57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Tiax Rules All]

Golferguy758 wrote...

To play devil's advocate. The problem with Indoc theory is that it can effectively kill off the people who enjoyed the endings as they stand currently.

people liked the currnet endings? and TBH aren't they outside the target audience?

[byne]

Golferguy758 wrote...

To play devil's advocate. The problem with Indoc theory is that it can effectively kill off the people who enjoyed the endings as they stand currently.

And I'm sure all 4 of those people will be all torn up over it, but the rest of us will be happy

[Denvian]

I dont know if it was in the games, but I'm fairly sure it was in the books, because I knew before ME3 that Anderson was born in London.

I tracked down a wiki page that raises the where was he born question. It's not definitive yet but it mentions Atlanta  and sources it to the Shadow Broker files. Can't see anything there that indicates he was born their though

 
It was a note from Cynthia his mom in the Shadow Brokers base... the note came from Atlanta.  Does not really prove that he was born in Atlanta but it is interesting.

Modifié par Denvian, 21 mars 2012 - 09:17 .

[Emperor_Ike]

byne wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

To play devil's advocate. The problem with Indoc theory is that it can effectively kill off the people who enjoyed the endings as they stand currently.

And I'm sure all 4 of those people will be all torn up over it, but the rest of us will be happy

QFT. This is all I could think when I read that.

[jusenkyo7]

davionbandit wrote...

All that work I did helping the people on the Citadel and building the Citadel defense force-- for nothing because the Citadel is destroyed now?

Actually, I kind of wondered about this too. If the Citadel is completely under Reaper control, what was the point of beefing up its security? And how does beefing it up possibly increase your ability to fight the Reapers (Galactic Readiness)?

The only way that makes sense is if there's still a ground war going on in the Citadel itself, despite the fact that the Reapers assumed control of whatever motive force moved the Citadel to Earth.

I'm not even going to hypothesize how exactly they moved the Citadel, which appears to be larger than a mass relay. If the answer is that it moved itself, then wow ... given the codex explanation that the energy required to create a mass effect field varies exponentially (a mathematically ambiguous term, but I assume they mean exponents >> 1) with mass, if the Reapers can design the Citadel to generate such a field for itself, why do the Reapers require mass relays to get anywhere?

Still, this is probably off-topic, as it's pretty much equally bewildering whether or not IT holds true. But what else are we supposed to do till April?

[Tiax Rules All]

Emperor_Ike wrote...

byne wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

To play devil's advocate. The problem with Indoc theory is that it can effectively kill off the people who enjoyed the endings as they stand currently.

And I'm sure all 4 of those people will be all torn up over it, but the rest of us will be happy

QFT. This is all I could think when I read that.

yes simply, not buying the DLC is all they need to do to STAY happy.

[estebanus]

njfluffy19 wrote...

Denvian wrote...

byne wrote...

Denvian wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

nyrocron wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Speaking of London, doesn't it set off any alarm bells with anyone that we never find out why London? The final battle takes place there because the Reapers were focused on it, but we never found out why they were focused on it. Anderson made quite a point of how the Reapers were focusing on London for reasons unknown and it was unnerving him. The reasons unknown part, not the hometown part.

Wow, you are right. Has this been addressed anywhere?

Yeah...

You know the most tell tale sign something is off should be the fact that we are 750+ pages worth of Information in and we still find new hints, clues and problems with everything that happened...if all that was there by accident...yeah right.

Does anybody know if Anderson had ever mention in any previous game where he was born?  

I dont know if it was in the games, but I'm fairly sure it was in the books, because I knew before ME3 that Anderson was born in London.

Maybe they meant London, Canada lol... that is a bit of a push lol

Would explain the lack of an english accent.

I'm pretty sure that Anderson's lack of a british accent is explained in Mass Effect: revelation.
I think it was about mono-culture and the influence of the video-industry that caused many children to get american accents instead of british ones... 
I can't find the book right now, however, so I can't exactly quote it... But maybe someone else could find it?

[Golferguy758]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

To play devil's advocate. The problem with Indoc theory is that it can effectively kill off the people who enjoyed the endings as they stand currently.

people liked the currnet endings? and TBH aren't they outside the target audience?

Before I get lumped in with the rest, no I detest the endings as they stand. What i am saying though is that there CAN be a problem with alienating another portion of the player base.

Clarifying. If the indoctrination theory is true, that means there is no synthesis, control, or destroy endings (yet anyways). While most people did not like the endings it comes down to WHY they didn't like the endings. Did they not like it because nothing was explained, or did they not like the premise entirely.

If they liked the concepts, but the lack of explanation angered them, the indoctrination theory would remove those endings for them. Thus, all that it woudl take to remedy that is closure of some sort. And explaining the plotholes, a miracle in itself.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't really care one way or the other. I've posted a fair amount of evidence in this thread to support the theory. I just want endings to make sense more than anything.

[Martukis]

I would not be surprised if London was chosen because it was a center of resistance - from my understanding, there are plenty of tunnels underneath London, though I would imagine Tokyo would have the same infrastructure. Tunnels are the only real way I imagine a significant resistance force could manage hit-and-run attacks like those discussed by Anderson. I think it is pretty clear that the reapers attacked many places, but that the conduit was in London - which some logs suggest was where the political leaders were "being forced to enter a superstructure and 'negotiate' peace." They later emerged indoctrinated/huskified. With the scene at the start of ME3, and mass destruction on many cities, I would not be surprised if London became the bastion of resistance - they were seemingly the first hit, thus probably the first to recover, and may even have had some sort of experiment weapons/tactics that could help fight off reaper forces. I've often wondered if Anderson may have been captured and brought into the superstructure at some point, or perhaps just affected by the indoctrination signal from the reapers. I imagine his strong will would help him overcome direct control, but I could see his memories being tampered with.

[Icinix]

CitadelSurfer wrote...

Sorry but that one tweet just gets me... I believe it was Michael gambon. "if only you all knew what we had in store for you" or something along the lines. And then casey Hudson telling us hold on and have faith! Something is going down and it points to this thread!

It does. Ray and Caseys post game statements have nothing to break indoctrination theory. Indeed, in a lot of ways it actually reinforces it.

"We love ME3, we want people to keep buying it - tell people how great the rest of the game is, we had an event planned in April prior to launch - more will be brought to light there. We're still finalising how to clarify people who are confused by the endings..." etc etc

At no point have they said that this was intended to be the definitive end of the story.

They also say they are genuinely surprised as the reaction of some of their most loyal fans...why? Maybe because they didn't realise it was indoctrination? Because the most loyal fans would be expected to realise how broken the lore and logic is at the end - and that they deliberately decided you wouldn't be allowed to question it.

[Capeo]

lex0r11 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Wow. We finally get a definitive statement that the endings were exactly what they planned, from the co-founder no less, and the IT cult still keeps chugging along.

you must really hate this thread, am i right? why do you keep coming here? that is saying alot about you.

if you have read something evident in that blog entry, then you must be PR GOD. people saying this thread keeps grasping at straws? the irony is killing me. you call us desprate? i'm about to soil myself from the overflowing of hypocrisy in all your posts. you leech at every sentence to find anything to make you feel superior so you can 'i told you so'.

okay, we get it. you hate indoc. leave it.

but please, enlighten me what i couldn't read in that statement. i will reward you for it with whatever you want.

hell, i might think about picking up that old offer and convince my girlfriend to cosplay as an asari stripper and take pictures of it. and i will cosplay as a batarian gigolo if you find anything EVIDENT in that wall of PR.

You're joking right?  He defends "the endings" repeatedly.  He defends the artistic integrity of "the endings" repeatedly.  He says he's shocked at the response to "the endings".  He mentions directly that the trilogy is concluded.  He turns to the critics as a defense of "the endings".  He repeatedly mentions clarity and closure that only have meaning given the actual endings.  You have to be utterly delusional if you think BW would be taking all this heat, losing money and goodwill, as a planned thing.  Honestly, it is mind-blowing that anyone thinks a company would do such a thing.  They would never, EVER let the press review their game, use the blurbs in ads, and then come out and say "hey, the game you reviewed isn't the real game".  They would be utterly destroyed in the press and by a huge portion of the fanbase.  Much larger than the IT portion.

[ZerebusPrime]

Continuing with Anderson's odd behavior and "why London?"

It seems more and more likely to me now that London is a trap to lure in resistance fighters, if not Shepard himself. It's easy: send out an impression that the Reapers are focusing on one location, fortify that location, and then wait for what's left of the organized resistance to come to you. Linking the Citadel to it, connected with a beam of light, and faking the movement of prisoners into the beam for transport (or incineration) just adds honey to the trap.

Let's assume the Illusive Man warned the Repaers about the Crucible as stated by the Prothean VI. The Reapers have probably seen and destroyed this thing countless iterations over. They know it connects to the Citadel. So they move the Citadel to Earth orbit, lock it up, make it look like the only way to get to the Citadel is through London, and then Harbinger waits for the first sign of Shepard either near the beam on the ground or as part of a boarding party trying to hack their way through the Citadel's hull.

And then Shepard gets spotted and Harbinger swoops down to attempt the capture it had been seeking all through Mass Effect 2 and we get our so called ending.

[Denvian]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

To play devil's advocate. The problem with Indoc theory is that it can effectively kill off the people who enjoyed the endings as they stand currently.

people liked the currnet endings? and TBH aren't they outside the target audience?

Before I get lumped in with the rest, no I detest the endings as they stand. What i am saying though is that there CAN be a problem with alienating another portion of the player base.

Clarifying. If the indoctrination theory is true, that means there is no synthesis, control, or destroy endings (yet anyways). While most people did not like the endings it comes down to WHY they didn't like the endings. Did they not like it because nothing was explained, or did they not like the premise entirely.

If they liked the concepts, but the lack of explanation angered them, the indoctrination theory would remove those endings for them. Thus, all that it woudl take to remedy that is closure of some sort. And explaining the plotholes, a miracle in itself.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. I don't really care one way or the other. I've posted a fair amount of evidence in this thread to support the theory. I just want endings to make sense more than anything.

I am pretty sure any irritation they would have would be erased by the brilliant feat they did manage.  Just think of how hard it would be, if IT is true, to keep quiet about it while everyone is bashing their product!  

I would be like, "screw you! I am a genius"

Modifié par Denvian, 21 mars 2012 - 09:24 .

[Emperor_Ike]

artistic integrity

Every time I see this, all I can picture is Mona Lisa's arm as a bloody stump, and her keeping that same bloody smile.

[lookingglassmind]

Theorycrafting HUB's response to Ray:

http://w11.zetaboard...18624&t=7698722

TH3Fish wrote...

Honestly, at this point, it's become a matter of what BioWare will do. I think, unintentionally, the concept behind Indoctrination wrote itself into the story. Since the change in the ME writers has occurred, we have seen a change in focus and despite that, the endings (as they currently stand) have more holes than swiss-cheese. No writer in his or her right mind should find what was presented to us as being 'acceptable'.

The Indoctrination Theory practically built itself into the game; all the evidence is there, and points to the fact that indoctrination can work as a very viable solution. The details are there, and the subtle and obvious clues are there. Simply dismissing the theory as 'grasping at straws' is the sound of hurt fans who are, in matter of fact, thinking critically.

Many do not want to admit that indoctrination has been a core theme of Mass Effect, nor of Shepard's story itself, ever since Mass Effect 1. The theory is viable because the game itself supports the concept... and any who say otherwise do not understand the analysis that the Theorist community has made. We have done exactly what BioWare has said they have been looking for: we've given constructive criticism and feedback.

We've picked apart all the details, all the clues and hints; we've examined the endings from every angle we can. We've argued what works and what doesn't, and how our evidence could be interpreted differently. Alternative theories and analysis have spawned from this and we have become a cultured community where theorycrafting in any media is encouraged. This was a communal effort of analytical minds looking for justification and answers, not the drabblings of an angry fan-base demanding for a change that they believe they are entitled to by the company. We believe there can be more to this, and whether that happens or not is irrelevant. If BioWare's intention was to get the community to write its own ending, then they should be in awe of the Theorists who have come together and literally wrote out this theory as being a viable ending to the Mass Effect trilogy.

I encourage others to spread this post to BSN and other areas, make people aware that we are not 'crazy' and we are just as much fans of Mass Effect as those who would quick to quash our creativity.



http://w11.zetaboard...18624&t=7698722

[Robhuzz]

Golferguy758 wrote...

To play devil's advocate. The problem with Indoc theory is that it can effectively kill off the people who enjoyed the endings as they stand currently.

Well since the current ending makes no sense on it's own, the real endings will be a heck of a lot better. So if they actually liked the ending we got, they're going to freaking LOVE the ending that BioWare is making, right?

[Stigweird85]

Hyrule_Gal wrote...

I find it puzzling that the indoc theory pisses off people, the biggest complaint seems to be that "it retcons the ending " even though they will admit themselves that the current ending sucks major quad. They are annoyed at the principle of the idea not the actual idea, they would rather have this horrid ending than allow bioware to change up the rules.

. 
thats the beauty of it, it isn't a retcon is is using established lore. If none of the evidence existed and Bioware pulled the it was all a dream card that would be a retcon.

[Rifneno]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

nyrocron wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Speaking of London, doesn't it set off any alarm bells with anyone that we never find out why London? The final battle takes place there because the Reapers were focused on it, but we never found out why they were focused on it. Anderson made quite a point of how the Reapers were focusing on London for reasons unknown and it was unnerving him. The reasons unknown part, not the hometown part.

Wow, you are right. Has this been addressed anywhere?

Yeah...

You know the most tell tale sign something is off should be the fact that we are 750+ pages worth of Information in and we still find new hints, clues and problems with everything that happened...if all that was there by accident...yeah right.

It's not new.  I'm pretty sure I mentioned it a few hundred pages back.  The thing is, there's so many indications that something is amiss that you'd need a VI to keep track of them all.  Most of us have probably forgotten half of the stuff that's been brought up.  There's just... so... much.  But yeah, it's all because Bioware is lazy.  I started a drinking game with a buddy of mine.  Everytime somebody used "BW is just lazy" as an ironically lazy go-to excuse, one of us had to take a shot.  I'm really hoping he pulls through.  Alcohol poisoning is serious business.

estebanus wrote...

I'm pretty sure that Anderson's lack of a british accent is explained in Mass Effect: revelation.
I think it was about mono-culture and the influence of the video-industry that caused many children to get american accents instead of british ones... 
I can't find the book right now, however, so I can't exactly quote it... But maybe someone else could find it?

Makes sense.  Especially if you've ever seen British TV.  I'm not sure I'd put much stock in accents anyway.  If I did though, I'd be digging around Jamaica for Prothean ruins.

[nyrocron]

Capeo wrote...

You're joking right?  He defends "the endings" repeatedly.  He defends the artistic integrity of "the endings" repeatedly.  He says he's shocked at the response to "the endings".  He mentions directly that the trilogy is concluded.  He turns to the critics as a defense of "the endings".  He repeatedly mentions clarity and closure that only have meaning given the actual endings.  You have to be utterly delusional if you think BW would be taking all this heat, losing money and goodwill, as a planned thing.  Honestly, it is mind-blowing that anyone thinks a company would do such a thing.  They would never, EVER let the press review their game, use the blurbs in ads, and then come out and say "hey, the game you reviewed isn't the real game".  They would be utterly destroyed in the press and by a huge portion of the fanbase.  Much larger than the IT portion.

Are you sure they are losing money?
I really don't know that much about the matter but I would think that most sales are in the first weeks, many did even preorder ME3. And now they got massive media coverage. It may be kind of negative (but mostly just controversial) but I think they currently are not losing money over the ending.

Modifié par nyrocron, 21 mars 2012 - 09:29 .

[Angmir]

Golferguy758 wrote...

To play devil's advocate. The problem with Indoc theory is that it can effectively kill off the people who enjoyed the endings as they stand currently.

I dont know a single soul that would defend the ending with his (virtual) life.

Even among thouse who accept it and dont mind it there arent any especialy in love with it.

I myself think that the explaination to Reapers existence given in this fake ending is good (just didnt expained properly)
Synthetics will some-day expand to a point they no longer can be contained and might at that point destroy every organics - only sollution to ensure this doesnt happen is to purge all of the galaxy of every advanced technology every 50 000 years.

It is drastic through efficient solution.
I wouldnt mind it that was their purpuse, but then I am 100% sure ME3 ending is a illusion - I have seen way to many facts to simply blame all on chance and lazyness.

I think ME3 will be remembered forever thanks to that great Mischief of a fake ending - makeing players belive the fight is over only to prove how ill-witted they are (mayority )

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Capeo wrote...

lex0r11 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Wow. We finally get a definitive statement that the endings were exactly what they planned, from the co-founder no less, and the IT cult still keeps chugging along.

you must really hate this thread, am i right? why do you keep coming here? that is saying alot about you.

if you have read something evident in that blog entry, then you must be PR GOD. people saying this thread keeps grasping at straws? the irony is killing me. you call us desprate? i'm about to soil myself from the overflowing of hypocrisy in all your posts. you leech at every sentence to find anything to make you feel superior so you can 'i told you so'.

okay, we get it. you hate indoc. leave it.

but please, enlighten me what i couldn't read in that statement. i will reward you for it with whatever you want.

hell, i might think about picking up that old offer and convince my girlfriend to cosplay as an asari stripper and take pictures of it. and i will cosplay as a batarian gigolo if you find anything EVIDENT in that wall of PR.

You're joking right?  He defends "the endings" repeatedly.  He defends the artistic integrity of "the endings" repeatedly.  He says he's shocked at the response to "the endings".  He mentions directly that the trilogy is concluded.  He turns to the critics as a defense of "the endings".  He repeatedly mentions clarity and closure that only have meaning given the actual endings.  You have to be utterly delusional if you think BW would be taking all this heat, losing money and goodwill, as a planned thing.  Honestly, it is mind-blowing that anyone thinks a company would do such a thing.  They would never, EVER let the press review their game, use the blurbs in ads, and then come out and say "hey, the game you reviewed isn't the real game".  They would be utterly destroyed in the press and by a huge portion of the fanbase.  Much larger than the IT portion.

And what example do you go of? I cant remember a single game in history which launched with the ending coming later, it is unprecedented so we dont know what the final reaction will be if IT turns our to be true.

Facts are that an Indoctraination ending such as this one would lose a hell of alot of its impact if we immediately got the answer and if you want to ask an even better question of why to do IT? Look around you, the internet is buzzing with activity sourrunding this game to the point where few games have ever received this kind of attention (even if negative)

Ask yourslef this. If Bioware pulls this gamble of, if they constantly planned for this to happen and release (free) DLC that finishes the story, this ending will be remembered for a long, long time, so long I dare not even think about. People will have not just an ending, but the controversy, the discussions and finally the revalation to remember it by. It will be unprecedented within the industry.

And so far no factual evidence has disproved this theory, no absolute statements or complete facts. All we got is promise of something in April, a request for patience and several, no a mountain of hinst from Bioware and the game that something is not as it seems.

Mark my words, this is a gamble and the wheels are still spinning.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 21 mars 2012 - 09:36 .

[xXZEROxTRUTHXx]

[Denvian]

nyrocron wrote...

Capeo wrote...

You're joking right?  He defends "the endings" repeatedly.  He defends the artistic integrity of "the endings" repeatedly.  He says he's shocked at the response to "the endings".  He mentions directly that the trilogy is concluded.  He turns to the critics as a defense of "the endings".  He repeatedly mentions clarity and closure that only have meaning given the actual endings.  You have to be utterly delusional if you think BW would be taking all this heat, losing money and goodwill, as a planned thing.  Honestly, it is mind-blowing that anyone thinks a company would do such a thing.  They would never, EVER let the press review their game, use the blurbs in ads, and then come out and say "hey, the game you reviewed isn't the real game".  They would be utterly destroyed in the press and by a huge portion of the fanbase.  Much larger than the IT portion.

Are you sure they are losing money?
I really don't know that much about the matter but I would think that most sales are in the first weeks, many did even preorder ME3. And now they got massive media coverage. It may be kind of negative (but mostly just controversial) but I think they currently are not losing money over the ending.

Well the Amazon review is at 2 stars.... Considering how many people use that as a gage to buy something I am pretty sure they are out some money... Not sure how much... But I think that will come back if they really do have a real brilliant ending!!

[nyrocron]

Angmir wrote...

I myself think that the explaination to Reapers existence given in this fake ending is good (just didnt expained properly)
Synthetics will some-day expand to a point they no longer can be contained and might at that point destroy every organics - only sollution to ensure this doesnt happen is to purge all of the galaxy of every advanced technology every 50 000 years.

That has already been mentioned but why not just destroy the mass relays or make them unaccessible for organics? Then they would develop way slower. I don't think the reapers wouldn't come up with this idea in all the time.
But maybe I would even be okay with this explanation if the other plot holes were fixed.

[Golferguy758]

It's all speculation one way or the other. trust me guys, I'm on board with this, for the most part, but I feel that I have to present another side to the argument. Do I think the sheer number of coincidences lead to a pattern? Yes.

However, I can also see it as something that was started, scrapped due to time, with bits and pieces left in because it had already been done, and to undo it all would not be possible due to time/resources.