57139 réponses à ce sujet

[TrveOmegaSlayer]

sorry double post

Modifié par TrveOmegaSlayer, 25 mars 2012 - 03:32 .

[Beti88]

I just have one question for you guys. How will you react if, in april, Bioware announces a dlc that clarifies things better (by addins scenes/dialogue choices that expand on the endings) and say nothing about indoc?

If I won't get a new, better ending I'll keep myself from buying any BioWare product ever again.

[Kanon777]

TrveOmegaSlayer wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

I just have one question for you guys. How will you react if, in april, Bioware announces a dlc that clarifies things better (by addins scenes/dialogue choices that expand on the endings) and say nothing about indoc?

Will you continue to insist they wanted this to be real or not?

How would you react if they say this theory is real and who negates it has been wrong for a month?
We would react in the same way I guess. 

I would love it if Indoc was real, but im pretty certain it isnt, they would have told us something by now.

If im wrong i will be happier than if i was right...

[ChuckieJ]

TrveOmegaSlayer wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

I just have one question for you guys. How will you react if, in april, Bioware announces a dlc that clarifies things better (by addins scenes/dialogue choices that expand on the endings) and say nothing about indoc?

Will you continue to insist they wanted this to be real or not?

How would you react if they say this theory is real and who negates it has been wrong for a month?
We would react in the same way I guess. 

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. I don't see any other possible solution.

So the question is, what do you add? Do the indoctrinated go to a game over screen? Do they wake up in the rubble also then get shot in the head by their romantic interest after arguing about being indoctrinated (as someone else here suggested)? Do only the non-indoctrinated get to complete the mission or do the indoctrinated get one more shot at breaking free? That's all that needs to be resolved before giving us the final mission to defeat the Reapers for real.

[waldstr18]

about a few things i read about:
the crucible changed the catalyst, he said so itself, thats why the choices are there and thats the reason why he lets us choose. we see him as a boy, because he is with us the whole game. also the dream sequences are a design choice as well, cause as you might have notices when joker and shepard scream at each other, the third mass effect goes a little more into an emotional direction. of course there was concrete on the citadel. just look around next time you are on it. the reason why shepard is bleeding, well, he was hit by a laser that which some times injures people. the blood is mainly on his left arm, cause he holds his gun with his right. well blood flows downward.. the laser is also the reason why he isnt wearing his armor anymore. anyways, i guess im again not the first one to bring that up. but here is something i think not many others have noticed:

we were led to the final three choices throughout all 3 games.
in the first game, more or less under andersons command, we learned synthetics are evil, which leads us to the red explosion.
the second game, guided by the illusive man, counters that by showing us, synthetics arent necessarily evil and can even be our friends. so this leads us to the blue option; just remove the reapers and we can all be friends.
now the 3rd option, which is supposed to be the best one, is introduced to us in the third game, with the geth being real individuals now and of course edi trying to be a better being, and finally joker falling in love with her. so lets make it possible for joker to have little new dna children with his robot wife, and choose the biotics/synthetic mixer.

the choice is also presented to us by the prothean, who pretty much tells us the same thing about chaos and order. he represents the red explosion, obviously. then the reaper on ranoch, even being a weak argument against the indoctrination theory, does a waterdragon and tells us the same thing the child tells us, just more cryptic. which also worries me. if they take out the choices, this will just be pointless gibberish, as will all the ai discussions on the ship. at the moment they lead us to that final conclusion, without the 3 choices in the end. oh, and even though i dont think it really belongs here, but i also dont think there should be a good good ending. throughout the game we have to support people arguing about stuff, but i dont recall there ever being a real true or false option. another thing that leads us to the not so good choices in the end.

now if your indoctrination theory is made true, well, all that is pointless. and thats why im arguing here. and of course the "in your face" reason.

[ChuckieJ]

tobito113 wrote...
I would love it if Indoc was real, but im pretty certain it isnt, they would have told us something by now.

If im wrong i will be happier than if i was right...

They've said multiple times that not enough people have finished the game. I have friends that refuse to start due to the face import issue.

[Stigweird85]

If Bioware come out in April with DLC that disproves indoc theory I'll take their word for it. As it stands I was reletivly happy with the ending I got anyway. The Indoc theory just adds to it

For the moment it is fun to speculate though

Modifié par bigstig, 25 mars 2012 - 03:53 .

[greywardencommander]

tobito113 wrote...

I just have one question for you guys. How will you react if, in april, Bioware announces a dlc that clarifies things better (by addins scenes/dialogue choices that expand on the endings) and say nothing about indoc?

Will you continue to insist they wanted this to be real or not?

All I.T is based on is the idea that clarification and expansion based on the idea the last 10 mins were in the head and that future content includes 'the ending'. If that's what happened (even if not Indoc) e.g. Shep wakes up and it's all a dream/indoc whatever and we carry on from where Harbinger hit you or in hospital because the squad dragged us back to safety or whatever we'd be happy because we were somewhat (or actually) right

If dlc just expanded on the endings such as explaining why Joker manages to escape with your crew then that's all we want, we still might hate the endings but at least we now know what happened (down to all the details.

[Nykara]

So, playing through the game again. The 'black' bits in those dreams look very much like the black haze you see during the final scene's on the Citadel.

Also did anyone notice that the adverts from Purgatory Bar around the citadel also have that black stuff filtering through them? Dunno if it's related or not, but Avina does not seem to have any information on Purgatory.

One more thing I found interesting in my first play through as well. I play Femshep (Kaidan Romancer ) so my Ashley died on Virmire. When talking to the Reaper that you destroy during the Quarrian missions - He called my Shepard 'Skipper'. That is what Ashley -always- called her, so either A) They indoctrinated Ashley somewhere along the line and she didn't die like we thought or They are in Shepards head, taunting her some more. Just like in the dreams when you hear Ashley's thoughts.

If it's B that leans more towards indoctrination attempts also.

[Ziggeh]

I have a couple of issues with the theory, and apologies if these have already been answered but this is an 800 page thread! Feel free to just point me in the direction of counter points, I've been rather impressed with the way the theory has been formed from reasonable arguments rather than the usual forum gibberish.

I should preface this by saying that I started from the position that "it's all a dream" on the basis of things like art assets was very silly, but having read further I do have to admit to liking the symbolism and the fact that it's internally consistent while handling some of the questions the series itself never got around to (largely how you can hang around so much reaper tech without at least dealing with indoctrination). I'm not convinced, but I like the idea.

1) That would be pretty illusive.

As the series secondary antagonist, Mr. I Man needs to be dealt with at some point. If it turns out that the encounter at the console never happened then another confrontation needs to occur. This leaves us with a few issues: The fact that we already sorta did this once, finding a way to insert his desire to control the reapers back into a plot that just dealt with that and finding another reason for him to be involved in the conflict that isn't, again, repetition.

Now he could just turn up dead, and we could say we dealt with his ideas if not his form but that leaves a bit of a gap in the satisfaction stakes. That's a lot of antagonism left floating in the breeze.

You could also argue that Harbinger is similarly ignored if the theory is false, but I feel that's slightly different as he's largely intended to represent the Reapers rather than be a character with his own will. He gets supplanted rather than ignored. (Not saying that's good but hey)

And while you could do a Saruman and have him turn up later, I'm not sure that does justice to what he represents in the plot. I guess milage varies here.

2) Choices you didn't make

See, as nasty as that A, B, C choice is, it's still a choice. People will still have invested in the idea, mulled the consequences, considered the implications. It would be something of a blow to player agency if it were to then turn around and tell you that, suprise, that wasn't a choice you actually made. You've taken away the players decisions, and even if you were resolved to commit this cardinal sin of choice based gaming, why not frame it in a clearer way? The end result of the options themselves will need further exposition, when it could have been framed in a way that did not. Which leads neatly to:

3) Bad writing as a plot device.

This I really have trouble seeing. I get that you could potentiall hold a proper ending hostage for large wedges of cash, but I'll come back to that in a sec.

My issue here is that as a theory largely founded around the idea that writers who were capable of something so well written as the rest of the series surely wouldn't have all done meth on the day that they made up the most important moments, and while this is a compelling argument, surely even if the intent is to pull a dramatic twist, they could have written two solid endings. They could have recieved a double helping of praise rather than several scoops of horror filled venting followed by a potential small taste of the praise.

I find it very hard to imagine there were meetings in which writers sat down and actively sought to annoy the audience. Purposefully creating deep dark plot holes. Ideas were rejected for not being ham fisted enough.

Even if it turns out to be unreal, it's still a horrible piece of fiction.

4) The six figure gamble.

As I say, while I can see the a financial value in selling people access to an actual conclusion, but it would really rather be offset by the people who will wash their hands of the whole deal, the sales lost to negative feedback and review bombing, and perhaps worst of all, the future sales of the companies output lost to the perception of poor performance, bad customer service and what would amount to a seriously nasty and cynical piece of content withholding.

Maybe they wouldn't see that, but if the intent is to fill gaps in their logic, that's a fairly sizable one to replace it with. Writing a strong ending that leaves questions, or is darker than some would like would have had much the same effect but without such a backlash.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 25 mars 2012 - 03:53 .

[greywardencommander]

waldstr18 wrote...

about a few things i read about:
the crucible changed the catalyst, he said so itself, thats why the choices are there and thats the reason why he lets us choose. we see him as a boy, because he is with us the whole game. also the dream sequences are a design choice as well, cause as you might have notices when joker and shepard scream at each other, the third mass effect goes a little more into an emotional direction. of course there was concrete on the citadel. just look around next time you are on it. the reason why shepard is bleeding, well, he was hit by a laser that which some times injures people. the blood is mainly on his left arm, cause he holds his gun with his right. well blood flows downward.. the laser is also the reason why he isnt wearing his armor anymore. anyways, i guess im again not the first one to bring that up. but here is something i think not many others have noticed:

we were led to the final three choices throughout all 3 games.
in the first game, more or less under andersons command, we learned synthetics are evil, which leads us to the red explosion.
the second game, guided by the illusive man, counters that by showing us, synthetics arent necessarily evil and can even be our friends. so this leads us to the blue option; just remove the reapers and we can all be friends.
now the 3rd option, which is supposed to be the best one, is introduced to us in the third game, with the geth being real individuals now and of course edi trying to be a better being, and finally joker falling in love with her. so lets make it possible for joker to have little new dna children with his robot wife, and choose the biotics/synthetic mixer.

the choice is also presented to us by the prothean, who pretty much tells us the same thing about chaos and order. he represents the red explosion, obviously. then the reaper on ranoch, even being a weak argument against the indoctrination theory, does a waterdragon and tells us the same thing the child tells us, just more cryptic. which also worries me. if they take out the choices, this will just be pointless gibberish, as will all the ai discussions on the ship. at the moment they lead us to that final conclusion, without the 3 choices in the end. oh, and even though i dont think it really belongs here, but i also dont think there should be a good good ending. throughout the game we have to support people arguing about stuff, but i dont recall there ever being a real true or false option. another thing that leads us to the not so good choices in the end.

now if your indoctrination theory is made true, well, all that is pointless. and thats why im arguing here. and of course the "in your face" reason.

where do we say destroy is the only option and that ending dlc based on I.T doesn't take into account anything else? I've pointed people to my thread multiple times to explain how it can work REGARDLESS OF END CHOICE thus that point is moot.

Everything else you say has been discussed so many times and pointed out so many times and expanded on so many levels (even when I said to you that people will point to anything to support their theory like you're doing there hence my discussion in my thread, i.e. in my signature, is purely on the basic psychology of the last 10 mins being 'off') means I get the feeling you're just ignoring everything you don't want to pick up on.

I even tell you that I address the fact that if true it's been budgeted for thus E.A. lose nothing monetarily or otherwise (another major problem), potential short term loss maybe but potential huge long term gain simple marketing stategy

[Beti88]

Isn't it depressing how tens of thousands of fans are grasping every last straw, how they are accepting over the top theories like this, just to have some hope that the real ending is not that horrible atrocity, piece of crap they got?

I think it is. BioWare have one last chance to fix this. I hope they won't blow it like they did with this.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

waldstr18 wrote...

about a few things i read about:
the crucible changed the catalyst, he said so itself, thats why the choices are there and thats the reason why he lets us choose. we see him as a boy, because he is with us the whole game. also the dream sequences are a design choice as well, cause as you might have notices when joker and shepard scream at each other, the third mass effect goes a little more into an emotional direction. of course there was concrete on the citadel. just look around next time you are on it. the reason why shepard is bleeding, well, he was hit by a laser that which some times injures people. the blood is mainly on his left arm, cause he holds his gun with his right. well blood flows downward.. the laser is also the reason why he isnt wearing his armor anymore. anyways, i guess im again not the first one to bring that up. but here is something i think not many others have noticed:

we were led to the final three choices throughout all 3 games.
in the first game, more or less under andersons command, we learned synthetics are evil, which leads us to the red explosion.
the second game, guided by the illusive man, counters that by showing us, synthetics arent necessarily evil and can even be our friends. so this leads us to the blue option; just remove the reapers and we can all be friends.
now the 3rd option, which is supposed to be the best one, is introduced to us in the third game, with the geth being real individuals now and of course edi trying to be a better being, and finally joker falling in love with her. so lets make it possible for joker to have little new dna children with his robot wife, and choose the biotics/synthetic mixer.

the choice is also presented to us by the prothean, who pretty much tells us the same thing about chaos and order. he represents the red explosion, obviously. then the reaper on ranoch, even being a weak argument against the indoctrination theory, does a waterdragon and tells us the same thing the child tells us, just more cryptic. which also worries me. if they take out the choices, this will just be pointless gibberish, as will all the ai discussions on the ship. at the moment they lead us to that final conclusion, without the 3 choices in the end. oh, and even though i dont think it really belongs here, but i also dont think there should be a good good ending. throughout the game we have to support people arguing about stuff, but i dont recall there ever being a real true or false option. another thing that leads us to the not so good choices in the end.

now if your indoctrination theory is made true, well, all that is pointless. and thats why im arguing here. and of course the "in your face" reason.

Except Synthesis goes against the very principles of the Geth which you hold up as evidence to support. Legion specifically says the Geth are seeking to carve out their own future without anyone telling them what to do or changing them other than themselves.

Yet Synthesis is exactly that just on galactic scale. You change everyone, everything, without their consensus going against the very thing the Geth fought for.

That is improtant to remember. Synthesis in the face of what Legion told us is against the Geth belief even if it is presented as compromise solution.

[Nykara]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

waldstr18 wrote...

about a few things i read about:
the crucible changed the catalyst, he said so itself, thats why the choices are there and thats the reason why he lets us choose. we see him as a boy, because he is with us the whole game. also the dream sequences are a design choice as well, cause as you might have notices when joker and shepard scream at each other, the third mass effect goes a little more into an emotional direction. of course there was concrete on the citadel. just look around next time you are on it. the reason why shepard is bleeding, well, he was hit by a laser that which some times injures people. the blood is mainly on his left arm, cause he holds his gun with his right. well blood flows downward.. the laser is also the reason why he isnt wearing his armor anymore. anyways, i guess im again not the first one to bring that up. but here is something i think not many others have noticed:

we were led to the final three choices throughout all 3 games.
in the first game, more or less under andersons command, we learned synthetics are evil, which leads us to the red explosion.
the second game, guided by the illusive man, counters that by showing us, synthetics arent necessarily evil and can even be our friends. so this leads us to the blue option; just remove the reapers and we can all be friends.
now the 3rd option, which is supposed to be the best one, is introduced to us in the third game, with the geth being real individuals now and of course edi trying to be a better being, and finally joker falling in love with her. so lets make it possible for joker to have little new dna children with his robot wife, and choose the biotics/synthetic mixer.

the choice is also presented to us by the prothean, who pretty much tells us the same thing about chaos and order. he represents the red explosion, obviously. then the reaper on ranoch, even being a weak argument against the indoctrination theory, does a waterdragon and tells us the same thing the child tells us, just more cryptic. which also worries me. if they take out the choices, this will just be pointless gibberish, as will all the ai discussions on the ship. at the moment they lead us to that final conclusion, without the 3 choices in the end. oh, and even though i dont think it really belongs here, but i also dont think there should be a good good ending. throughout the game we have to support people arguing about stuff, but i dont recall there ever being a real true or false option. another thing that leads us to the not so good choices in the end.

now if your indoctrination theory is made true, well, all that is pointless. and thats why im arguing here. and of course the "in your face" reason.

Except Synthesis goes against the very principles of the Geth which you hold up as evidence to support. Legion specifically says the Geth are seeking to carve out their own future without anyone telling them what to do or changing them other than themselves.

Yet Synthesis is exactly that just on galactic scale. You change everyone, everything, without their consensus going against the very thing the Geth fought for.

That is improtant to remember. Synthesis in the face of what Legion told us is against the Geth belief even if it is presented as compromise solution.

Synthesis is the one option that truely did seem like an indoctrination, or form of indoctrination to me. I mean the Reapers are part machine, part organic. Why would we want to turn ourselves in to that exactly?

[TrveOmegaSlayer]

Beti88 wrote...

Isn't it depressing how tens of thousands of fans are grasping every last straw, how they are accepting over the top theories like this, just to have some hope that the real ending is not that horrible atrocity, piece of crap they got?

I think it is. BioWare have one last chance to fix this. I hope they won't blow it like they did with this.

I think it's depressing to see people that after countless hours of playthroughs just bash a game because maybe they've NOT understand it what they've played/have been played.

Modifié par TrveOmegaSlayer, 25 mars 2012 - 04:02 .

[waldstr18]

i appologize then for not reading all of this threat. if all of that has already been discussed to death, there is really no need for me to bring it up again.

but just for the record, i wasnt sure about the indoctrination at first, cause even though i still think most of your points are speculative, they are still hard to ignore. but once ive seen that there is the possibility of getting only the red choice in the end, it was clear to me, that it wasnt indoctrination just developers being out of time. (that and of course the bugs in the pc version).

now all thats left for me is waiting for my "in your face!" moment.

[greywardencommander]

Ziggeh wrote...

I have a couple of issues with the theory, and apologies if these have already been answered but this is an 800 page thread! Feel free to just point me in the direction of counter points, I've been rather impressed with the way the theory has been formed from reasonable arguments rather than the usual forum gibberish.

I should preface this by saying that I started from the position that "it's all a dream" on the basis of things like art assets was very silly, but having read further I do have to admit to liking the symbolism and the fact that it's internally consistent while handling some of the questions the series itself never got around to (largely how you can hang around so much reaper tech without at least dealing with indoctrination). I'm not convinced, but I like the idea.

1) That would be pretty illusive.

As the series secondary antagonist, Mr. I Man needs to be dealt with at some point. If it turns out that the encounter at the console never happened then another confrontation needs to occur. This leaves us with a few issues: The fact that we already sorta did this once, finding a way to insert his desire to control the reapers back into a plot that just dealt with that and finding another reason for him to be involved in the conflict that isn't, again, repetition.

Now he could just turn up dead, and we could say we dealt with his ideas if not his form but that leaves a bit of a gap in the satisfaction stakes. That's a lot of antagonism left floating in the breeze.

You could also argue that Harbinger is similarly ignored if the theory is false, but I feel that's slightly different as he's largely intended to represent the Reapers rather than be a character with his own will. He gets supplanted rather than ignored. (Not saying that's good but hey)

And while you could do a Saruman and have him turn up later, I'm not sure that does justice to what he represents in the plot. I guess milage varies here.

2) Choices you didn't make

See, as nasty as that A, B, C choice is, it's still a choice. People will still have invested in the idea, mulled the consequences, considered the implications. It would be something of a blow to player agency if it were to then turn around and tell you that, suprise, that wasn't a choice you actually made. You've taken away the players decisions, and even if you were resolved to commit this cardinal sin of choice based gaming, why not frame it in a clearer way? The end result of the options themselves will need further exposition, when it could have been framed in a way that did not. Which leads neatly to:

3) Bad writing as a plot device.

This I really have trouble seeing. I get that you could potentiall hold a proper ending hostage for large wedges of cash, but I'll come back to that in a sec.

My issue here is that as a theory largely founded around the idea that writers who were capable of something so well written as the rest of the series surely wouldn't have all done meth on the day that they made up the most important moments, and while this is a compelling argument, surely even if the intent is to pull a dramatic twist, they could have written two solid endings. They could have recieved a double helping of praise rather than several scoops of horror filled venting followed by a potential small taste of the praise.

I find it very hard to imagine there were meetings in which writers sat down and actively sought to annoy the audience. Purposefully creating deep dark plot holes. Ideas were rejected for not being ham fisted enough.

Even if it turns out to be unreal, it's still a horrible piece of fiction.

4) The six figure gamble.

As I say, while I can see the a financial value in selling people access to an actual conclusion, but it would really rather be offset by the people who will wash their hands of the whole deal, the sales lost to negative feedback and review bombing, and perhaps worst of all, the future sales of the companies output lost to the perception of poor performance, bad customer service and what would amount to a seriously nasty and cynical piece of content withholding.

Maybe they wouldn't see that, but if the intent is to fill gaps in their logic, that's a fairly sizable one to replace it with.

Everything you say is addressed re. the illusive stuff, how doing it this way (even if not true which we have said, they should make it true if it's not) can account for choice (such as my ideas in my thread) and that you can argue the theory is true based on the last 10 minutes alone using very simple psychology (again see my thread in my signature). In fact I point out it's the last 10 minutes alone that lead to the theory BECAUSE nothing makes sense re. plot holes stuff deliberately not shown, stuff not explained etc. People using bad writing 'against' the theory just seems to me like saying 'i'm not going to argue with you because I have nothing to say' (not you personally you make other points as well, some good ones)

Even the real world terms I point out using basic psychology and Shepard as the vessel - it wouldn't work as a plot twist nearly as well if it happens in game and you can just restart and do it again you have to truly commit. Real world terms again I point out E.A lose nothing if intended and releasing the real endings (free for example because it was all just P.R. and part of the game) both monetarily and in terms of credibility (hate to break it to you but nowadays endings plus free DLC or update or whatever, morally wrong as it may be, = in the complete game, see Arrival as an example, optional dlc but it's canon it happens it's why you're on Earth, the events happen regardless thus it's the end of ME2). They always say no such thing as bad publicity, Mass Effect 3 has been worldwide news on National networks everything if I.T. ended up true and they released the 'real endings' and the press then say blimey that was brilliant, excellent plot twist, amazing marketing ploy etc etc, that's in the end extremely positive.

The point of I.T. full stop (and so many people now after nearly 900 pages still miss this point)WE HATE THE ENDINGS AS THEY ARE we want real endings, dlc explaining the endings etc etc just like everybody else. All this is an attempt to make sense of the pretty weird endings that seem to fly in the face of everything before. If Bioware come out and explain the endings as they are (or release content based on hallucination that isn't indoctrination for example) we're not going to cry, we get what we want AN EXPLANATION. If Bioware come out and explain endings as they are or another reason why there's more to come (e.g. hallucination but not indoctrination) imo we're happy we still get what we want. I.T. remains the easiest way to make that happen WITHOUT CHANGING REMOVING OR RETCONNING THE ENDINGS (something that would take much longer and would probably look awfully done)

The only reason the games are even vaguely worth replaying at this moment is because we believe that this last 10 minutes was deliberately to make us see.

p.s. if i say refer to my thread a lot because I've said the same stuff so many times over the last week or so I'm getting very tiresome for my fingers.

[Nykara]

TrveOmegaSlayer wrote...

Beti88 wrote...

Isn't it depressing how tens of thousands of fans are grasping every last straw, how they are accepting over the top theories like this, just to have some hope that the real ending is not that horrible atrocity, piece of crap they got?

I think it is. BioWare have one last chance to fix this. I hope they won't blow it like they did with this.

I think it's depressing to see people that after countless hours of playthroughs just bash a game because maybe they've NOT understand it what they've played/have been played.

It's all just speculation and theory - no one knows if it is right or wrong. 2 people will always look at the same scene, hear the same conversation, view the same surroundings - and interpret them differently.

So at this point, in effect you are both correct.

[NikolaiShade]

@Ziggeh

Remembering this is just a theory, I find your points interesting. While (of course) I can't say what BioWare will do, I can speculate on the matter.
Assuming what happenend was really an indoctrination then:

1 - TIMmy could be confronted in the DLC or he could became the bad guy for the next games. He could even die in a really stupid way to be honest but I don't think so.

2 - Same issue with the suicide mission in ME2. Consider the choice here as the upgrades for the Nomrandy. If you don't install them you undermine your chances of survival but the job can still be done.

3 - IF the theory is right then it was an hint.

4 - I highly doubt they will sell this ipothetical DLC. It would still be a great gain the long run, the refunds are already paid and people who didn't buy the game for the endings would buy it after the DLC

As I said many times, we are speculating here, if I am wrong then stay assured I will consider writing as a viable work choice lol.

[creiGn]

tobito113 wrote...

I just have one question for you guys. How will you react if, in april, Bioware announces a dlc that clarifies things better (by addins scenes/dialogue choices that expand on the endings) and say nothing about indoc?

Will you continue to insist they wanted this to be real or not?

It doesn't necessarily have to be indoctrination theory imo. I would be ok with minor tweaks and  a DLC expanding the endings and additional dialogue options. Despite the plot holes and lore errors, main problem with the endings is lack of closure. 

It has to be a free DLC of course. If any other way, it will mean that Bioware/EA has kicked themselves in the quad. I'm not planning to buy any further Bioware product, especially if they demand money for the upcoming DLC. 

For me, my trust on Bioware(due in no small part to EA ) has long gone.

[Beti88]

TrveOmegaSlayer wrote...

I think it's depressing to see people that after countless hours of playthroughs just bash a game because maybe they've NOT understand it what they've played/have been played.

You are seeing things that are not there. This barely qualifies as an ending, because it gives no closure at all. I can speculate about it too, but it won't make it any better.

[greywardencommander]

waldstr18 wrote...

i appologize then for not reading all of this threat. if all of that has already been discussed to death, there is really no need for me to bring it up again.

but just for the record, i wasnt sure about the indoctrination at first, cause even though i still think most of your points are speculative, they are still hard to ignore. but once ive seen that there is the possibility of getting only the red choice in the end, it was clear to me, that it wasnt indoctrination just developers being out of time. (that and of course the bugs in the pc version).

now all thats left for me is waiting for my "in your face!" moment.

who says you can't be indoctrinated regardless of choice and the ending DLC picks up from that. Major bittersweet ending, you're indoctrinated no matter what and die as a result of it but you save the galaxy in the end regardless.
I've said before that it can work regardless of choice (i.e. not just red) it can for example work with synthesis on the fact it's the 'magic compromise' that turns you into a new saren thus they want you to do it so you can be indoctrinated.

Just proves my point about not reading anything properly or ignoring it if it doesn't fit with your argument.

Point in I.T. last 10 mins are in the head = indoctrination attempt or even you're indoctrinated full stop now real endings in dlc still to come based on this, you wake up where you get knocked out - rest of game continues.

Considering a lot of the people who come on flaming hate the endings and want 'fixed' endings why flame? We want real endings and clarification too, I.T. gives that (regardless of if it's intended or not now, running with it means new dlc that gives loads of lovely different endings because the reaper threat still continues)

Modifié par greywardencommander, 25 mars 2012 - 04:13 .

[Vahilor]

I think another main problem is, people don't really like is, that the last ten minutes (if they are no IT or hallucinasion) they are totaly unfiting..
Here they added space magic to a game that trys to explain everything in a technical manner.. and there is no space magic in all other ME parts..
The same mistake made George Lucas in Episode 1, but the other way around, cause he tried to explain the power (space magic) in a technical matter.. no one wants the power to be something that can be explained.

Modifié par Vahilor, 25 mars 2012 - 04:21 .

[greywardencommander]

Beti88 wrote...

TrveOmegaSlayer wrote...

I think it's depressing to see people that after countless hours of playthroughs just bash a game because maybe they've NOT understand it what they've played/have been played.

You are seeing things that are not there. This barely qualifies as an ending, because it gives no closure at all. I can speculate about it too, but it won't make it any better.

Exactly the fact people still think the I.T is about accepting the endings as they are because of the endings is clearly missing the point. I.T. stems from the fact THE ENDINGS ARE AWFUL and we want to fix them just like everyone else who hates the endings for whatever reason, sloppy writing with plotholes, my choices don't matter all leads to same thing what do the rest of the three games matter.
 
It's gone beyond whether this was deliberate or not, it is now this is the easiest way to appease the annoyed fan base without a) changing the endings completely or admitting the endings as they are written at the minute are awful compared to the rest of a brilliant trilogy

approaching the game from this angle because of the last 10 mins alone (ignore the rest of the game for a minute either side can make stuff fit either way) just seems to not fit in terms of quality (forget underlying idea of the three choices that's a different point)

We want dlc to come out FIXING the endings because the last 10 mins didn't happen, r.e. the stuff from the Harbinger beam onwards is a deliberate ploy to make it obvious it's not real at best, sloppy writing because it doesn't explain anything really at worst, thus I.T. says why not have the dlc start waking up where you get hit by Harbinger coming round and dealing with the repurcussions of your final choice. This makes your choices matter (criticism of current endings) takes into account everything that happens in last 10 mins (thus doesn't require rewriting etc which would take far longer than just making DLC expanding on the idea of I.T. or hallucination)

Put it this way the endings turn out not to be true but it's a normal hallucination, i.e. not indoctrination (e.g. near death experience brings on a vivid 'future before him' illusion) and the game continues BRILLIANT the game's endings have been fixed

Bioware come out filling in all the gaps, explaining all the stuff that happens, maybe tell us what happens to people like Joker etc on new planet etc. still might not like the endings but hey at least I fully get what they were trying to achieve now.

WE STILL GET WHAT THIS THREAD WANTS EXPANSION, CLARIFICATION, EXPLANATION

Thus everyone who wants the endings to be fixed should be SUPPORTING THIS THREAD BECAUSE IT WANTS THE ENDINGS TO BE FIXED.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 25 mars 2012 - 04:27 .

[Fat Head]

I don't know if this has been brought up (and I'm not about to read through 876 pages to find out), but does anyone remember what a big deal Bioware made about Arrival DLC for ME2? They were talking up how amazing it was that it would factor into ME3 because it was a DLC. Did anyone see the impact of that in any of the dialogue of the storyline? I didn't.

I suspect they might have been referring to the fact you'd spend 2 days unconscious around a reaper artifact. 2 days seems like enough time to get at least a little bit of indoctrination going to me. It also seems like some solid evidence for IT.