57139 réponses à ce sujet

[David_Sylver]

Unfortunately I played it sober so no it wasn't.  But maybe the ending might be better after a few brews...

[Iconoclaste]

The whole series prepared the final "punch" to knock Shepard out, with the Multi-function Laser Beam. Only his beliefs were needed (as TIM said), not his actions, since he would eventually make no difference in the end between the "false" choices offered to him.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 27 mars 2012 - 07:48 .

[greywardencommander]

waldstr18 wrote...

the differnce between your theory and fight club, memento and inception is, that its clear to everyone that there is at least something going on. now in mass effect 3 its not clear for the average player, like me, to pick up on something like your theory. my point being, if it were indoctrination, they would have told us in some undisputable way.

now you could argue that they will tell us in the dlc, but they changed statements in between, as far as i can recall. first they said, no changing the ending, then they said, fans need more closure. if your theory is right and it was planned all along, then why would they change statements? instead they would have said: wait for it... wait for it ... BOOM!

and art or not, moneyz! oh, and the movie are a bad example for your point. just look at hollywood and the movies it craps out. if you are interested in that topic i can really recomment the big picture show by movie bob on the escapistmagazine.com. he seems to be smart by the way.

also, another reason why i dont like the indoctrination theory, i dont think the last part of the game would make a good indoctrination. dont get me wrong, i really liked it. i actually jumped up and said "f! yeah!" when my girl started limping. i even took a crap between the star child explanation and my actual choosing, cause i wanted to really think it through, thats how amazed i were with the choices given. (oh, that actually might also point in the direction of me not being that bright... yet i enjoyed sitting on the toilett contemplating) anyhow... but all that being indoctrination? i would expect more. so your indoctrination theory would actually destroy the ending for me.

just for the record: the end videos are crap and need to be changed.

the fact it's so obviously different to what they said in the build up, the clues about the legend not being over, the fact (like i just said in a big message) it's eerily like the dreams, the choices themselves, how they're presented. The logic of the 'solution', the fact you don't go 'hell no we'll decide our own fate not you', the fact that your ally from the outset represents the 'red bad choice' yet your enemy for pretty much three games (as far as Cerberus goes) is the 'blue good ending' as we've been conditioned to believe through 120+ hours and been rewarded according too.

Thus in essence them waiting to tell you with free real endings is no different to the movie that tells you at the end anyway.

So to say IDT is a theory (that is to say not true until proven by Bioware) is accurate to say it's based on nothing, inaccurate.

If they release the endings free to all those with MP codes (thus bought it new) or some other code that everyone gets on the 6th April then I will say - biggest plot twist in entertainment regarding breaking the fourth wall and unreliable framed narrative (stargazer).

If they don't I say 950 pages of reasonable discussion (for the most part some people have come in said it's bull and gone again so I don't mean you) is testament to the rest of the series regardless of the endings

[n00bsauce2010]

waldstr18 wrote...

the differnce between your theory and fight club, memento and inception is, that its clear to everyone that there is at least something going on. now in mass effect 3 its not clear for the average player, like me, to pick up on something like your theory. my point being, if it were indoctrination, they would have told us in some undisputable way.

now you could argue that they will tell us in the dlc, but they changed statements in between, as far as i can recall. first they said, no changing the ending, then they said, fans need more closure. if your theory is right and it was planned all along, then why would they change statements? instead they would have said: wait for it... wait for it ... BOOM!

and art or not, moneyz! oh, and the movie are a bad example for your point. just look at hollywood and the movies it craps out. if you are interested in that topic i can really recomment the big picture show by movie bob on the escapistmagazine.com. he seems to be smart by the way.

also, another reason why i dont like the indoctrination theory, i dont think the last part of the game would make a good indoctrination. dont get me wrong, i really liked it. i actually jumped up and said "f! yeah!" when my girl started limping. i even took a crap between the star child explanation and my actual choosing, cause i wanted to really think it through, thats how amazed i were with the choices given. (oh, that actually might also point in the direction of me not being that bright... yet i enjoyed sitting on the toilett contemplating) anyhow... but all that being indoctrination? i would expect more. so your indoctrination theory would actually destroy the ending for me.

just for the record: the end videos are crap and need to be changed.

i have to add something which i havent made clear enough. in menento, fight club, inception, when people leave the theater, then everyone knows something was up. thats what i meant. not through out the whole movie. could have been misunderstood. had to clarify, sorry.

Not exactly.. inception leaves it up for the viewer.
Put to your point.. it really just states that you can't make everyone happy. And that's the problem here. Theres the group fine with the current endings. Theres the Indoc theorists who don't like the ending unless indoc was intended. And then theres the group that wants it simply changed because they want to whine and cry about it. First off... bioware never once said they weren't changing the ending.. and they never said that they were changing it. Only so far they've defended the ending. And then came out saying they were going to give closure and clarify. It means nothing. It doesn't tell us what they are planning, what they originally planned. And it also doesn't tell us whether the ending can be taken at face value or not. We've also gone over your idea like dozens of times. Its funny how the people who come in here blasting the indoc theory always think they're the first person to come up with the counter-argument when we've seen it many times already.

But.. i'll gladly rub it in your face when bioware comes out with definitive proof showing us it was their plan. Do i at least have that permission?

Modifié par n00bsauce2010, 27 mars 2012 - 07:50 .

[greywardencommander]

madmaxjr3 wrote...

I do hope and wish it was a dream/nightmare/hallucination/Indoctrination but i dont know if anyone has pointed this out yet but I think that Javik the Protheans disproves this thoery by bioware adding him later maybe they saw the same suff and it was too late to change but wouldn't javik detected by touch if sheperd was indoctrinated at all??? his own people were indoctrinated so wouldn't he be able to sense sheperd being controlled by the reapers?? not sure just a thought of mine again dont know if someone posted this already

difference between the process and the end result and they didn't notice all the 'sleeper agents' that wiped out their entire race so I say it's proof depends on your interpretation.

[Cucobr]

madmaxjr3 wrote...

I do hope and wish it was a dream/nightmare/hallucination/Indoctrination but i dont know if anyone has pointed this out yet but I think that Javik the Protheans disproves this thoery by bioware adding him later maybe they saw the same suff and it was too late to change but wouldn't javik detected by touch if sheperd was indoctrinated at all??? his own people were indoctrinated so wouldn't he be able to sense sheperd being controlled by the reapers?? not sure just a thought of mine again dont know if someone posted this already

this question is really really common..
There is no plot hole in IT,
The motive of Javik don't feeling your indoctrination process is the same motive that the Prothens didn't felt it in theirs cicle.

The Prothens tecnology can't indentify an indoctrinated person until some level of indoctrination.

[waldstr18]

actually you have to look at paragon and renegade to understand that.

now if you have played jade empire (open palm, closed fist), you know, that none of them stand exactly for good or evil. but i dont feel like explaining that right now, since i probably miss something anyhow. it could also just be seen as speculation. but trust me, the explanation is in the game, and i think they kept the principal in mass effect.

what i thought was actually that that was the twist. and i also was amazed by it. forced me to rethink the whole cerberus part. and i came to the point (supporting the jade empire logic) that he wasnt that bad of a guy actually, since he didnt change shepard. he just had a different way of making things right.

oh, and shepard didnt actually say control is bad, all she (he) said was, its too dangerous, cant be done. now with help of the crucible/catalist it can be done. so, control it is.
(its the lesser evil. you dont kill the geth nor edi, you are not being pretentious deciding to change everyone...)

[RussiaTerminator]

943 pages ... My google translator break
Very nice to read your mind 

Modifié par RussiaTerminator, 27 mars 2012 - 08:02 .

[Iconoclaste]

People who don't like IT mostly do because they just don't get it. They prefer to try to fill-in huge plot holes with all kinds of non sensical speculation, that quickly gets overwhelmed by opposite reactions and speculation on many, many threads...

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 27 mars 2012 - 07:53 .

[Ck213]

That 1M1 is really starting to bug me now when I replay the ending or see YouTube videos.
Every time I see it now, I see it upside down and mirrored and it looks like LWL.

Little White Lie.

[Cucobr]

Iconoclaste wrote...

People who don't like IT mostly do because they just don't get it. They prefer to try to fill-in huge plot holes with all kinds of non sensical speculation, that quickly gets overwhelmed by opposite reactions and speculation on many, many threads...

or they like more of AWESOME SPACE MAGIC:wizard::wizard::wizard::wizard:

[Vahilor]

waldstr18 wrote...

the differnce between your theory and fight club, memento and inception is, that its clear to everyone that there is at least something going on. now in mass effect 3 its not clear for the average player, like me, to pick up on something like your theory. my point being, if it were indoctrination, they would have told us in some undisputable way.

now you could argue that they will tell us in the dlc, but they changed statements in between, as far as i can recall. first they said, no changing the ending, then they said, fans need more closure. if your theory is right and it was planned all along, then why would they change statements? instead they would have said: wait for it... wait for it ... BOOM!

and art or not, moneyz! oh, and the movie are a bad example for your point. just look at hollywood and the movies it craps out. if you are interested in that topic i can really recomment the big picture show by movie bob on the escapistmagazine.com. he seems to be smart by the way.

also, another reason why i dont like the indoctrination theory, i dont think the last part of the game would make a good indoctrination. dont get me wrong, i really liked it. i actually jumped up and said "f! yeah!" when my girl started limping. i even took a crap between the star child explanation and my actual choosing, cause i wanted to really think it through, thats how amazed i were with the choices given. (oh, that actually might also point in the direction of me not being that bright... yet i enjoyed sitting on the toilett contemplating) anyhow... but all that being indoctrination? i would expect more. so your indoctrination theory would actually destroy the ending for me.

just for the record: the end videos are crap and need to be changed.

i have to add something which i havent made clear enough. in menento, fight club, inception, when people leave the theater, then everyone knows something was up. thats what i meant. not through out the whole movie. could have been misunderstood. had to clarify, sorry.

I don't know if you have played all Mass Effect games.. or you only played 3.

For me the part with star child was like a slap into my face cause it totaly kills everything of all the former Mass effect stuff.. not only the crappy Videos.. it's so totaly out of place .. and that is the point bothering and hurting most.. it opens so much plot holes and the stuff star child is telling us is such an idiotic unlogical crap...

And if you like most parts of the ending, nobody will force you to get DLC for it.. really. For most people somthing like IDT would be a good compromise and one of the best ways to keep the endings without changing them.. only the need to add some more to them.

I don't even understand people hanging around in a topic they totaly dissagree with.. if you don't like IDT you probably should leave it be and wait what BW in the end is doing...

Modifié par Vahilor, 27 mars 2012 - 07:56 .

[Iucounou]

I find it interesting that so many people are trying to disprove the Indoc theory. Would you rather have the endings left as they are now?

How is it people would rather believe Bioware went bat**** crazy at the very end rather than believing in a theory that neatly explains everything. Seriously. It's like flat-earthers denying that the Earth is a spheroid, or that NASA staged all the moon landings. Why would you believe that?

Oh wait. I know why. Because some people would rather believe it was a crap ending rather than believe they were totally played by Bioware and didn't see the clues that were scattered throughout.

It's hard to admit you've been had, I guess.

[greywardencommander]

waldstr18 wrote...

actually you have to look at paragon and renegade to understand that.

now if you have played jade empire (open palm, closed fist), you know, that none of them stand exactly for good or evil. but i dont feel like explaining that right now, since i probably miss something anyhow. it could also just be seen as speculation. but trust me, the explanation is in the game, and i think they kept the principal in mass effect.

what i thought was actually that that was the twist. and i also was amazed by it. forced me to rethink the whole cerberus part. and i came to the point (supporting the jade empire logic) that he wasnt that bad of a guy actually, since he didnt change shepard. he just had a different way of making things right.

oh, and shepard didnt actually say control is bad, all she (he) said was, its too dangerous, cant be done. now with help of the crucible/catalist it can be done. so, control it is.
(its the lesser evil. you dont kill the geth nor edi, you are not being pretentious deciding to change everyone...)

it's conditioning, you've played one game (at least) based on it and getting rewarded for it ITS CONDITIONING, you know (not discounting grey areas) that TIM is 'bad', you know Anderson is good - that's the point.

For everyone getting confused (re. my signature thread where you look at the little bit under the white line) here's the pyschology of the endings in isolation and why they might suggest IDT http://social.biowar.../index/10350970 basic primitive behaviour based on what you already know. Not even taking into account the hints throughout the three games (protheans having visions and waking up after if you found a particular artifact in ME1 for example)
I.e. you can watch the final scene and not know anything (as a lot of my psychologist friends have done because I showed it to them as it's relevant to what I'm doing at the minute) and think 'hang on a minute don't trust him'

Edit: I've played every bioware game (not in a fanboy way) thus based on KOTOR, DA2 (framed narrative being unreliable) and Baldurs gate the idea of making IDT work regardless of intent is the easiest way and they CAN make it work to fit all three 'current endings' with 'clarification and explanation' endings if it's free via a code where's the problem they either prove they listen or they prove they're really that good at immersive story to break the fourth wall in a way previously thought 'impossible', if you want the endings to change what's the problem?

Modifié par greywardencommander, 27 mars 2012 - 08:06 .

[XTR3M3]

EDIT
aw forget it....I don't care anymore...

Modifié par XTR3M3, 27 mars 2012 - 07:59 .

[usmack5]

http://doycetesterma...tistic-process/

Fantastic article here about why the endings are unsatisfactory.

[Rob Psyence]

waldstr18 wrote...

actually you have to look at paragon and renegade to understand that.

now if you have played jade empire (open palm, closed fist), you know, that none of them stand exactly for good or evil. but i dont feel like explaining that right now, since i probably miss something anyhow. it could also just be seen as speculation. but trust me, the explanation is in the game, and i think they kept the principal in mass effect.

what i thought was actually that that was the twist. and i also was amazed by it. forced me to rethink the whole cerberus part. and i came to the point (supporting the jade empire logic) that he wasnt that bad of a guy actually, since he didnt change shepard. he just had a different way of making things right.

oh, and shepard didnt actually say control is bad, all she (he) said was, its too dangerous, cant be done. now with help of the crucible/catalist it can be done. so, control it is.
(its the lesser evil. you dont kill the geth nor edi, you are not being pretentious deciding to change everyone...)

Tricking people into thinking a place is "Sanctuary" only to turn them into experiments and turn them into husks against their own free will is something a Paragon man would do? TIM is indoctorinated, he is the slave of the reapers, how the hell can that be construed as paragon? When shepard dies in the control ending and in synthesis his eyes literally turn into the eyes that TIM and Saren have...why?

[greywardencommander]

XTR3M3 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

People who don't like IT mostly do because they just don't get it. They prefer to try to fill-in huge plot holes with all kinds of non sensical speculation, that quickly get overwhelmed by opposite reactions and speculation on many, many threads...

yea, we got it, we just hated it because it wasn't what they said it would be. You might want to rethink your logic because I think its holes are as big as the plot and lore holes in the ending. I guess those of us who were thinking that we would get an ending where our choices mattered are too stupid to "get it". please, I have played this game multiple different ways modifying multiple variables and choices and you know what? I still get ending A,B, or C. That is what we don't like, not that we don't get it.

the point of IDT is that you're supposed to realise in the end scene it's a trick by Harbinger based on the logic and the fact he's been after you for two games 'your mind will be mine'
Thus the point of IDT is that free DLC (e.g. using the MP code you get with the game) gives you the 'clarification endings' as though you had it from the start and becomes a priority mission in your journal after the 'current endings'

I.E regardless of intent by Bioware IDT is easiest way to fix endings without changing anything (thus risking botching up game even more) - i.e. I hate the endings because of lack of 'my decisions matter in great scheme' and it seems to fly in the face of the previous games, I want to fix the endings, this is how to and give me everything I wanted in the first place.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 27 mars 2012 - 08:01 .

[waldstr18]

did i forbid you to do anything, noobsausage? you are free to do as you please.

but if i can give you some advice: loosen up a little. you seem like one of these xbox/ps3/nintendo fanboys. no offese to anyone of those or to you, of course. actually i hate all of them, i played mass effect on the pc with a mouse and keyboard like sophisticated people do.

hopefully i now have started a console war in here so im no longer the indoc theory blaster who comes in here blasting the indoc theory.

but you are right. i acutally thought i was the first one telling you about the only one choice possibility, cause like i said, for me that clarifies everything == no indoctrination was planned.

[greywardencommander]

waldstr18 wrote...

did i forbid you to do anything, noobsausage? you are free to do as you please.

but if i can give you some advice: loosen up a little. you seem like one of these xbox/ps3/nintendo fanboys. no offese to anyone of those or to you, of course. actually i hate all of them, i played mass effect on the pc with a mouse and keyboard like sophisticated people do.

hopefully i now have started a console war in here so im no longer the indoc theory blaster who comes in here blasting the indoc theory.

but you are right. i acutally thought i was the first one telling you about the only one choice possibility, cause like i said, for me that clarifies everything == no indoctrination was planned.

you're assuming (that we assume) that IDT retcons to only destroy
I've spent the last 300 pages explaining how regardless of intent they don't have to retcon anything.
Edit: I've even told you to look at my signature thread a lot of times to show how psychologically speaking based on the ending sequence alone it's enough to expect you to realise it's a trick. after all that I go into 'this is what I would do taking final choice in 'current endings' and make it into 'THE ending' social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10350970

Modifié par greywardencommander, 27 mars 2012 - 08:09 .

[Rob Psyence]

edit: nope, not saying it, if you quoted it already, oh well lol

Modifié par Rob Psyence, 27 mars 2012 - 08:10 .

[n00bsauce2010]

waldstr18 wrote...

did i forbid you to do anything, noobsausage? you are free to do as you please.

but if i can give you some advice: loosen up a little. you seem like one of these xbox/ps3/nintendo fanboys. no offese to anyone of those or to you, of course. actually i hate all of them, i played mass effect on the pc with a mouse and keyboard like sophisticated people do.

hopefully i now have started a console war in here so im no longer the indoc theory blaster who comes in here blasting the indoc theory.

but you are right. i acutally thought i was the first one telling you about the only one choice possibility, cause like i said, for me that clarifies everything == no indoctrination was planned.

Are you just in here for the sake of arguing or what? I can't seem to figure out the point of your posts. You love to contradict yourself and maybe that's why.

You seem like a fanboy. I hate them all.. LOOSEN UP.. I hope i started a console fanboy war! (contradictory) If you hated console fanboy rage? Why would you be hopeful you started a fanboy war? Uhh? You sound like the catalyst to me. 

[schneeland]

Iconoclaste wrote...

People who don't like IT mostly do because they just don't get it. They prefer to try to fill-in huge plot holes with all kinds of non sensical speculation, that quickly gets overwhelmed by opposite reactions and speculation on many, many threads...

That may be the case, but I still feel that what you are saying is too harsh. IT is actually still a theory, and even though it explains the oddities of the end quite well, it may be falsified (like basically every theory). Remaining sceptical is an respectable attitude, given you don't overdo it.

That said, I believe it would help to have a very short rehash of ITs assumptions, the pieces of coincidental evidence, the things that it explains and the things that it doesn't. Unfortunately, I don't have much time this evening, but I may do it tomorrow.

As a concluding remark:
I have said that ME 3 feels rushed in many places and I still believe this is true, but it does not feel any more rushed than Skyrim. The explenation that the end was just squished in last minute seems less plausible to me with each passing hour.
Also: although Bioware has been known for creating immersive games, they are also about money. If they were really in a hurry, wouldn't they insert an ending that is pleasing to as many people as possible (i.e. big boss fight, explosions, super happy ending, etc.).
This is not European art cinema - ME 3 has not been done by Casey and a few friends in his garage. They invested a lot of money and I believe, they want profit. And if they don't want it that much themselves, there is EA. And the last thing you could say about EA is that they are not interested in profit...

[Dendio1]

How long until bioware releases the dlc to add more to the ending. Me3 isnt an mmo T_T

[nyrocron]

I think what went wrong and was not expected by BioWare is that almost everyone already had heard of the "bad endings" before finishing the game themselves.
This prevented lots of people from thinking about it on their own. They just assumed that what they were told before - that BioWare had failed with the ending - was true, not even considering the possibility that the errors themselves could have a meaning.

And one month between release and announcement of DLC or expansion or whatever they planned seems reasonable to me.

Modifié par nyrocron, 27 mars 2012 - 08:11 .