction posts and theory and opnion posts.

[Spartas Husky]

Dwailing wrote...




I should point out that Bioware has said that this is not the end of Mass Effect.  It is, however, the end of Shepard's story.  I don't know thought, considering everything they said but didn't do, they might not do that either.

The simply question is. Do you trust them to deliver yet again? Or do you trust them to have EA meddle with every game ending after that to leave you craving for more, and thus squeeze more....ummm less business accute individuals to buy more dlc's... and more dlc's... and did I forget more dlc's.

Personally, I do not trust them.

Only reason I am buying Halo 4...didn't bought since halo 3. Skipped odst and reach.

Is because Microsoft Studios was smart. yes we let you keep the game for 10 years. Then it becomes mine.

If at ANY point. Bioware decides to sell the Mass Effect title. I assure you i'll buy it. Because there are developers just like in Bungie, who didn't like the way the game turned and jumped to 343 industries.

Is not necessarily BETTER, or a guaranteed hit. but it gives it a fresh start, and a different management with similar developers. If they do good, then great, if not then it was meant to end.

Same for Mass Effect. Like Bungie... I just dont trust them with the title anymore. At least not while theya re under EA.

Only company I trust under EA, is Crytek.

Modifié par Spartas Husky, 10 avril 2012 - 05:42 .

[Sammuthegreat]

Rksmithers wrote...

*big ol' SNIP*

What a great post. Thanks for summing up everything that's brilliant about the Indoctrination Theory! Hopefully this will strengthen the grip on The Line of a few people who had begun to doubt...

[Dwailing]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Dwailing wrote...




I should point out that Bioware has said that this is not the end of Mass Effect.  It is, however, the end of Shepard's story.  I don't know thought, considering everything they said but didn't do, they might not do that either.

The simply question is. Do you trust them to deliver yet again? Or do you trust them to have EA meddle with every game ending after that to leave you craving for more, and thus squeeze more....ummm less business accute individuals to buy more dlc's... and more dlc's... and did I forget more dlc's.

Personally, I do not trust them.

Only reason I am buying Halo 4...didn't bought since halo 3. Skipped odst and reach.

Is because Microsoft Studios was smart. yes we let you keep the game for 10 years. Then it becomes mine.

If at ANY point. Bioware decides to sell the Mass Effect title. I assure you i'll buy it. Because there are developers just like in Bungie, who didn't like the way the game turned and jumped to 343 industries.

Is not necessarily BETTER, or a guaranteed hit. but it gives it a fresh start, and a different management with similar developers. If they do good, then great, if not then it was meant to end.

Same for Mass Effect. Like Bungie... I just dont trust them with the title anymore. At least not while theya re under EA.

Only company I trust under EA, is Crytek.

Ouch, you really hate EA don't you?  Also, ODST and Reach were great games.  Personally, I don't mind what happened with Bungie.  Unlike some series (cough) CoD (cough) Bungie actually managed to mix things up with Halo each year.  And I thought that the devs who left Bungie for 343 went because they loved their series and they wanted to keep working on it.

[Jadebaby]

LeRavelle wrote...

Why has this thread become fanfic.net?

Because it's filled with lovely ppl that care

[Sammuthegreat]

Dwailing wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Dwailing wrote...




I should point out that Bioware has said that this is not the end of Mass Effect.  It is, however, the end of Shepard's story.  I don't know thought, considering everything they said but didn't do, they might not do that either.

The simply question is. Do you trust them to deliver yet again? Or do you trust them to have EA meddle with every game ending after that to leave you craving for more, and thus squeeze more....ummm less business accute individuals to buy more dlc's... and more dlc's... and did I forget more dlc's.

Personally, I do not trust them.

Only reason I am buying Halo 4...didn't bought since halo 3. Skipped odst and reach.

Is because Microsoft Studios was smart. yes we let you keep the game for 10 years. Then it becomes mine.

If at ANY point. Bioware decides to sell the Mass Effect title. I assure you i'll buy it. Because there are developers just like in Bungie, who didn't like the way the game turned and jumped to 343 industries.

Is not necessarily BETTER, or a guaranteed hit. but it gives it a fresh start, and a different management with similar developers. If they do good, then great, if not then it was meant to end.

Same for Mass Effect. Like Bungie... I just dont trust them with the title anymore. At least not while theya re under EA.

Only company I trust under EA, is Crytek.

Ouch, you really hate EA don't you?  Also, ODST and Reach were great games.  Personally, I don't mind what happened with Bungie.  Unlike some series (cough) CoD (cough) Bungie actually managed to mix things up with Halo each year.  And I thought that the devs who left Bungie for 343 went because they loved their series and they wanted to keep working on it.

In fact, Reach was probably the best all-round Halo game ever. Halo 2 takes some serious beating, but Reach was comfortably better as an overall package than 1, 3 and ODST. Also, not exactly what the link is between Halo and EA...

[Spartas Husky]

Dwailing wrote...


Ouch, you really hate EA don't you?  Also, ODST and Reach were great games.  Personally, I don't mind what happened with Bungie.  Unlike some series (cough) CoD (cough) Bungie actually managed to mix things up with Halo each year.  And I thought that the devs who left Bungie for 343 went because they loved their series and they wanted to keep working on it.

The same thing applies. Some didn't like Bungie not fighting for Halo. So some jumped ship to keep working on it.

It happens sometimes, although it isn't the same thing, its similar. Different paths splits the developers who saw their first big hit.. although KOtor can be consider big, I mean current consoles. So they might jump.

I hate them?... lol Let me quote Garrus:

The business student in me admires them. convert small companies, gather the audience who will blindly buy the "companies" products regardless of quality or length. And you stop two birds in one throw.

The small company doesn't get to be big to threaten you, and the customers who might get use to be involved in a game are slowly but surely decencitized to the omition of such feature.

Play ME1 again and then tell me if the 2nd rule of great lore: Character Focus, was kept to its previous bioware standards.

The human in me sure hates EA. its a company who has become what theya re by meticulously gutting early companies hoarding good ideas and only developing upon them enough to get people interested to the point where they will buy but not complain.


EA miscalculated with Mass Effect. But this is the exception not the rule. Diversity unlike in Mass Effect, is the bane of every business. A monopoly is always sought for, no competition no substantial loss of revenue.


The new era of apps and wireless gaming, cloud storage will put a dent on EA like any other publisher. Hence why i look forward to the nex 10-15 years of gaming Maybe 20 at most.

Where developers will not have to sell their souls to bigger companies simply because they have the resources to produce the cd's.

I assure you in the future developers will have it very easy delivering their game to you via electronic means, rather than the publisher. because even though today we buy the games online alot of that though goes to the publisher. Later on the publisher will be severely undercut or completely pushed aside when developers themselves only need a few servers to sell you their products directly.

At that point we will see a renossaince of gaming like in the 1990's. What happens after that is probably bad, as every business cycle peaks and leaps. But for now the short term future looks dark, medium future looks bright.

[Dendio1]

Just looked over the endings again. I tried to look at it at surface level. There is just so much wrong with it if you take everything literally. Sigh....how can one write an ending so bad?

Indoc theory is really its saving grace. I just cant get over spending 3 games trying to kill the reapers and actually being given an option to do the opposite...the fact that shep only wakes up with destroy may be the games saving throw.

Control and synthesis are terrible endings...they go against everything we have fought for. They make Me2 and Me1 seem like a waste of time. Lets just submit from the beginning and get it over with if control and synthesis are canon.

[lex0r11]

[Golferguy758]

I don't think it's a matter of not letting mass effect go. It.s the fact that it will continue regardless. That ending thing shows how they can keep mass effect as a series going while closing shep's story.

Bioware also wants speculations with the ending even as they close it. That post is just a realistic.way to do that

[Arian Dynas]

Dwailing wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Dwailing wrote...
-big azz snip----

Voila, heavily edited from it's earlier draft, but here is my proof of concept, the ending CAN be made with only cutscenes.

I'm sorry to say... I like the beginning. But in my opiniong you drove right into EA's camp with the clifhanger. Oh.... how lowly the community has fallen.

In order to get this game the way it is, it has to end now and prevent EA from capitalizing on future titles. Aside from MMo's I think.


I loved the beginning. But I completely disagree near the ending. and the ending itself.

They're going to make more, that's the plan already anyway, why not give them something interesting to do it with?

Anyways?.

I'm... apalled by what you've implied by thats your opinion, I dont share it. Things have to end, and is better to end them when they are still at their peak, or near it. Drawing something out for personal satisfaction is a deservice to the series and its fans.

If they plan to do it, is because someone will keep buying a drawn out lore. Are you willing to buy it because you can't let go, or because you honestly believe EA will allow Bioware to keep making good lores?.

Remember one of EA's major policies which they have been VERY successful at, is the acquisition of great ideas gathering an audience and stretching that idea as far as they can. The audience will still buy it regardless of its length.

I should point out that Bioware has said that this is not the end of Mass Effect.  It is, however, the end of Shepard's story.  I don't know thought, considering everything they said but didn't do, they might not do that either.

Exactamundo, hence why I specifically had Harbinger state "WE WILL FIND ANOTHER." Mass Effect 3 is the end of Shepard's story, but not of the established Mass Effect universe. Hence why I strongly disbelive the "We will set it 2000 years down the road" thing people keep touting. That's too far out for anyone who enjoys the setting as is to get involved, and way too far out for authors whom claim to care about their work.

[IronSabbath88]

Dendio1 wrote...

Just looked over the endings again. I tried to look at it at surface level. There is just so much wrong with it if you take everything literally. Sigh....how can one write an ending so bad?

Indoc theory is really its saving grace. I just cant get over spending 3 games trying to kill the reapers and actually being given an option to do the opposite...the fact that shep only wakes up with destroy may be the games saving throw.

Control and synthesis are terrible endings...they go against everything we have fought for. They make Me2 and Me1 seem like a waste of time. Lets just submit from the beginning and get it over with if control and synthesis are canon.

"I'm gonna win this war, and I'm going to do it without sacrifcing the soul of our species"

Well, Synthesis does that..

[Spartas Husky]

edited

Modifié par Spartas Husky, 10 avril 2012 - 06:19 .

[Drammattex]

My 2.5 cents.

Indoctrination is so evident to me that it feels silly even calling it a theory.
From a writing standpoint, it's smart: the player thinks it can never happen, just as Saren, Benezia, or the Illusive Man did, but the voice of temptation is subtle, and in the end Shepard (often) unwittingly chooses indoctrination. It shows that even Shepard can be swayed unless he's single-minded in his purpose. We don't find out what happens at the end of the game after Shepard is/is not indoctrinated--you're left to speculate.

That said, I had to read it on the internet (here) to get it. Had I not done that, I would have shrugged and gone on to watch Game of Thrones that afternoon, leaving Mass Effect behind, confused and somewhat apathetic. There's spoon feeding, and then there's leaving enough bread crumbs for the audience to follow your trail. For me, the bread crumbs were spaced too far apart and I was lost in the woods (with the creepy ghost kid). I did pay attention. Even at the time I did wonder if Shepard was being indoctrinated, but if that were true, I didn't connect it to what was happening in the game. And perhaps most importantly, Shepard--my link to the game--didn't seem to suspect anything.

The game repeatedly hints that Shepard will have to sacrifice himself for the good of all. So, if Shepard dies: fine, the game has led up to that. If Shepard is indoctrinated: fine, the previous 2 games have shown us how even the most well meaning people have been indoctrinated so this would also be natural. If Shepard gets to live at great cost to his soul/death of his companions/destruction of the universe: fine, let him/her make that choice.

The writing on the games is absolutely top notch, imo, and I feel that I (now) understand exactly where they were going with the ending, why they did it the way they did. I think it was a brave artistic choice and a strong artistic choice. However, it doesn't matter how great that choice is _if most of the audience doesn't get it, or doesn't follow_. It's admirable to push the envelope and aim for a transcendent experience, but if the majority of your audience doesn't come along, are they a mass of unwashed, uneducated, self-entitled heathens... or was THE DELIVERY of that awesome high concept idea just a little more opaque than you had imagined?

Finally, as many have said, the game has been mostly about the characters and the way Shepard's choices affect the fate of the universe, and that's what the audience has invested in. So even though the clever (I might add "symmetrical" and "poetic") ending is truly about whether or not Shepard is indoctrinated, it's hard to care much about that since that's not what we've been striving for.

Thus, while I applaud the vision, I feel that the endgame may have been stronger had it been more evident, the last moments more complex in gameplay and choice, and shown the payoff for the choices made in the game. The indoctrination ending is, imo, a great choice so long as the audience later understands what happened and thus can appreciate what happened. And from the rage on the internet, there are many who don't--and in fact are angry or dismissive enough that they no longer care, or will no longer listen.

Also, a game isn't quite like a movie or a book or a TV show, in that you can't easily go back and examine the preceding evidence (especially us PS3 players forever locked out of ME1). The ME series has exceeded the boundaries of what has been done before, but (I think) we should remain vigilant in regard to the limitations of the form and the audience's ability to interpret/interact with it. And I think that Bioware is doing that by releasing ending content DLC--not, I hope, as an appeasement to the fans, but because they realize that the message was somewhat lost in translation.

Again, I expected indoctrination, and when it happened I didn't recognize it--which is the whole point really--but there were enough obfuscating details (mass relays, planet, stargazer, datapad, different interpretation of the dreams/child, etc) that even _AFTER_ the fact, I didn't get it, and was not emotionally or intellectually affected by the conclusion... until spending a lot of time on the internet: "Ah, that's how they worked the indoctrination, I see."

Great art should affect you emotionally, it should make you think. I feel the game's endings would reach more of its audience if it left a few more breadcrumbs to follow.

And seeing the effects of your choices wouldn't hurt either, since that's been our investment in the game.

[Jadebaby]

__________________





Goodnight fellow Indocians....

[dreman9999]

Spartas Husky wrote...

Dwailing wrote...


Ouch, you really hate EA don't you?  Also, ODST and Reach were great games.  Personally, I don't mind what happened with Bungie.  Unlike some series (cough) CoD (cough) Bungie actually managed to mix things up with Halo each year.  And I thought that the devs who left Bungie for 343 went because they loved their series and they wanted to keep working on it.

Play ME1 again and then tell me if the 2nd rule of great lore: Character Focus, was kept to its previous bioware standards.

I play ME1 6 time...I can flat out ell you that Character focus was not done as well as othe BW games, and that fact that ME2 and 3 is better in character focus.

ME1, not counting Shepard, had only 4 well developed character in the story, Wrex, Ashley, Kaiden, and Saren.
ME2 had the entire cast well developed, inclucing the npc's on the normady. That note of the lines of Dr. Chawukuwas in ME1 and compear it to ME2. BIG DIFFERENCE.
ME2 plot was almost nothing but character focus.
ME3 balanced that. The fact that you can see your crew move through out the ship and talk to one another makes it clear. The fact that so many people fell so emotional over 3 characters deaths in ME3 makes it clear.
So yes, it clear does keeps to bw's great lore and character focus compared to ME1...In fact they improved it.

[lex0r11]

Jade8aby88 wrote...







Goodnight fellow Indocians....

[secretagentbw]

There is something I don't exactly get about the indoctrination idea. I chose to destroy the reapers so I got the breathing scene at the end which implied Shepard was still alive or whatever. However if the whole Citadel scenes were a hallucination doesn't that mean the reapers didn't actually get destroyed? Because to destroy them we were supposed to go up to the Citadel to open it and get the Crucible in. So if he is actually waking up back in London doesn't that mean we didn't actually accomplish anything and the reapers are still there?

[IronSabbath88]

I don't think that was ever an argument. The Reapers have been there the whole time, and the order was given for all forces to retreat. Obviously the fight isn't over yet and the soldiers are merely regrouping to try and figure out a new plan.

Of course nobody knows that Shepard (and possibly Anderson) are still laying out there somewhere.

[dreman9999]

secretagentbw wrote...

There is something I don't exactly get about the indoctrination idea. I chose to destroy the reapers so I got the breathing scene at the end which implied Shepard was still alive or whatever. However if the whole Citadel scenes were a hallucination doesn't that mean the reapers didn't actually get destroyed? Because to destroy them we were supposed to go up to the Citadel to open it and get the Crucible in. So if he is actually waking up back in London doesn't that mean we didn't actually accomplish anything and the reapers are still there?

Yes...That's it. And we hope extended cut allows us to finish the fight.

Modifié par dreman9999, 10 avril 2012 - 06:16 .

[dreman9999]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

I don't think that was ever an argument. The Reapers have been there the whole time, and the order was given for all forces to retreat. Obviously the fight isn't over yet and the soldiers are merely regrouping to try and figure out a new plan.

Of course nobody knows that Shepard (and possibly Anderson) are still laying out there somewhere.

Which brings up the question to how Hacket new Shep was on the citadel.

[schneeland]

By the way: did anyone notice how disturbingly similar the current ending is to that of the Hyperion Cantos?

[Spartas Husky]

Golferguy758 wrote...

I don't think it's a matter of not letting mass effect go. It.s the fact that it will continue regardless. That ending thing shows how they can keep mass effect as a series going while closing shep's story.

Bioware also wants speculations with the ending even as they close it. That post is just a realistic.way to do that

The ending he provided is good at the beginning because it follows 3 simple rules, at the end those rules break down just like the ending we already have. There is a difference between a cliffhanger, and a hundred and one cliffhangers.

A few not so bad. but the amount of questions left at the end of his ...ending are no different than the amount of ours. If harbinger stays alive that is fine. I dont have a problem with that part. Still stays true to rule of, of maintaing the genre/theme. reapers being unknowlable nearly god like machines. The Lack of character focus at the end and massive questions left unanswered aren't cliffhangers... they are that Plotholes.


I didn't mind that much that Mordin had to die... why couldn't he jump off. parachute? We had time already knowing it was going to happen. But it was good. it stayed true to the three rules.
Theme of mordin: Redemption, cycle of life, new beginning.
Character Focus: Dialogue before his end, his thoughts ideas, reasoning
Narrative Focus: The only plot hole was... why didn't he jump. But before that, others explained what was going on, the surrounding sounds, and scenario played well to his ultimate sacrifice. So that one small plothole didn't destroyed continuity.

The beginning of his ending has those three golden rules. Characters, talk, are positive or negative, while still in theme. Characters still community with you AND you with them. Overall Narrative is left continuous.

The end lacks all three. Massive Thank you notes, 1 squad mate next to you. Reapers in space?

Where is the sci-fi theme in the hospital. The massive explanations we've grown to love so far?
Where is the character focus? I community with others, they return the dialogue. 1 n1 dialogue isn't character focus.
reapers in space stays in theme. Be ever vigilant commander shepard and allies.

But in between is more questions than answers. A good ending doesn't leave more questions than answers, it leaves a fe questions for interpretation, but few enough that there is no trouble jumping between the potholes to unite the story.


His story isn't bad because he can't do it, he demonstrated exemplary story telling at the beginning. But like ME3, near the ending everything starts to speed up, leaving gaping holes that require explanation.
Whether for lack of time of effort. During the ending it was rushed . I can tell.

[secretagentbw]

dreman9999 wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

I don't think that was ever an argument. The Reapers have been there the whole time, and the order was given for all forces to retreat. Obviously the fight isn't over yet and the soldiers are merely regrouping to try and figure out a new plan.

Of course nobody knows that Shepard (and possibly Anderson) are still laying out there somewhere.

Which brings up the question to how Hacket new Shep was on the citadel.

Ok because that's part of why I was skeptical of the whole theory. I didn't think Bioware would just end the whole trilogy with Shepard waking up realizing he was almost indoctrinated and now he's still got to open up the Citadel... My other question was, didn't the kid say that the Illusive man wouldn't have been able to control the reapers because he was indoctrinated, but Shepard could? Wouldn't that mean that Shepard was not indoctrinated? Or did that just mean he wasn't indoctrinated yet... But it wouldn't make sense for TIM to be unable to control the reapers while indoctrinated, but Shepard could