Ce sujet est fermé
Martukis wrote...
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.
Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
---
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.
).
Modifié par Erethrian, 21 mars 2012 - 09:34 .
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.
Modifié par lex0r11, 21 mars 2012 - 10:16 .
nyrocron wrote...
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.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.
But maybe I would even be okay with this explanation if the other plot holes were fixed.
lookingglassmind wrote...
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
Modifié par nyrocron, 21 mars 2012 - 09:48 .
SharpVec wrote...
nyrocron wrote...
http://imgur.com/YDTCo
That certainly is an interesting reply.
I can't wait!
http://social.biowar.../index/10350970 - can account for choosing previous ending AND still give them choice of same ending should they truly wish it at the end of the dlcGolferguy758 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.
Modifié par Redbelle, 21 mars 2012 - 09:56 .
Redbelle wrote...
The answer is none of the above. It started out as a way to explain why events played out the way they did after Harbinger shoots Shep. Think about all your experiences with Mass Effect. You have been the guiding hand that directs Shepard and to direct him you have needed information. At the end of ME3 all your information suddenly become suspect and questions arise.
wait wait wait.
please, answer me this question so i finally know where your thoughts come from :
what is the goal of the indoctrination theory?
-it wants to change the ending
-it wants to let people be crazy to each other and throw their stuff in peoples faces
-it wants to explain the ending and accept it
-it wants to conspire just for the sake of conspiring
-it wants to explain the ending and provide a steppingstone for new engame DLC without throwing the current ending out of the airlock
-it wants to troll and make people angry. lolz.
please, pick one.
Please consider the following. Harbinger shoots Shepard before he gets to the conduit. you eventually wake and find that your hud has dissapeared and you no longer run out of ammo. You see the conduit and advance never taking your eyes off it. You enter, Anderson is ahead of you. Yet not so far ahead that it is possible you should have seen him enter the conduit.
After considering the following please answer the question. Does this make sense in the overall experience of Mass Effect you have played through so far. You may choose to explain this away as 'It's what Bioware chose to do' but to many players this point stands as the point where the plotting starts to unravel and where indoc theory begins to explain events. Indoc theory uses past events as the frame work to understand what happens after Harbinger shoots you.
If their is another explanation I'd love to hear it but thus far Indoc theory has proven the best explanation to those us the Mass effect community who have asked why certain events occur and the motivations of the characters who drive them. Characters are suddenly out of character, or not where they should be given the situation.
Modifié par greywardencommander, 21 mars 2012 - 09:57 .
NoSpin wrote...
First let me say that after completing the game and doing research on the ending because it "didn't feel right", I am a complete supporter of the Indoctrination Theory. It makes complete sense when taken in context of certain things said/done in this narrative (and The Arrival DLC). It also makes the Bioware writing team complete freaking geniuses.
That being said, there are a few people who feel that by bioware coming out and saying the endings are as they intended, this disputes the Indoctrination Theory. Bull. The endings are exactly as they intended, which is ambiguous, "not quite right", and somewhat final.Their plan was to make this feel like the ending, and a few months down the road (whether it be E3/PAX/Random Gaming Convention) when they announced ME4 and the endings of ME3 as indoctrinations, the entire gaming community would have a panic attack and herald them as geniuses.
Unfortunately that plan seems to have went awry with the amount of crazy outrage over the ending (to a video game guys!). They expected some amount of discussion, but this fandom meltdown has them reworking their timetable to get something out sooner.
And for those who still think IT is nuts, just look at the scene with the Stargazer and the kid. We witness Buzz Aldrin Stargazer guy telling this child what we assume is the entire narrative of Mass Effect 3. The end of Shepard's story according to those who believe the original endings happened right? But the kid wants another story about The Shepard. And what do you know Buzz Aldrin HAS another story. That is basically Bioware smacking gamers across the face and saying "Shep isn't dead...get excited!! And buy more DLC!". Without the IT, how is there any way to explain the Stargazer's last line?
Modifié par Angmir, 21 mars 2012 - 10:00 .
nyrocron wrote...
http://imgur.com/YDTCo
/edit:
Also they responded to a link to this thread with "Those are some good points you raise. Thanks for sharing."
Neither means anything concerning IT, but I think it's interesting.
lex0r11 wrote...
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.
wait wait wait.
please, answer me this question so i finally know where your thoughts come from :
what is the goal of the indoctrination theory?
-it wants to change the ending
-it wants to let people be crazy to each other and throw their stuff in peoples faces
-it wants to explain the ending and accept it
-it wants to conspire just for the sake of conspiring
-it wants to explain the ending and provide a steppingstone for new engame DLC without throwing the current ending out of the airlock
-it wants to troll and make people angry. lolz.
please, pick one.
zakaryzb wrote...
I just hope the changes Ray Muzyka is hinting at isn’t just "closure" added to the end of the cut scenes. I mean I want that, but where is the epic ground battle, the epic battle of the Normandy where it ****s up Harby? I don't know about you but when I was playing the game I was SOOOO looking forward to some crazy cinematic that displayed all my work uniting the entire galaxy.
I's a supporter of IT and still holding the line, but if this is false I want really want some more epicness added to the fighting that just a simple "closure" DLC. Just my thoughts...
Redbelle wrote...
wait wait wait.
please, answer me this question so i finally know where your thoughts come from :
what is the goal of the indoctrination theory?
-it wants to change the ending
-it wants to let people be crazy to each other and throw their stuff in peoples faces
-it wants to explain the ending and accept it
-it wants to conspire just for the sake of conspiring
-it
wants to explain the ending and provide a steppingstone for new engame
DLC without throwing the current ending out of the airlock
-it wants to troll and make people angry. lolz.
please, pick one.
modified > On reflection I think the second option up is closest to what we hope will happen.
The
answer is none of the above. It started out as a way to explain why
events played out the way they did after Harbinger shoots Shep. Think
about all your experiences with Mass Effect. You have been the guiding
hand that directs Shepard and to direct him you have needed information.
At the end of ME3 all your information suddenly become suspect and
questions arise.
Please consider the following. Harbinger shoots
Shepard before he gets to the conduit. you eventually wake and find
that your hud has dissapeared and you no longer run out of ammo. Mass
efect has always used real world physics and theory to explain the
ME universe so why break habit now? You see the conduit and advance
never taking your eyes off it. You enter, Anderson is ahead of you. Yet
not so far ahead that it is possible you should have seen him enter the
conduit.
After considering the following please answer the
question. Does this make sense in the overall experience of Mass Effect
you have played through so far. You may choose to explain this away as
'It's what Bioware chose to do' but to many players this point stands as
the point where the plotting starts to unravel and where indoc theory
begins to explain events. Indoc theory uses past events as the frame
work to understand what happens after Harbinger shoots you.
If
their is another explanation I'd love to hear it but thus far Indoc
theory has proven the best explanation to those us the Mass effect
community who have asked why certain events occur and the motivations of
the characters who drive them. Characters are suddenly out of
character, or not where they should be given the situation.
Redbelle wrote...
modified > On reflection I think the second option up is closest to what we hope will happen.
Modifié par lex0r11, 21 mars 2012 - 10:11 .
please, pick one.
-it wants to explain the ending and provide a steppingstone for new engame DLC without throwing the current ending out of the airlock
Modifié par Tiax Rules All, 21 mars 2012 - 10:08 .
Rifneno wrote...
Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
nyrocron wrote...
Wow, you are right. Has this been addressed anywhere?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.
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.
Retour en haut
