57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirian Thorn]

I really hope IDT is true because it’s the only theory I’ve seen that explains the ending as it stands.
I’m VERY skeptical that extended cutscenes and epilogues can explain the endings taken at face value.

[Vahilor]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

schneeland wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

But what I really ask myself.. I think BW/EA are interessted in selling more Mass effect stuff... regardles of the setting.. whatever.. but if they give people such a bad ending.. broken promises.. makeing fun of fans... and even more stuff to ****** people of.. who will buy Mass Effect stuff anymore ?

If they don't make a really good job with the ending DLC.. I will think multiple times.. if I will ever buy a Mass Effect title again.. or Dragon Age or whatever they make...

That's a largely confusing point for me, too. While I could have imagined that they go for the current route and then release the "true" ending right at PAX, they obviously didn't and decided to remain vague instead. So while they could have made their way up into the golden halls of gaming with a better timing, now, it seems, they can only redeem themselves to a point where people will stop to actively advise others not to buy ME3 (or any other Bioware stuff).

To be vague is not the worst thin.. if they had said "We work o the endings and probably will change some stuff." all would have be fine... what makes me very angry is, that they allways use the "artistic integrigy" as a kind of excuse for the bad ending and somhow keeping it (so it sounds to me in their  arguments) or the making fun of the IDT.. like in some of the twitter posts.

Not standing up for somthing they did wrong makes me really dissappointed.. if I do somthing wrong at work, I have to stand up for it as well..

I agree - at my job if I make a mistake I own up to it, fix it or never let it happen again.  

But that's because I've been told what is acceptable vs. unacceptable and also because I have high personal standards for my work.  Which is also measured against the industry and gonvernmental guidelines. 

Who at Bioware has said the ending is unacceptable?  No one that I know. 

And if they were willing to put this crappy ending out there in the first place - it just shows how lousy a QC they have. 

No one at Bioware probably did (we don't know that), but the reaction of the customers did.. and as somone who sells stuff for an audience and still wants to sell stuff (and I'm sure they wanna sell a bunch of DLCs ) you should react in a pleasent way towards an outcry so big.

[Tirian Thorn]

Vahilor wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

schneeland wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

But what I really ask myself.. I think BW/EA are interessted in selling more Mass effect stuff... regardles of the setting.. whatever.. but if they give people such a bad ending.. broken promises.. makeing fun of fans... and even more stuff to ****** people of.. who will buy Mass Effect stuff anymore ?

If they don't make a really good job with the ending DLC.. I will think multiple times.. if I will ever buy a Mass Effect title again.. or Dragon Age or whatever they make...

That's a largely confusing point for me, too. While I could have imagined that they go for the current route and then release the "true" ending right at PAX, they obviously didn't and decided to remain vague instead. So while they could have made their way up into the golden halls of gaming with a better timing, now, it seems, they can only redeem themselves to a point where people will stop to actively advise others not to buy ME3 (or any other Bioware stuff).

To be vague is not the worst thin.. if they had said "We work o the endings and probably will change some stuff." all would have be fine... what makes me very angry is, that they allways use the "artistic integrigy" as a kind of excuse for the bad ending and somhow keeping it (so it sounds to me in their  arguments) or the making fun of the IDT.. like in some of the twitter posts.

Not standing up for somthing they did wrong makes me really dissappointed.. if I do somthing wrong at work, I have to stand up for it as well..

I agree - at my job if I make a mistake I own up to it, fix it or never let it happen again.  

But that's because I've been told what is acceptable vs. unacceptable and also because I have high personal standards for my work.  Which is also measured against the industry and gonvernmental guidelines. 

Who at Bioware has said the ending is unacceptable?  No one that I know. 

And if they were willing to put this crappy ending out there in the first place - it just shows how lousy a QC they have. 

No one at Bioware probably did (we don't know that), but the reaction of the customers did.. and as somone who sells stuff for an audience and still wants to sell stuff (and I'm sure they wanna sell a bunch of DLCs ) you should react in a pleasent way towards an outcry so big.

I work for a company that distributes products worldwide, but mostly in the US & Canada.
When we get a lot of negative feedback on a product, we pull it and stop selling it until the manufacturer fixes the problem.  And they fix the problem because they want to sell more of that product to us as well as future sales for other items they sell.    

[Sammuthegreat]

Tirian Thorn wrote...
I work for a company that distributes products worldwide, but mostly in the US & Canada.
When we get a lot of negative feedback on a product, we pull it and stop selling it until the manufacturer fixes the problem.  And they fix the problem because they want to sell more of that product to us as well as future sales for other items they sell.    

This. Exactly. This is the thing that just makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why have they not cleared the controversy up by now? Everything they've said since the controversy started has just confused the fans more. It really is appalling PR; unless they're going to come out with a big reveal soon, then I don't know how they can just assume everyone will buy any of their products in the future.

They've only got so much goodwill. The more they string the fans along, treating us like idiots who don't deserve to know what's going on, the more they lose.

[Rifneno]

Am I the only one that never noticed Harbinger is missing a center tentacle?  

[legaldinho]

The man of myth wrote...

Drammattex wrote...

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.

Very well said and spot on. This was precisely my experience and my take on IT.

There's a lot that I agree with there. I think Bioware failed on both counts: they made the indoctrination too subtle an interpretation to arrive at just from the first playthrough of the game- so that most players had to go to extraneous sources to get it, and then on other playthroughs of course confirm its pervasiveness as a theme. Secondly, Bioware also failed to make the interpretation of the ending at face-value- that Shepard really did choose control/synth/destroy and save the universe in some fashion, by "ending the reaper threat".

They really needed to put a lot more effort into making those work. Instead their fans are now divided into doctrinal "indoctrination theorists" (no pun intended), who insist the indoctrination interpretation is THE REAL ENDING, and nihilistic adopters of the face-value endings, who cast IT as fan-fiction, and adopt an ending that most if not all of them actually don't believe makes sense or has any worth as a piece of fiction whatsoever. The responsibility for this chasm in the audience lies in part with a sort of "choose your camp" mentality in gamers, but also and perhaps mainly with Bioware itself, who should have foreseeen this and ought to have focus-tested its endings and listened to the feedback. I say Bioware, because I don't want to get into the minutiae of what portion of the blame should go to certain personalities, or to EA as the dark "balance sheet is God" overlord etc. Bioware is all that matters for me, whoever dropped the ball.

My tuppence, for what it's worth: I think what Bioware planned for (some) players to interpret the game as involving an element of Shepard fighting indoctrination. From the very first shot of the game - a ship flying accompanied by the right sounds, only to realise that the godchild is in fact controlling and playing with the plane - Bioware tried to sow the seeds of mistrust, or at least leave the interpretation open on re-examination. The godchild's early appearances can thus be interpreted, and the dreams are part of that, through to the section of the game where shep is uploaded into the geth consensus, and the final sequence after the harbinger dream. It's all deliberately ambiguous. It was meant, I'm sure, for the ending to make sense at face value, and obviously the fans' reaction proves that wrong. But for fans of IT to fall back on the theory as "THE TRUE ENDING" is misconceived- it is only an interpretation. But a valid and
persuasive one nonetheless. What will the next Bioshock game run with? Who knows. They'll probably leave it deliberately vague. To spin another yarn, or a few.


Nevertheless, it did a poor job of both the face-value endings and the indoctrination interpretation. But part of me has to respect the attempt at the indoctrination construct there, and overall the game was well executed as a final act capitalising on my investment in the fictional world, and most of all, the characters especially those involved in the suicide mission in ME2.

Modifié par legaldinho, 10 avril 2012 - 08:14 .

[Tirian Thorn]

Sammuthegreat wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...
I work for a company that distributes products worldwide, but mostly in the US & Canada.
When we get a lot of negative feedback on a product, we pull it and stop selling it until the manufacturer fixes the problem.  And they fix the problem because they want to sell more of that product to us as well as future sales for other items they sell.    

This. Exactly. This is the thing that just makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why have they not cleared the controversy up by now? Everything they've said since the controversy started has just confused the fans more. It really is appalling PR; unless they're going to come out with a big reveal soon, then I don't know how they can just assume everyone will buy any of their products in the future.

They've only got so much goodwill. The more they string the fans along, treating us like idiots who don't deserve to know what's going on, the more they lose.

That’s the thing with being known for something (on the positive) customers come to expect that.  And when you don’t deliver they turn on you VERY fast.  Then it’s even harder to rebuild that goodwill. 
You can get a negative reputation easy, but developing a positive reputation takes far longer.  And losing that reputation can really be costly.  Jaded customers will find excuses not to buy products – even ones they need. 

[Sammuthegreat]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Sammuthegreat wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...
I work for a company that distributes products worldwide, but mostly in the US & Canada.
When we get a lot of negative feedback on a product, we pull it and stop selling it until the manufacturer fixes the problem.  And they fix the problem because they want to sell more of that product to us as well as future sales for other items they sell.    

This. Exactly. This is the thing that just makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why have they not cleared the controversy up by now? Everything they've said since the controversy started has just confused the fans more. It really is appalling PR; unless they're going to come out with a big reveal soon, then I don't know how they can just assume everyone will buy any of their products in the future.

They've only got so much goodwill. The more they string the fans along, treating us like idiots who don't deserve to know what's going on, the more they lose.

That’s the thing with being known for something (on the positive) customers come to expect that.  And when you don’t deliver they turn on you VERY fast.  Then it’s even harder to rebuild that goodwill. 
You can get a negative reputation easy, but developing a positive reputation takes far longer.  And losing that reputation can really be costly.  Jaded customers will find excuses not to buy products – even ones they need. 

Again, exactly! You'd think BioWare, and EA of all people would know this, and do something about it! This is EXACTLY what doesn't make any damn sense!

Deep breaths. Mustn't get worked up now.

[Dwailing]

Ugh, you guys were right, IT is REALLY unpopular out there. I checked one of the thread about a guy saying he now believes in IT... let's just say that the rest of the people are getting very unpleasant. Hold the Line.

[Dwailing]

Rifneno wrote...

Am I the only one that never noticed Harbinger is missing a center tentacle?  

Really?  I must have missed that, too.  Indoctrination!!!  jk, jk  I still think that Shepard started seeing things even before he was knocked out, that would explain the shrubs and trees from the dreams.  The tentacle.... well, I don't know about that one.  

Edit: Wow, I just looked up a picture of Harbinger.  You're right, Rifneno.

Double Edit: Just to clarify, I do not think the missing tentacle was indoc.  It was not there even before the final scene.

Modifié par Dwailing, 10 avril 2012 - 08:26 .

[Rifneno]

Dwailing wrote...

Really?  I must have missed that, too.  Indoctrination!!!  jk, jk  I still think that Shepard started seeing things even before he was knocked out, that would explain the shrubs and trees from the dreams.  The tentacle.... well, I don't know about that one.  

Edit: Wow, I just looked up a picture of Harbinger.  You're right, Rifneno.

Double Edit: Just to clarify, I do not think the missing tentacle was indoc.  It was not there even before the final scene.

Yeah...  I'm just wondering whether he lost it in battle or if he never had that one.  Found this pic on Gildor's forum showing Harbinger next to a regular capital ship:

[schneeland]

Dwailing wrote...

Ugh, you guys were right, IT is REALLY unpopular out there. I checked one of the thread about a guy saying he now believes in IT... let's just say that the rest of the people are getting very unpleasant. Hold the Line.

[kitchen sink psychology]
I think that the panel on PAX significantly reduced the number of supporters. Moreover, I have the impression that people dislike IT because they feel it deprives them of their justification for being angry at Bioware/EA. Thus, they project their anger about Bioware/EA, which evade clear statements, on IT, where there is at least a reaction b/c there are still supports of this theory.
[/kitchen sink psychology]

[balance5050]

Rifneno wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Really?  I must have missed that, too.  Indoctrination!!!  jk, jk  I still think that Shepard started seeing things even before he was knocked out, that would explain the shrubs and trees from the dreams.  The tentacle.... well, I don't know about that one.  

Edit: Wow, I just looked up a picture of Harbinger.  You're right, Rifneno.

Double Edit: Just to clarify, I do not think the missing tentacle was indoc.  It was not there even before the final scene.

Yeah...  I'm just wondering whether he lost it in battle or if he never had that one.  Found this pic on Gildor's forum showing Harbinger next to a regular capital ship:

Huh, that is a little weird... why would it be gone?

[Dwailing]

Rifneno wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Really?  I must have missed that, too.  Indoctrination!!!  jk, jk  I still think that Shepard started seeing things even before he was knocked out, that would explain the shrubs and trees from the dreams.  The tentacle.... well, I don't know about that one.  

Edit: Wow, I just looked up a picture of Harbinger.  You're right, Rifneno.

Double Edit: Just to clarify, I do not think the missing tentacle was indoc.  It was not there even before the final scene.

Yeah...  I'm just wondering whether he lost it in battle or if he never had that one.  Found this pic on Gildor's forum showing Harbinger next to a regular capital ship:

Based on his shape, I don't think he had one to begin with.

[Apollo-XL5]

I just killed marauder shields with one head shot and his shields were up. This has to be a dream!

[Tirian Thorn]

You know what I think.

I think EA killed the real Shepard/s and they’re forcing Bioware to help cover it up.

[schneeland]

Dwailing wrote...

[...]

Based on his shape, I don't think he had one to begin with.

Maybe that's why he is so unhappy ... tentacle envy ...

[Jadebaby]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

I just killed marauder shields with one head shot and his shields were up. This has to be a dream!

Sum1's playing narrative

[Rifneno]

schneeland wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

[...]

Based on his shape, I don't think he had one to begin with.

Maybe that's why he is so unhappy ... tentacle envy ...

Anderson: Everything was fine with our species until dickless here started harvesting.
Harbinger: You should be thankful! We are the harbinger of your perfection!
Hackett: Is this true?
Shepard: Yes it's true.
[pause]
Shepard: This reaper has no dick.

[Golferguy758]

Dwailing wrote...

Ugh, you guys were right, IT is REALLY unpopular out there. I checked one of the thread about a guy saying he now believes in IT... let's just say that the rest of the people are getting very unpleasant. Hold the Line.

Meh their prerogative to be angry and throw temper tantrums. At least this thread is constructive.

[Apollo-XL5]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

I just killed marauder shields with one head shot and his shields were up. This has to be a dream!

Sum1's playing narrative

Sorry to disappoint but I am continuing from me2 save, so narrative isn't on, it's rpg

[Kyzee]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

.....

HA! Bless you, Jade8aby88! First one was my fav. 

[DreamTension]

Rifneno wrote...

schneeland wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

[...]

Based on his shape, I don't think he had one to begin with.

Maybe that's why he is so unhappy ... tentacle envy ...

Anderson: Everything was fine with our species until dickless here started harvesting.
Harbinger: You should be thankful! We are the harbinger of your perfection!
Hackett: Is this true?
Shepard: Yes it's true.
[pause]
Shepard: This reaper has no dick.

+1
lol

[Baldsake]

Rifneno wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Really?  I must have missed that, too.  Indoctrination!!!  jk, jk  I still think that Shepard started seeing things even before he was knocked out, that would explain the shrubs and trees from the dreams.  The tentacle.... well, I don't know about that one.  

Edit: Wow, I just looked up a picture of Harbinger.  You're right, Rifneno.

Double Edit: Just to clarify, I do not think the missing tentacle was indoc.  It was not there even before the final scene.

Yeah...  I'm just wondering whether he lost it in battle or if he never had that one.  Found this pic on Gildor's forum showing Harbinger next to a regular capital ship:

-image-

..Maybe Harbinger is a... she?

[DreamTension]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Ugh, you guys were right, IT is REALLY unpopular out there. I checked one of the thread about a guy saying he now believes in IT... let's just say that the rest of the people are getting very unpleasant. Hold the Line.

Meh their prerogative to be angry and throw temper tantrums. At least this thread is constructive.

I'm really glad to see this thread still being productive. 

But yes, it's completely anti-IDT on the board.

In many ways, I understand it.  PAX was supposed to be IDT's coming out party and we learned that it wasn't planned (or at least they have not released a plan).
It's hard to argue for IDT now, I believe it because I LIKE it, but I really can't argue for it anymore.  It's best we just keep the IDT conversation here.