57139 réponses à ce sujet

[jedsithor]

I think my biggest problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that it forces you to choose Destroy in order to keep playing. And how far does it go? Do you only get to keep playing if you got enough EMS to get the "Shepard lives" scene?

If Bioware do release DLC that makes use of Indoctrination, I don't think it can be just for those who chose Destroy. Imagine downloading this DLC, possibly even paying for it, only to receive a message saying "You failed! Please go back and choose Destroy to keep playing!" It's ridiculous.

For that reason, I believe the theory needs to be looked at again. I've no problem believing the theory as a whole but let's say it's true. It means that if you chose synthesis or control, your Shepard is still alive, just indoctrinated. Right? So I guess you could play through the new endgame as indoctrinated Shepard, fighting for the enemy or struggling to break free of indoctrination.

It's not unprecedented in Bioware games. In KOTOR you can turn to the Dark Side but at the very end, Carth shows up and gives you one last chance to redeem yourself. Something like that could work I guess.

The problem with such a scenario in Mass Effect though is that your choices were never really about right and wrong, good and evil. Shepard was never the "bad" guy. You can make him to some rotten things like shoot Mordin in the back, but Renegade Shepard would say it was for the greater good. The choices were about saving the galaxy and what you would do to achieve that. Even the choices at the end of the game, as poorly thought out as they appear to be, are about saving the galaxy from the Reaper threat. Control them, join them or destroy them. Whichever you choose, the threat is over. It's a matter of deciding which is better for the individual player. As it turns out, they're all terrible and make no sense.

Indoctrination, while a cool idea, takes that away. It suggests that there really is only one choice. Can you really play as an indoctrinated Shepard for the final part of the game? If the player chooses synthesis, is he then punished for wanting an ending where organics and synthetics are the same, thus no more wars? Do you then force the player to start gunning down squad members? You've saved the galaxy a couple of times but now you have to play as the villain? It just feels wrong and it goes against the Mass Effect concept just as much as the current endings do.

Maybe it can work, but Bioware need to be really careful about how they implement it should they choose to. Having 3 poor choices is bad enough. But having 1 "real" choice is arguably worse.

Modifié par jedsithor, 22 mars 2012 - 01:15 .

[greywardencommander]

IronSabbath88 wrote...

greywardencommander wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

Arrival, in my opinion is the very beginning of the whole IT.

When Shepard gets in contact with Object Rho then is out for two days, that's when the beginning is.

see my previous point about OPTIONAL Arrival being the 'end of ME2' in DLC because the events happen in beginning of ME3 regardless of having played it.

This contradicts those claiming they WOULDN'T end the game on DLC and also the fact they wouldn't 'force' you to have picked destroy even when they've forced you to kill over 300,000 Batarians, they also 'force you' to have some sort of Rachni Queen regardless of your choice.

They're certainly not above 'forcing' the narrative on you.

You're really intent on hating BioWare, aren't you?

far from it Bioware are my favourite developer and I've played every one of their games and am an avid believer that IDT is right (or something similar) and is deliberate, if anyone could pull it off it's them.
I'm merely pointing out those that perceive destroy as being the only option a 'flaw' in the theory (falsely) or that they would never make DLC the actual ending
i'm simply giving an example of both situations in the same mass effect example - Arrival (it's explained in that context better in my original post about it)

Modifié par greywardencommander, 22 mars 2012 - 01:22 .

[Redbelle]

Ever since Mass Effect 1 Bio Ware went to great lengths to explain space travel in realistic terms, using theory that should be proved correctn (or false) should we ever develop the tech to try it.

[Golferguy758]

jedsithor wrote...

I think my biggest problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that it forces you to choose Destroy in order to keep playing. And how far does it go? Do you only get to keep playing if you got enough EMS to get the "Shepard lives" scene?

If Bioware do release DLC that makes use of Indoctrination, I don't think it can be just for those who chose Destroy. Imagine downloading this DLC, possibly even paying for it, only to receive a message saying "You failed! Please go back and choose Destroy to keep playing!" It's ridiculous.

For that reason, I believe the theory needs to be looked at again. I've no problem believing the theory as a whole but let's say it's true. It means that if you chose synthesis or control, your Shepard is still alive, just indoctrinated. Right? So I guess you could play through the new endgame as indoctrinated Shepard, fighting for the enemy or struggling to break free of indoctrination.

It's not unprecedented in Bioware games. In KOTOR you can turn to the Dark Side but at the very end, Carth shows up and gives you one last chance to redeem yourself. Something like that could work I guess.

The problem with such a scenario in Mass Effect though is that your choices were never really about right and wrong, good and evil. Shepard was never the "bad" guy. You can make him to some rotten things like shoot Mordin in the back, but Renegade Shepard would say it was for the greater good. The choices were about saving the galaxy and what you would do to achieve that. Even the choices at the end of the game, as poorly thought out as they appear to be, are about saving the galaxy from the Reaper threat. Control them, join them or destroy them. Whichever you choose, the threat is over. It's a matter of deciding which is better for the individual player. As it turns out, they're all terrible and make no sense.

Indoctrination, while a cool idea, takes that away. It suggests that there really is only one choice. Can you really play as an indoctrinated Shepard for the final part of the game? If the player chooses synthesis, is he then punished for wanting an ending where organics and synthetics are the same, thus no more wars? Do you then force the player to start gunning down squad members? You've saved the galaxy a couple of times but now you have to play as the villain? It just feels wrong and it goes against the Mass Effect concept just as much as the current endings do.

Maybe it can work, but Bioware need to be really careful about how they implement it should they choose you. Having 3 poor choices is bad enough. But having 1 "real" choice is arguably worse.

I feel it's important to show how the game can continue if you don't choose red, because that would be very much a concern for people. GBGriffon brings up a lot of valid points. I posted this in his thread, and would like a couple of opinions. 

If you chose anything other than Red:
Hmm they could always make you pull a Saren. Even though he is indoctrinated he sitll keeps flashes of his own personality. It's why he could kill himself in an attempt to stop being controlled by Sovereign. Translating that to Shepard terms would perhaps be something like you wake up regardless of your choice. You don't realize you're indoctrinated until your "final confrontation with harbinger" (No Items, Final Destination of course). You fight against harbinger alongside your team but before you truly beat him you feel the control he exerts over you.

He could even attempt to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL. At this point you have choices. You can willingly let it happen (A bad ending to watch, I'd choose it to see what happens) Or you can fight against the control one last time and kill yourself thereby weakening harbinger so that your allies can finish him. Much like what happens to Sovereign when you kill Saren who has been directly controlled.

Just a thought. I can clarify something if you'd like. And I will readily admit it is by no means perfect. I just came up with it on the spot. 

 it'd give options for the various endings. Like if you chose Blue you are destined to get to the bad ending. Seriously, who the hell chose blue expecting to be able to control the reapers . Shepard is fully controlled by the Reapers and you get to watch them purge the galaxy. "But the future refused to change" Chrono Trigger. Always relevant.

Green leads to a potential bittersweet ending becuase you can beat the reapers at the cost of self-sacrifice, and one that I think coudl be done EXTREMELY well. OR a dark ending that has you being essentially a vessel for the leader of the Reapers. Also potential to be quite cool. I always wondered what it would have been like to take Saren up on his offer in ME1 to join the reapers.

Red leads to both a bitter sweet ending like if your ems isn't high enough. You have to die to take down Harbinger, but by doing so you guarantee that he'd be weakened. but you could also have the "best" ending if you are prepared enough.   

[greywardencommander]

jedsithor wrote...

I think my biggest problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that it forces you to choose Destroy in order to keep playing. And how far does it go? Do you only get to keep playing if you got enough EMS to get the "Shepard lives" scene?

If Bioware do release DLC that makes use of Indoctrination, I don't think it can be just for those who chose Destroy. Imagine downloading this DLC, possibly even paying for it, only to receive a message saying "You failed! Please go back and choose Destroy to keep playing!" It's ridiculous.

For that reason, I believe the theory needs to be looked at again. I've no problem believing the theory as a whole but let's say it's true. It means that if you chose synthesis or control, your Shepard is still alive, just indoctrinated. Right? So I guess you could play through the new endgame as indoctrinated Shepard, fighting for the enemy or struggling to break free of indoctrination.

It's not unprecedented in Bioware games. In KOTOR you can turn to the Dark Side but at the very end, Carth shows up and gives you one last chance to redeem yourself. Something like that could work I guess.

The problem with such a scenario in Mass Effect though is that your choices were never really about right and wrong, good and evil. Shepard was never the "bad" guy. You can make him to some rotten things like shoot Mordin in the back, but Renegade Shepard would say it was for the greater good. The choices were about saving the galaxy and what you would do to achieve that. Even the choices at the end of the game, as poorly thought out as they appear to be, are about saving the galaxy from the Reaper threat. Control them, join them or destroy them. Whichever you choose, the threat is over. It's a matter of deciding which is better for the individual player. As it turns out, they're all terrible and make no sense.

Indoctrination, while a cool idea, takes that away. It suggests that there really is only one choice. Can you really play as an indoctrinated Shepard for the final part of the game? If the player chooses synthesis, is he then punished for wanting an ending where organics and synthetics are the same, thus no more wars? Do you then force the player to start gunning down squad members? You've saved the galaxy a couple of times but now you have to play as the villain? It just feels wrong and it goes against the Mass Effect concept just as much as the current endings do.

Maybe it can work, but Bioware need to be really careful about how they implement it should they choose you. Having 3 poor choices is bad enough. But having 1 "real" choice is arguably worse.

this has been accounted for already, for example see my thread.http://social.biowar.../index/10350970 
The idea is that IDT states destroy is the 'best option' because you successfully resist the indoctrination attempt but that does not mean, nor is it ever stated, that anyone who didn't choose destroy are flipped the finger and shouldn't play with these carry over outcomes. in fact many state that the DLC could have you play out as indoctrinated if you choose control/synthesis and have several chances at 'breaking' it again, maybe even a Saren like way right at the end and sacrifice yourself for the greater good. Heck in my one if the player still wants to control Reapers (ultra renegade perhaps) or synthesis (the best way to create peace maybe?) they can. Nothing fundamentally changes.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 22 mars 2012 - 01:18 .

[Redbelle]

jedsithor wrote...

I think my biggest problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that it forces you to choose Destroy in order to keep playing. And how far does it go? Do you only get to keep playing if you got enough EMS to get the "Shepard lives" scene?

If Bioware do release DLC that makes use of Indoctrination, I don't think it can be just for those who chose Destroy. Imagine downloading this DLC, possibly even paying for it, only to receive a message saying "You failed! Please go back and choose Destroy to keep playing!" It's ridiculous.

For that reason, I believe the theory needs to be looked at again. I've no problem believing the theory as a whole but let's say it's true. It means that if you chose synthesis or control, your Shepard is still alive, just indoctrinated. Right? So I guess you could play through the new endgame as indoctrinated Shepard, fighting for the enemy or struggling to break free of indoctrination.

It's not unprecedented in Bioware games. In KOTOR you can turn to the Dark Side but at the very end, Carth shows up and gives you one last chance to redeem yourself. Something like that could work I guess.

The problem with such a scenario in Mass Effect though is that your choices were never really about right and wrong, good and evil. Shepard was never the "bad" guy. You can make him to some rotten things like shoot Mordin in the back, but Renegade Shepard would say it was for the greater good. The choices were about saving the galaxy and what you would do to achieve that. Even the choices at the end of the game, as poorly thought out as they appear to be, are about saving the galaxy from the Reaper threat. Control them, join them or destroy them. Whichever you choose, the threat is over. It's a matter of deciding which is better for the individual player. As it turns out, they're all terrible and make no sense.

Indoctrination, while a cool idea, takes that away. It suggests that there really is only one choice. Can you really play as an indoctrinated Shepard for the final part of the game? If the player chooses synthesis, is he then punished for wanting an ending where organics and synthetics are the same, thus no more wars? Do you then force the player to start gunning down squad members? You've saved the galaxy a couple of times but now you have to play as the villain? It just feels wrong and it goes against the Mass Effect concept just as much as the current endings do.

Maybe it can work, but Bioware need to be really careful about how they implement it should they choose you. Having 3 poor choices is bad enough. But having 1 "real" choice is arguably worse.

I know the synthesis ending may come back to bite us now that all life has been made syn-ganic, or Org-thetic, but depsite this the culture's and traditions, not to mention the way's the DNA has not re-formed life into one shape shows that it is not the certain beginning of the end for all life. It just means we can read our books in the dark by holding up an arm close to the page. And that Geth should be able to have babies..... maybe.

For example, I imagine only the Asari can still do the embrace eternity party trick.

I think it's important for Shepard to go through Indoctrination though. It's the weapon of the Reaper and Shep is ultimately our hero put there to fight the Reaper. Fighting indoctrination knowing that every other character who faced indoctrination has been turned gives the conflict more bite.

Modifié par Redbelle, 22 mars 2012 - 01:19 .

[Allaiya]

Cedrica007 wrote...

In this youtube of Overlord at the 5 minute mark M44 says "Geographic conditions indicate and aesthetically pleasing view nearby" "Organic life forms may wish to take note". That was the point where I decided to look up in my game and my jaw dropped, lol. At 5:50 you can definitely see it. Is it the same??? Hard to say for sure.

Now that you mention this, this is correct. I remember playing overlord one time and spotting those 2 moons and it made me think of elder scrolls & its moons lol

Modifié par mrfinke, 22 mars 2012 - 01:18 .

[Allaiya]

LadyVakarian wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

byne wrote...

Well, since people seem to be talking about the Relays in the end representing Shep's brain, I figure I'll quote something I said nearly a hundred pages back:

byne wrote...

Wait wait wait, hold everything.

Can someone verify if the chain reaction starts in the Viper system or not?

Because, I have seen multiple people (myself included) say they believe that at the end, the galaxy is representative of the neural pathways in Shep's brain, with red being the brain rejecting indoctrination, and blue/green accepting it.

If the chain reaction does in fact start in the Viper nebula, we could assume that Shep's brain perceives that zone of space as being where indoctrination started (by being unconscious near Object Rho for two days), hence why the chain reaction of rejection/acceptance would start there.

I think I just blew my own mind.

We did in fact verify that it seems that the chain reaction starts in the Viper Nebula, which makes no sense, because the only Relay in that system was the Alpha Relay, which we destroyed.

Now.. that's EXTREMELY interesting! Either very good evidence or a giant ****up.

I know I am late to the game on the above subject, but I just wanted to provide evidence in the form of a screenie to confirm the theory that the beam does, in fact, start in the Viper Nebula:

Mass Effect 2 map showing where it is located on the map:
http://images.euroga...1/resize/600x-1

Mass Effect 3 Screen I took of the ending: 



Hmmmm? 

Not to mention the fact that as you watch the video of the relays, the beam doesn't reach the Local Cluster for quite a while! 

Wow that is a great catch! My mind is blown!

[Dein Justin]

jedsithor wrote...

I think my biggest problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that it forces you to choose Destroy in order to keep playing. And how far does it go? Do you only get to keep playing if you got enough EMS to get the "Shepard lives" scene?

If Bioware do release DLC that makes use of Indoctrination, I don't think it can be just for those who chose Destroy. Imagine downloading this DLC, possibly even paying for it, only to receive a message saying "You failed! Please go back and choose Destroy to keep playing!" It's ridiculous.

For that reason, I believe the theory needs to be looked at again. I've no problem believing the theory as a whole but let's say it's true. It means that if you chose synthesis or control, your Shepard is still alive, just indoctrinated. Right? So I guess you could play through the new endgame as indoctrinated Shepard, fighting for the enemy or struggling to break free of indoctrination.

It's not unprecedented in Bioware games. In KOTOR you can turn to the Dark Side but at the very end, Carth shows up and gives you one last chance to redeem yourself. Something like that could work I guess.

The problem with such a scenario in Mass Effect though is that your choices were never really about right and wrong, good and evil. Shepard was never the "bad" guy. You can make him to some rotten things like shoot Mordin in the back, but Renegade Shepard would say it was for the greater good. The choices were about saving the galaxy and what you would do to achieve that. Even the choices at the end of the game, as poorly thought out as they appear to be, are about saving the galaxy from the Reaper threat. Control them, join them or destroy them. Whichever you choose, the threat is over. It's a matter of deciding which is better for the individual player. As it turns out, they're all terrible and make no sense.

Indoctrination, while a cool idea, takes that away. It suggests that there really is only one choice. Can you really play as an indoctrinated Shepard for the final part of the game? If the player chooses synthesis, is he then punished for wanting an ending where organics and synthetics are the same, thus no more wars? Do you then force the player to start gunning down squad members? You've saved the galaxy a couple of times but now you have to play as the villain? It just feels wrong and it goes against the Mass Effect concept just as much as the current endings do.

Maybe it can work, but Bioware need to be really careful about how they implement it should they choose you. Having 3 poor choices is bad enough. But having 1 "real" choice is arguably worse.

this is what I argued about last time..greywardencommander has an answer, you might wanna check his thread http://social.biowar...0970/1#10371784 

other than that...Casey did say ME3 would be the last of Shepard's tale...but if Stargazer says about another tale of the Shepard, might be an ME4 with Shepard again OR the tales of little blue / helmeted / human Shepard..

[Dein Justin]

mrfinke wrote...

LadyVakarian wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

byne wrote...

Well, since people seem to be talking about the Relays in the end representing Shep's brain, I figure I'll quote something I said nearly a hundred pages back:

byne wrote...

Wait wait wait, hold everything.

Can someone verify if the chain reaction starts in the Viper system or not?

Because, I have seen multiple people (myself included) say they believe that at the end, the galaxy is representative of the neural pathways in Shep's brain, with red being the brain rejecting indoctrination, and blue/green accepting it.

If the chain reaction does in fact start in the Viper nebula, we could assume that Shep's brain perceives that zone of space as being where indoctrination started (by being unconscious near Object Rho for two days), hence why the chain reaction of rejection/acceptance would start there.

I think I just blew my own mind.

We did in fact verify that it seems that the chain reaction starts in the Viper Nebula, which makes no sense, because the only Relay in that system was the Alpha Relay, which we destroyed.

Now.. that's EXTREMELY interesting! Either very good evidence or a giant ****up.

I know I am late to the game on the above subject, but I just wanted to provide evidence in the form of a screenie to confirm the theory that the beam does, in fact, start in the Viper Nebula:

Mass Effect 2 map showing where it is located on the map:
http://images.euroga...1/resize/600x-1

Mass Effect 3 Screen I took of the ending: 



Hmmmm? 

Not to mention the fact that as you watch the video of the relays, the beam doesn't reach the Local Cluster for quite a while! 

Wow that is a great catch! My mind is blown!

I would negate that though since the circular disk of the Milky Way can be rotated in a way such that the cluster position is rotated some degrees clockwise/counter-clockwise...but then again, the radial distance from the galactic center is an issue. If you look back to where Haelstrom was in ME2 and ME3, it's totally different places and also if you compare the position of Horsehead Nebula in ME1 and ME3 (not sure if ME2 is the same), it's different.

[greywardencommander]

DeadLetterBox wrote...

Aite's gonna be toast relatively soon anyways, if you read the description of the planet.

http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Aite

maybe so, but if and it is a big IF (I have my doubts without screenshot comparisons), it IS the planet based on the stargazer scene, it might just mean that scene is a little sooner than we'd like to think e.g 100 years later

[Sire Styx]

(I know the topic has likely moved on, but I'm not reading through almost 800 pages lol)
At first, after finishing the game, I was pretty annoyed. That was probably due somewhat with me finding the ending 'terrible', which was reinforced by general consensus (on the internet) that the ending was bad.

However.....

....after reading a few websites I started to think about the 'indoctrination' theory. It kinda made sense. I started reading more and more. I now fully believe that the entire ending was due to the indoctrination. It's been pointed out in greater detail in earlier posts, but from what I understand:

The child at the begining was the 1st influence of the reaper, putting doubt in shepard's mind. The 'growl' about then is supposed to indicate an interrupted indoctrination (according to some book).
The dreams shepard has are full of oily shadows, like the rachni said about. They're also full of whispers and buzzing/humming, all signs of indoctrination.
Indoctrination also means the the person starts to do things that would oppose what they wanted and actually help the reapers. I think (but I'm not certain) that some of the renagade actions throughout the game hinder the war efforts, suggesting subtle influences.

Near the end Shepard almost gets hit by a beam and then wakes up damaged or something. Suddenly the scene is similar to the dream sequences they've been having, with the trees and that and looking bleak and walking slowly. It starts to become more unreal as they enter the beam of light. It reminds me of the geth virtual interface thing, where you entered a bright beam of light for the exit point. The next part where they are on the citadel, it looks odd. This may suggest some sort of representation made from Shepards mind.
Personally, the chasm bit in the middle reminds me of that area in the geth missions, where electricity shot down every couple seconds.
After this, the illusive mand and Anderson are magically there, which is strange. They're supposed to be representations of Shepard's mind and that (other people have explained it better).
When you meet the catalyst, it's that weird child again. The catalyst gives you three options, 2 'blue' ones (not the colour of the cutscene) and one 'red' one. This is to throw you off and assume that one of the blue ones is correct. However, this just advances the reapers cause. If you choose to destroy, there is an explosion, similar to that when shepard was nearly hit by that laser.
If you had high enough war assets, then you get a little clip of Shepard's body breathing. This all points (at least in my mind) to a game-long indoctrination attempt, which when Shepard's at their lowest and most vulnerable (i.e. after being knocked flying by the laser) manages to get hold of them and trick them in some kind of indoctrination/hallucination/virtual reality thing which is only stopped if Shepard manages to throw off the influence.

In my mind this will lead on to a future DLC. I think we may have spoiled it a little bit by kicking off about the games ending. I believe that the indoctrination thing (if true) may have been a bit too subtle for a lot of us to pick up on immediately (which kinda links in with indoctrination being a very subtle process where the person is not aware of it).

(Infact, if Bioware had already planned to release a new ending (which I wouldn't be surprised, because we already had day one DLC which they planned) then by complaining about and demanding a new ending we are actually playing right into their hands without knowing, which is possibly ironic if you consider the whole indoctrination thing.)

But yeah, there seems to have been hints placed throughout the game. The ending seemingly being full of plot-holes, inconsistancy and 'magic' just seems to further show that it's not 'real' if you understand my meaning?

Modifié par Sire Styx, 22 mars 2012 - 01:28 .

[FellishBeast]

I want to add something.

I'm not sure where I saw this before...but it was an interesting point. It might have been in this thread, idk. It was right after I beat the game and I was scouring Google for information. But apparently pretty much every time you see the child during the earth sequence, he is near or in front of the word "caution" or "danger." I'll look to see if I can find the screenshots again.

[zakaryzb]

Dein Justin wrote...

mrfinke wrote...

LadyVakarian wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

byne wrote...

Well, since people seem to be talking about the Relays in the end representing Shep's brain, I figure I'll quote something I said nearly a hundred pages back:

byne wrote...

Wait wait wait, hold everything.

Can someone verify if the chain reaction starts in the Viper system or not?

Because, I have seen multiple people (myself included) say they believe that at the end, the galaxy is representative of the neural pathways in Shep's brain, with red being the brain rejecting indoctrination, and blue/green accepting it.

If the chain reaction does in fact start in the Viper nebula, we could assume that Shep's brain perceives that zone of space as being where indoctrination started (by being unconscious near Object Rho for two days), hence why the chain reaction of rejection/acceptance would start there.

I think I just blew my own mind.

We did in fact verify that it seems that the chain reaction starts in the Viper Nebula, which makes no sense, because the only Relay in that system was the Alpha Relay, which we destroyed.

Now.. that's EXTREMELY interesting! Either very good evidence or a giant ****up.

I know I am late to the game on the above subject, but I just wanted to provide evidence in the form of a screenie to confirm the theory that the beam does, in fact, start in the Viper Nebula:

Mass Effect 2 map showing where it is located on the map:
http://images.euroga...1/resize/600x-1

Mass Effect 3 Screen I took of the ending: 



Hmmmm? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

Not to mention the fact that as you watch the video of the relays, the beam doesn't reach the Local Cluster for quite a while! [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]

Wow that is a great catch! My mind is blown! 

I would negate that though since the circular disk of the Milky Way can be rotated in a way such that the cluster position is rotated some degrees clockwise/counter-clockwise...but then again, the radial distance from the galactic center is an issue. If you look back to where Haelstrom was in ME2 and ME3, it's totally different places and also if you compare the position of Horsehead Nebula in ME1 and ME3 (not sure if ME2 is the same), it's different.

 

Either way, where the beam originates is NOT where the local cluster/sol system is.  Unfortunately I couldn't find a pic of the mass effect 3 star map to prove it, but I know the local cluster is near the middle of the galaxy.

Modifié par zakaryzb, 22 mars 2012 - 01:44 .

[SkullTang]

In Mass 1 final fight with Seren for Mass 2 big fight with big reaper baby but in Mass 3 you talk the Illusive man to death!
I think it is all in Sheps head after Harbinger blast him at the elevator.

[LadyVakarian]

Dein Justin wrote...

mrfinke wrote...

LadyVakarian wrote...

I know I am late to the game on the above subject, but I just wanted to provide evidence in the form of a screenie to confirm the theory that the beam does, in fact, start in the Viper Nebula:

Mass Effect 2 map showing where it is located on the map:
http://images.euroga...1/resize/600x-1

Mass Effect 3 Screen I took of the ending: 



Hmmmm? 

Not to mention the fact that as you watch the video of the relays, the beam doesn't reach the Local Cluster for quite a while! 

Wow that is a great catch! My mind is blown!

I would negate that though since the circular disk of the Milky Way can be rotated in a way such that the cluster position is rotated some degrees clockwise/counter-clockwise...but then again, the radial distance from the galactic center is an issue. If you look back to where Haelstrom was in ME2 and ME3, it's totally different places and also if you compare the position of Horsehead Nebula in ME1 and ME3 (not sure if ME2 is the same), it's different.

I can understand the confusion and so I made another comparison. I really don't think they can be mistaken for each other considering the very apparent difference in location. I circled the local cluster in Green and the Viper Nebula in Red:

Modifié par LadyVakarian, 22 mars 2012 - 01:47 .

[DarthSliver]

Golferguy758 wrote...

jedsithor wrote...

I think my biggest problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that it forces you to choose Destroy in order to keep playing. And how far does it go? Do you only get to keep playing if you got enough EMS to get the "Shepard lives" scene?

If Bioware do release DLC that makes use of Indoctrination, I don't think it can be just for those who chose Destroy. Imagine downloading this DLC, possibly even paying for it, only to receive a message saying "You failed! Please go back and choose Destroy to keep playing!" It's ridiculous.

For that reason, I believe the theory needs to be looked at again. I've no problem believing the theory as a whole but let's say it's true. It means that if you chose synthesis or control, your Shepard is still alive, just indoctrinated. Right? So I guess you could play through the new endgame as indoctrinated Shepard, fighting for the enemy or struggling to break free of indoctrination.

It's not unprecedented in Bioware games. In KOTOR you can turn to the Dark Side but at the very end, Carth shows up and gives you one last chance to redeem yourself. Something like that could work I guess.

The problem with such a scenario in Mass Effect though is that your choices were never really about right and wrong, good and evil. Shepard was never the "bad" guy. You can make him to some rotten things like shoot Mordin in the back, but Renegade Shepard would say it was for the greater good. The choices were about saving the galaxy and what you would do to achieve that. Even the choices at the end of the game, as poorly thought out as they appear to be, are about saving the galaxy from the Reaper threat. Control them, join them or destroy them. Whichever you choose, the threat is over. It's a matter of deciding which is better for the individual player. As it turns out, they're all terrible and make no sense.

Indoctrination, while a cool idea, takes that away. It suggests that there really is only one choice. Can you really play as an indoctrinated Shepard for the final part of the game? If the player chooses synthesis, is he then punished for wanting an ending where organics and synthetics are the same, thus no more wars? Do you then force the player to start gunning down squad members? You've saved the galaxy a couple of times but now you have to play as the villain? It just feels wrong and it goes against the Mass Effect concept just as much as the current endings do.

Maybe it can work, but Bioware need to be really careful about how they implement it should they choose you. Having 3 poor choices is bad enough. But having 1 "real" choice is arguably worse.

I feel it's important to show how the game can continue if you don't choose red, because that would be very much a concern for people. GBGriffon brings up a lot of valid points. I posted this in his thread, and would like a couple of opinions. 

If you chose anything other than Red:
Hmm they could always make you pull a Saren. Even though he is indoctrinated he sitll keeps flashes of his own personality. It's why he could kill himself in an attempt to stop being controlled by Sovereign. Translating that to Shepard terms would perhaps be something like you wake up regardless of your choice. You don't realize you're indoctrinated until your "final confrontation with harbinger" (No Items, Final Destination of course). You fight against harbinger alongside your team but before you truly beat him you feel the control he exerts over you.

He could even attempt to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL. At this point you have choices. You can willingly let it happen (A bad ending to watch, I'd choose it to see what happens) Or you can fight against the control one last time and kill yourself thereby weakening harbinger so that your allies can finish him. Much like what happens to Sovereign when you kill Saren who has been directly controlled.

Just a thought. I can clarify something if you'd like. And I will readily admit it is by no means perfect. I just came up with it on the spot. 

[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)"> ]. Shepard is fully controlled by the Reapers and you get to watch them purge the galaxy. "But the future refused to change" Chrono Trigger. Always relevant.[/color]

Green leads to a potential bittersweet ending becuase you can beat the reapers at the cost of self-sacrifice, and one that I think coudl be done EXTREMELY well. OR a dark ending that has you being essentially a vessel for the leader of the Reapers. Also potential to be quite cool. I always wondered what it would have been like to take Saren up on his offer in ME1 to join the reapers.

[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Red leads to both a bitter sweet ending like if your ems isn't high enough. You have to die to take down Harbinger, but by doing so you guarantee that he'd be weakened. but you could also have the "best" ending if you are prepared enough. ] [/color] 

The blue ending could be the next cycle finding that box Liara shows you thats suppose to help the next cycle should they fail to stop the Reapers.

[Sarezar]

Absolutely brilliant. I don't care if it's true, I love this interpretation so I will believe it to be true.

And if this was indeed their intention all along, I will bow to the gods of Bioware.

/respect

Modifié par Sarezar, 22 mars 2012 - 01:51 .

[slyko227]

idk if this was posted ive tried to read the most i can but here is an article about a post made by one of the ME3 writers
http://www.gameranx....versial-ending/

[Icinix]

Dein Justin wrote...

mrfinke wrote...

LadyVakarian wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

byne wrote...

Well, since people seem to be talking about the Relays in the end representing Shep's brain, I figure I'll quote something I said nearly a hundred pages back:

byne wrote...

Wait wait wait, hold everything.

Can someone verify if the chain reaction starts in the Viper system or not?

Because, I have seen multiple people (myself included) say they believe that at the end, the galaxy is representative of the neural pathways in Shep's brain, with red being the brain rejecting indoctrination, and blue/green accepting it.

If the chain reaction does in fact start in the Viper nebula, we could assume that Shep's brain perceives that zone of space as being where indoctrination started (by being unconscious near Object Rho for two days), hence why the chain reaction of rejection/acceptance would start there.

I think I just blew my own mind.

We did in fact verify that it seems that the chain reaction starts in the Viper Nebula, which makes no sense, because the only Relay in that system was the Alpha Relay, which we destroyed.

Now.. that's EXTREMELY interesting! Either very good evidence or a giant ****up.

I know I am late to the game on the above subject, but I just wanted to provide evidence in the form of a screenie to confirm the theory that the beam does, in fact, start in the Viper Nebula:

Mass Effect 2 map showing where it is located on the map:
http://images.euroga...1/resize/600x-1

Mass Effect 3 Screen I took of the ending: 



Hmmmm? 

Not to mention the fact that as you watch the video of the relays, the beam doesn't reach the Local Cluster for quite a while! 

Wow that is a great catch! My mind is blown!

I would negate that though since the circular disk of the Milky Way can be rotated in a way such that the cluster position is rotated some degrees clockwise/counter-clockwise...but then again, the radial distance from the galactic center is an issue. If you look back to where Haelstrom was in ME2 and ME3, it's totally different places and also if you compare the position of Horsehead Nebula in ME1 and ME3 (not sure if ME2 is the same), it's different.

I'm at work at the moment - but is there anyone willing to chart the lines the Relays blow in the end cutscene and see if they match up to any lines of the relays on the galaxy map in game?

[Serekaiser]

DarthSliver wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

jedsithor wrote...

I think my biggest problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that it forces you to choose Destroy in order to keep playing. And how far does it go? Do you only get to keep playing if you got enough EMS to get the "Shepard lives" scene?

If Bioware do release DLC that makes use of Indoctrination, I don't think it can be just for those who chose Destroy. Imagine downloading this DLC, possibly even paying for it, only to receive a message saying "You failed! Please go back and choose Destroy to keep playing!" It's ridiculous.

For that reason, I believe the theory needs to be looked at again. I've no problem believing the theory as a whole but let's say it's true. It means that if you chose synthesis or control, your Shepard is still alive, just indoctrinated. Right? So I guess you could play through the new endgame as indoctrinated Shepard, fighting for the enemy or struggling to break free of indoctrination.

It's not unprecedented in Bioware games. In KOTOR you can turn to the Dark Side but at the very end, Carth shows up and gives you one last chance to redeem yourself. Something like that could work I guess.

The problem with such a scenario in Mass Effect though is that your choices were never really about right and wrong, good and evil. Shepard was never the "bad" guy. You can make him to some rotten things like shoot Mordin in the back, but Renegade Shepard would say it was for the greater good. The choices were about saving the galaxy and what you would do to achieve that. Even the choices at the end of the game, as poorly thought out as they appear to be, are about saving the galaxy from the Reaper threat. Control them, join them or destroy them. Whichever you choose, the threat is over. It's a matter of deciding which is better for the individual player. As it turns out, they're all terrible and make no sense.

Indoctrination, while a cool idea, takes that away. It suggests that there really is only one choice. Can you really play as an indoctrinated Shepard for the final part of the game? If the player chooses synthesis, is he then punished for wanting an ending where organics and synthetics are the same, thus no more wars? Do you then force the player to start gunning down squad members? You've saved the galaxy a couple of times but now you have to play as the villain? It just feels wrong and it goes against the Mass Effect concept just as much as the current endings do.

Maybe it can work, but Bioware need to be really careful about how they implement it should they choose you. Having 3 poor choices is bad enough. But having 1 "real" choice is arguably worse.

I feel it's important to show how the game can continue if you don't choose red, because that would be very much a concern for people. GBGriffon brings up a lot of valid points. I posted this in his thread, and would like a couple of opinions. 

If you chose anything other than Red:
Hmm they could always make you pull a Saren. Even though he is indoctrinated he sitll keeps flashes of his own personality. It's why he could kill himself in an attempt to stop being controlled by Sovereign. Translating that to Shepard terms would perhaps be something like you wake up regardless of your choice. You don't realize you're indoctrinated until your "final confrontation with harbinger" (No Items, Final Destination of course). You fight against harbinger alongside your team but before you truly beat him you feel the control he exerts over you.

He could even attempt to ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL. At this point you have choices. You can willingly let it happen (A bad ending to watch, I'd choose it to see what happens) Or you can fight against the control one last time and kill yourself thereby weakening harbinger so that your allies can finish him. Much like what happens to Sovereign when you kill Saren who has been directly controlled.

Just a thought. I can clarify something if you'd like. And I will readily admit it is by no means perfect. I just came up with it on the spot. 

[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)"> ]. Shepard is fully controlled by the Reapers and you get to watch them purge the galaxy. "But the future refused to change" Chrono Trigger. Always relevant.[/color]

Green leads to a potential bittersweet ending becuase you can beat the reapers at the cost of self-sacrifice, and one that I think coudl be done EXTREMELY well. OR a dark ending that has you being essentially a vessel for the leader of the Reapers. Also potential to be quite cool. I always wondered what it would have been like to take Saren up on his offer in ME1 to join the reapers.

[color=rgb(170, 170, 170)">Red leads to both a bitter sweet ending like if your ems isn't high enough. You have to die to take down Harbinger, but by doing so you guarantee that he'd be weakened. but you could also have the "best" ending if you are prepared enough. ] [/color] 

The blue ending could be the next cycle finding that box Liara shows you thats suppose to help the next cycle should they fail to stop the Reapers.

I feel like that would require a ME4. xD

Although I would personally love that.

[ShadowTheInsane]

jedsithor wrote...

I think my biggest problem with the Indoctrination Theory is that it forces you to choose Destroy in order to keep playing. And how far does it go? Do you only get to keep playing if you got enough EMS to get the "Shepard lives" scene?

If Bioware do release DLC that makes use of Indoctrination, I don't think it can be just for those who chose Destroy. Imagine downloading this DLC, possibly even paying for it, only to receive a message saying "You failed! Please go back and choose Destroy to keep playing!" It's ridiculous.

For that reason, I believe the theory needs to be looked at again. I've no problem believing the theory as a whole but let's say it's true. It means that if you chose synthesis or control, your Shepard is still alive, just indoctrinated. Right? So I guess you could play through the new endgame as indoctrinated Shepard, fighting for the enemy or struggling to break free of indoctrination.

It's not unprecedented in Bioware games. In KOTOR you can turn to the Dark Side but at the very end, Carth shows up and gives you one last chance to redeem yourself. Something like that could work I guess.

The problem with such a scenario in Mass Effect though is that your choices were never really about right and wrong, good and evil. Shepard was never the "bad" guy. You can make him to some rotten things like shoot Mordin in the back, but Renegade Shepard would say it was for the greater good. The choices were about saving the galaxy and what you would do to achieve that. Even the choices at the end of the game, as poorly thought out as they appear to be, are about saving the galaxy from the Reaper threat. Control them, join them or destroy them. Whichever you choose, the threat is over. It's a matter of deciding which is better for the individual player. As it turns out, they're all terrible and make no sense.

Indoctrination, while a cool idea, takes that away. It suggests that there really is only one choice. Can you really play as an indoctrinated Shepard for the final part of the game? If the player chooses synthesis, is he then punished for wanting an ending where organics and synthetics are the same, thus no more wars? Do you then force the player to start gunning down squad members? You've saved the galaxy a couple of times but now you have to play as the villain? It just feels wrong and it goes against the Mass Effect concept just as much as the current endings do.

Maybe it can work, but Bioware need to be really careful about how they implement it should they choose to. Having 3 poor choices is bad enough. But having 1 "real" choice is arguably worse.

I agree in principle with what you're saying about ME not being about good path/evil path so much as taking the same path but as a nice guy or a bad-ass. But then again in a game that ultimately boils down to "did you save the galaxy or not", does there not have to be a way to fail and lose the war? Otherwise doesn't it make your choice (or your "failure" to see through the indoctrination attempt) artificial? I'd be disappointed if your decision of control/synthesis/destroy didn't bear some kind of consequence in the ending DLC.

That being said, if choosing destroy lets you immediately rejoin the fight, while control/synthesis required you to go through some kind of extra/side plotline in order to fight off the indoctrination and link up with the story at the same point as if you chose destroy, then I think that could work.

[XXIceColdXX]

DogPersonThing wrote...

IT WAS INDOCTRINATION! TWO IMPORTANT CLUES:
1. (to disprove the whole, "that wasn't Shepard at the end, it was someone else" theory) when u play female, its a woman breathing in at the end.
2. When she wakes up, you can hear reapers in the background.

Interesting, havent played femshep so didnt get the chance to hear that.

This is more evidence that Reapers are attempting to indoctrinate Shepard in the end.

[Rob Psyence]

VibezPL wrote...

Hey guys (just got registered)

I know it's bit late, but i remember someone few hundred pages ago (man, this thread moves so quickly...) requested sound processing of the Catalyst dialog files in order to verify additional vocal tracks mixed into original. I managed to remove the child's voice leaving just the male and female voice in the track. Here it is:

http://cl.ly/2z3H0f0s1S1t1S2P3S26

Hope that clears male Shepard / female Shepard voice presence situation. For me, it's definitely Mark Meer reading those lines. Not sure about Jennifer though, I haven't really played female shepard in any ME.

Hope that helps!

That's definitely Jennifer as well. Makes you wonder...why make the concerted effort to have them BOTH voice over the god child catalyst-reaper ai?

[XXIceColdXX]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

DogPersonThing wrote...

IT WAS INDOCTRINATION! TWO IMPORTANT CLUES:
1. (to disprove the whole, "that wasn't Shepard at the end, it was someone else" theory) when u play female, its a woman breathing in at the end.
2. When she wakes up, you can hear reapers in the background.

Interesting, havent played femshep so didnt get the chance to hear that.

This is more evidence that Reapers are attempting to indoctrinate Shepard in the end.

Just watched it on youtube, I couldnt hear the reapers in the background during the scene. Could have been the video I was watching?