57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Vahilor]

waldstr18 wrote...

Devos wrote...

Sorry but this is utter BS. If it wasn't for desperation for a do-over on the current ending no one would be defending the obvious flaws in this *ugh* theory. This is cheaper than the current ending in undermining the player and because it functions purely by selectively declaring some information given to the player as lies.

The thousand pages is the testament to the power of a well edited video shown to desperate people.

shiny, now i dont have to type all that. thanks a bunch.

so its no priority to indoctrinate the main character of the game? 

anyways, no, im not jealous of your obviously superior detection skills. i didnt even see the child running in the then exploding building for example. and ive been there 3 times already. but i have to support the comment of my new found friend. you all sound very desperate to me, as well.

it would be pointless to argue afterwards they did it out of fan pressure. i already stated that i will gladly shoot myself. but you are right, even if they say they planned it, i wouldnt actually believe it. but if you are predicting me starting a threat about it, your wrong. actually i couldnt make a threat or anything, cause i would have already shot myself by then.

and for what i am doing here. even though your theory is obviously wrong in my opinion, you seem to know a lot about the game. more than me anyway. so if i have questions i ask them here. usally i get more than one answer in a matter of minutes. also im waiting for the "we have been wrong! mass suicide!!!!" post.

You sound more like somone desperate to me. If you really have the need to stay here even you don't like the stuff people are discussing here and if you have questions about tha game it would be probably better to make your own topic or ask in other topics ?
It was even stated by BW somwere that ther was some ID planned and with some creativity and some good planning even that can be realized with all ending choices...

And if we are all wrong.. than be happy and throw it in the faces of all " I was right, you were wrong."
But don't tell people they are desperate and dumb cause they try to find consence for a crappy, plot hole filled ending.

[monrapias]

Am I the only one getting the "mass effect 3 server is unavailable at the moment" message?

[Devos]

Vahilor wrote...

But don't tell people they are desperate and dumb cause they try to find consence for a crappy, plot hole filled ending.

I never said anyone was dumb, or stupid.

I said desperate, and militant.

[FedericoV]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

But we know bioware is capable of it. They've done plot twists before. How is it too smart? Crafting the universe we see means they're smart. All of the dialogue, the differences in the dialogue between playthroughs, and dialogue you can miss out on due to decisions means they're more than capable.

There have been many plot twists in Bioware's games but never misleading endings. And I'm not discussing the skills of Bioware's devs, but the framework of their actual design and marketing goals. Remember, with all of their talk of game as art, Bioware is more and more focused on reproducing interactive versions of blockbuster movies aimed at the casual gamers market. They don't wont to be niche or edgy. They want to be as popular as they can.

I may sound arrogant, but the indoctrination ending is too smart for a large part of the audience Bioware wants to conquer. It asks a lot of dedication and attention to little details to be catched. And if that's really the plan, they would have added the real ending in the main game and not in a sad piece of DLC that only a minority of their player base could experience.

Having said that and having said it many times. The only thing I can say is that your mind won't be changed unless bioware gave definititive proof and proof that they planned it from the start. And after that if you don't believe it.. you're in denial.

Well, I'm saying that you are smart and that Bioware is lucky to have such smart fans who can save their ass with pure creativity. The indoctrination theory is not baseless: otherwise it could not work. I simply believe that in a best case scenario, Bioware have put some elements in to the final because they were not sure of it and so they could overwrite them in a future DLC and make money out of it. In a worst case scenario, they are simply lucky because many little details fits the theory. Probably the truth is in the middle.

If ME3 devs declare that they planned the indoctrination theory from the get go, I will resist my urge to ridicule them, remain possibilist and focus on the positive outcome: probably we will get a better ending. So, don't get me wrong: I support your group no matter if you are right or wrong.

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 mars 2012 - 07:20 .

[Tim Skijwalker]

i really hope this theory is correct!

*fingers crossed

[CannotCompute]

xsdob wrote...

If the indoctrination theory is real, than what happens to everyone who didn't pick destroy, or didn't have enough EMS to survive it, do they just get a pop up screen that says

"sorry sucker, this content is only for those who got the good destroy ending, replay the game and pick the right choice next time."

You will have to defeat Husk or Saren Shep

Modifié par CannotCompute, 27 mars 2012 - 07:05 .

[greywardencommander]

Devos wrote...

N7xELITE wrote...

This theory is not BS its a good idea and is creative. And has proof.

It doesn't have proof. It has a well edited video. Eloquence isn't proof.

The VI on Thessia doesn't seem to think Sheppard is indoctrinated. The counter? VI's aren't infallible...

"Wait. What?"

Selectively throwing out anything that contradicts something isn't proof. If Sheppard wasn't indoctrinated then much of the rest of the reasoning doesn't work.

There has been no real opportunity for that kind of indoctrination, Sarren and TIM were indoctrinated over a period of decades. The longest exposure Sheppard had was two days during the arival. outside of that maybe a dozen relatively brief encounters with reapers. The slow indoctrination suggested doesn't fit.

Finally why? Up to that point Sheppard has been instumental in putting together what is suggested to be the most credible threat the reapers have ever faced. They didn't stop her/him from doing that. So what are they going to achieve with Indoctrination right at the end?

What is BS is the number of people supporting it with a near militant attitude when it has more and just as obvious holes as current ending. It's a well edited video and an interesting interpretation but it's obviously wrong. If people were happy with the ending then this kind of interpretation would be an interesting aside.

The VI couldn't detect those undergoing indoctrination so yes that is 'circumstantial evidence' and it's proof because IT IS SAID IN GAME.

how about hypothetically think that it was intentional and they prove it by releasing an amazing 10 hours (FREE using the MP codes or something) that is in line with the polished game and series (overall) you give them credit for actually trying to be creative and innovative in RPG and breaking the fourth wall. Rather than say 'yeah but it was because of the fan reaction' or 'nah bad writing' and the 'current end' is the real ending no matter what so the rest is bs.

if it's not intentional then yeah the endings remain rubbish but at least we showed our love of the series and the amount of immersion to think actually if I think about it like this maybe playing through to see what it's like being a Renegade etc is worth it because I loved the journey even if the destination felt like a punch to the gut.

Nothing is definitive, everything's been classic PR non-committal and double speak, it can be interpreted both ways and that goes for everything that is used as evidence for IT too and all 'supposed' evidence it's false.

it's confirmation bias we want to believe in IT and that the clarification endings are to come. That it was all in the mind and Shep is still on earth are to come. You don't. Yours is confirmation bias on the basis you refuse (no matter what) to accept that the endings are nothing more than rushed, bad writing awful.

all of us (or most) HATE the endings as they are and want to see it fixed THIS IS THE EASIEST WAY because it doesn't negate anything and accounts for your final choice too.

Hence why I always say IF because a part of me says it wasn't deliberate but the rest says that a lot adds up to the IDT and that they wanted to break the fourth wall and extend indoctrination (both ME and real life wise) to the player because YOU are Shepard. That would be doing 'the impossible' because it's not been done before not because it's literally not possible. Saying 'bad writing, rushed, plot holes, money talks etc' isn't PROOF it's circumstantial just like everything we say.

Thus until it is announced one way or the other IT is THEORY not fact when it's confirmed it becomes Fact and if it wasn't intended this is a hell of a way to make the endings right (based on a lot of people's ideas) and give some faith back.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 27 mars 2012 - 07:08 .

[waldstr18]

i never said anyone was dump. im aware im not that bright either, so how could i call anyone else stupid? and for the desperate part. i guess im desperate for something that makes sense my own self. the only difference is, i dont have to hold on to a theory, which in the end makes no sense - to me at least.

[n00bsauce2010]

waldstr18 wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

I challenge the naysayers to come up with a better explanation to the ending.

And no, "BioWare are teh poop writers, lulz" does not count.

heres the explanation  for it. They're mentally retarded, stubborn, and in a stage of denial that can't be changed.
Bioware could give us proof it was their plan and they'll simply say 'Ending still isn't in the game, coincidence, crappy writers, I'm a loser who probably didn't play the other two games, And I also hate plot twists because i'm not smart enough to see the hints for them coming"

IT isn't a theory. It is simply real.

you are quite offensive, my young friend, who has numbers in his name.

and something i learned in school once: you should never state theories as real if you cant actually proof them. all you do is collecting facts from a story, someone else thought up. to proof it you would have to know the intentions of the ones who made the game. well, i doubt you do. but i can tell you one thing im pretty sure about, one of these intentions im talking about is surely to make money. and from a business point of view, well, its not very smart to make unfinished products, which can only be appreciated by the highly intelligent, like you for example, cause as you might have noticed, there arent that many super smart people on the planet. so if the stupid losers dont buy the product, you will make considerably less money in the end. now comes the problem of the break even point (also visisted economics school, sorry). which means, if you dont sell enough of your products, you not only wont make that much money, you actually gonna lose it, and then you cant afford making new prodcuts, which then leads to you making no money at all. and since production costs for a tripple a game are in the millions, you should really make your game simple enough to be appreciated by as many people as possible. or so i have heard...

Makes no sense. considering video-games are art your statement makes no sense. By your logic, no one should have ever even bothered to watch Fight Club, Inception or Memento because lets face it.. it's just way too hard for people to understand. But yet all of those films are critically acclaimed for doing something different. And they've all made profits to some extent. Also, we don't even know iff the stated majority of people who are complaining about the ending is actually a majority. If 90% of people were upset about the game, there would have been a price cut on mass effect 3 already. But if you notice.. there isn't. We have no official sales figures. So again what does your post state other than you yourself theorizing how sales and the minds of those who appreciate art should take it?

[Dendio1]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

nyrocron wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

I think the ID theory makes sense in fact it's in my banner . The thing that gets me is why end a trilogy on that? I mean lots of speculation can be a good thing, but not in the ending of a major trilogy. That is the question that plagues me unfortunately.

Actually I can't think of an other way to deal with indoctrination.
If it would be done in one of the earlier games and we could be sure that the story of Shepard continues there would be speculation but way less than there is now. If it would be done mid-game, players would have to be told explicitly what is happening and would just reload if they did something wrong.

In my opinion IF they want Shepard to deal with indoctrination, the way they did is the best - if not only - way to do it in an appropriate way.

You gotta remember you are ending a franchise on that. Yeah the ID theory makes sense only in the end of the game. I agree with that completly it also does explain the gaping plot holes. Why is that the END though? I mean that is what gets me. I mean the game ends right after the space magic jungle scene. Why not expand on that? Why not make it make more sense.

Because for the Indoctrination theory to have the punch it has, for it to break the fourth wall and grab the player, for any of the hints placed throughout the game to have any purpose we have to not get this handed to us on a silver plate.

If Shepard simply woke up and we learned immediately it had been an Indoctrination attempot then what was the point?

By leaving it like this, like it is the ending, by not giving any explanation Bioware spawned all of what we on the forums and in the other media. If the IT is true Bioware then by making this ending Bioware extended the indoctrination attempt beyond the game and gave us a very real example of how it works. 

That is logical. Still if that is the case. It's a pretty risky move. Yes we agree that is logical.

It is risky, but the potential payoff is also huge.

If the IT is true and Bioware manages to pull of a free DLC that wraps it all up and delivers a satisfying ending then all of this will be remembered for years to come as one of the most brilliant endings in gaming history.

Noone will ever again be able to doubt Bioware´s ability to write a story.

They can and will probably charge for the dlc. That said if it delivers the satisfying ending it will still be remembered as one of the most brilliant endings in history, and one of the most contriversial. Indoc theory > revan reveal imo.

[grak]

xsdob wrote...

If the indoctrination theory is real, than what happens to everyone who didn't pick destroy, or didn't have enough EMS to survive it, do they just get a pop up screen that says

"sorry sucker, this content is only for those who got the good destroy ending, replay the game and pick the right choice next time."

The game auto saves a new save for you right at the start of the dream (ending) sequence

[Rifneno]

waldstr18 wrote...

you are quite offensive, my young friend, who has numbers in his name.

Oh my God.  It took me 10 minutes to recover from this.  It was like a stun gun.  You've weaponized irony!

and something i learned in school once: you should never state theories as real if you cant actually proof them.

Something I learned in school once: the definition of the word "theory."  If you can prove it, it's not a theory.  

Modifié par Rifneno, 27 mars 2012 - 07:08 .

[nyrocron]

Devos wrote...

N7xELITE wrote...

This theory is not BS its a good idea and is creative. And has proof.

It doesn't have proof. It has a well edited video. Eloquence isn't proof.

The VI on Thessia doesn't seem to think Sheppard is indoctrinated. The counter? VI's aren't infallible...

"Wait. What?"

Selectively throwing out anything that contradicts something isn't proof. If Sheppard wasn't indoctrinated then much of the rest of the reasoning doesn't work.

There has been no real opportunity for that kind of indoctrination, Sarren and TIM were indoctrinated over a period of decades. The longest exposure Sheppard had was two days during the arival. outside of that maybe a dozen relatively brief encounters with reapers. The slow indoctrination suggested doesn't fit.

Finally why? Up to that point Sheppard has been instumental in putting together what is suggested to be the most credible threat the reapers have ever faced. They didn't stop her/him from doing that. So what are they going to achieve with Indoctrination right at the end?

What is BS is the number of people supporting it with a near militant attitude when it has more and just as obvious holes as current ending. It's a well edited video and an interesting interpretation but it's obviously wrong. If people were happy with the ending then this kind of interpretation would be an interesting aside.

- the VI can't be perfect, Javik says that the Protheans were infiltrated by indoctrinated sleeper agents. who did that happen if the VI would be able to detect indoc if it is not obvious (as in Kai Leng)
- direct contact may not be needed. but besides that, cerberus had reaper tech and cerberus built the normandy AND shepard. also he is weak in the end (and not only there, his mental problems are mentioned throughout the game)
- why? harbinger always had great interest in shepard. him being indoc'd could make the difference between 100 years of reaping or maybe 1 year. also why would harby fly away when shep wakes up?
- i saw the video, it really was not what convinced me, my own impressions of the game and the hints collected by the community were

and no, the theory is not fact. it is still a theory in my opinion, as there is no definite proof.

Modifié par nyrocron, 27 mars 2012 - 07:12 .

[IndustrializedTaco]

Devos wrote...

N7xELITE wrote...

This theory is not BS its a good idea and is creative. And has proof.

It doesn't have proof. It has a well edited video. Eloquence isn't proof.

The VI on Thessia doesn't seem to think Sheppard is indoctrinated. The counter? VI's aren't infallible...

"Wait. What?"

Selectively throwing out anything that contradicts something isn't proof. If Sheppard wasn't indoctrinated then much of the rest of the reasoning doesn't work.

There has been no real opportunity for that kind of indoctrination, Sarren and TIM were indoctrinated over a period of decades. The longest exposure Sheppard had was two days during the arival. outside of that maybe a dozen relatively brief encounters with reapers. The slow indoctrination suggested doesn't fit.

Finally why? Up to that point Sheppard has been instumental in putting together what is suggested to be the most credible threat the reapers have ever faced. They didn't stop her/him from doing that. So what are they going to achieve with Indoctrination right at the end?

What is BS is the number of people supporting it with a near militant attitude when it has more and just as obvious holes as current ending. It's a well edited video and an interesting interpretation but it's obviously wrong. If people were happy with the ending then this kind of interpretation would be an interesting aside.

That is logical. I don't agree with you, but I see your point as to why it could be false. I believe the theory to be correct. I don't think I'm militant either.

The generally accepted belief is that the Indoctrination took affect right at the end. That is possible in the codex it is said the reapers can take immediate affect of the person it is trying to control. That is also logical. Maybe your right we are looking for answers because the ending is bad. Remember though the Dev's did say, "lots of speculation." Isn't this speculation.

Modifié par beetlebailey123, 27 mars 2012 - 07:12 .

[Rob Psyence]

I once again find myself having to reiterate one of the biggest points in my eyes that Harbinger/the reapers are shown to be attempting to influence Shepard/the player's choice to the naysayers. I ask this... Why is TIM who is obviously and proven to be indoctorinated used to show off the "control" option bathed in the blue of paragon? Why is Anderson who throughout the games and the books has been a stand up guy fighting to protect everyone as if they were his children, used to show off the "destroy" option bathed in the red of renegade?

Can you naysayers honestly look at me and tell me that seems right? Also can you tell me that is not intentional? TIM spends the entire game actively trying to convince shepard, to convince you to take control...He IS indoctorinated. Fundamentally you can take anything he says as a fallacy, his words may as well be from Harbinger himself...yet it's paragon...that doesnt seem strange to you?

Modifié par Rob Psyence, 27 mars 2012 - 07:12 .

[grak]

another real life support for the IT theory is that by releasing the "real" ending as a DLC, then BW have dealt a huge crippling blow to the resell market for ME3 (who wants to buy a used game if you can't get the real ending?) as well as piracy (provided they can keep the pirates from getting the DLCs)

[zakaryzb]

Skillz1986 wrote...

I posted this already, but it kind of got swept under the rug. It adresses the "why synthesis wit hugh ems" or "why destroy with low ems" questions. The way i see it is, with a low ems, the reapers just don't see the need to indoc you...they know you have no chance of winning this war even if you are fully aware of your actions. the basically do not give a flying ****. Increasing ems, equals increasing pants sh***ing for the reapers. they know..if they leave you fully conscious..you will lead you forces to victory...so they have to come up with more appealing "solutions" to break your will to fight. hope i managed to make clear what i'm talking about. not a native speaker..so here's hoping.

I like this idea and that was my thinking on it too.  You were doomed from the start and you watch Earth get ****ed up because of your actions (or lack there of for that matter).

[xsdob]

grak wrote...

xsdob wrote...

If the indoctrination theory is real, than what happens to everyone who didn't pick destroy, or didn't have enough EMS to survive it, do they just get a pop up screen that says

"sorry sucker, this content is only for those who got the good destroy ending, replay the game and pick the right choice next time."

The game auto saves a new save for you right at the start of the dream (ending) sequence

In all honestly, I think that would be too much work for them, I really think they'll make you play from the start of the last mission all the way through again.

And if so, I'll be here ****ing with the rest of the 20 or so percent of the fandom who did pick control or synthesis.

[FedericoV]

Dwailing wrote...

Wait, how does:wizard::wizard: not fit into a mental vision?

Off course, it does not make any kind of sense even in the context of a Space Opera series. But that does not mean that it fits with the context of a mental vision. The sequence does not have any kind of psychological layer. It's very graphic and flashy. It's not dreamlike. It really seems like the classic blockbuster final.

[greywardencommander]

waldstr18 wrote...

i never said anyone was dump. im aware im not that bright either, so how could i call anyone else stupid? and for the desperate part. i guess im desperate for something that makes sense my own self. the only difference is, i dont have to hold on to a theory, which in the end makes no sense - to me at least.

but you keep talking about 'making sense' as thought the IRL stuff is the only important bit forgetting that it would all be a plot twist just like in a film so if it's true they release the rest of the game as though you had it all along and any DLC becomes a mission in your Journal if you're playing it from scratch so you don't do it too early it becomes available after you beat the 'current endings'

In terms of all three games, the foreshadowing the fact Harbinger and the Reapers seem obsessed with capturing Shepard in some capacity and control him the theory makes sense.

The ME lore on indoctrination then it would make sense the difference is having it happen in game and then go to the 'waking up on Earth' has no impact whatsoever so they're demonstrating indoctrination (i.e. the concept is based on what happens in real life with cults and conspiracies, just like this one)

[xsdob]

As a thought to the shepard was indoctrinated this whole time thought, how come he could kill that reaper on rannoch, or the two in the final battle? Shouldn't he have messed up his aim, or pressed the button too early or late, or something to show that he wasn't fully in control if he was at such an advanced stage of indoctrination to be hallucinating and hearing voices in his head?

[nyrocron]

xsdob wrote...

As a thought to the shepard was indoctrinated this whole time thought, how come he could kill that reaper on rannoch, or the two in the final battle? Shouldn't he have messed up his aim, or pressed the button too early or late, or something to show that he wasn't fully in control if he was at such an advanced stage of indoctrination to be hallucinating and hearing voices in his head?

That form of indoctrination means no physical control over the subject's body by the reapers.

Modifié par nyrocron, 27 mars 2012 - 07:18 .

[greywardencommander]

FedericoV wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Wait, how does:wizard::wizard: not fit into a mental vision?

Off course, it does not make any kind of sense even in the context of a Space Opera series. But that does not mean that it fits with the context of a mental vision. The sequence does not have any kind of psychological layer. It's very graphic and flashy. It's not dreamlike. It really seems like the classic blockbuster final.

I completely disagree re. the psychological stuff (see my signature thread) that you're not supposed to realise it's a trick.

I agree the endings themselves are classic blockbuster and in isolation aren't even that bad thematically but so is the 'beating the impossible odds' of an action hero which Shepard is. Beating the Reapers greatest weapons is ME3's Ilos and Omega Relay 'beating the supposed impossible'

There is no end boss...why because THIS is the end boss (as things are now) you realise something's not right and you pick destroy and have a high enough EMS are rewarded with that breathing scene but IDT is the idea that all your choices can matter in the end.

If not true then they can make it true and create a great way of appeasing the fans with various different outcomes based on everything (from living to dying to save everyone to Reapers winning and the cycle continuing)

So IDT has long since gone past 'it is intended' and 'this is what should have been intended Bioware do it'

[K2daE]

xsdob wrote...

As a thought to the shepard was indoctrinated this whole time thought, how come he could kill that reaper on rannoch, or the two in the final battle? Shouldn't he have messed up his aim, or pressed the button too early or late, or something to show that he wasn't fully in control if he was at such an advanced stage of indoctrination to be hallucinating and hearing voices in his head?

I guess a stronger argument would be why does the Reaper on Rannoch attack Shepard? I guess it could of not wanted to make Shepard ask that question, or it simply could not have known if he was indoctrinated, but it is something to consider.