1594 réponses à ce sujet

[turian_rage]

This does make me feel better about the ending, it really does. But BioWare needs to explain it themselves or release a DLC showing the true events of the game. Personally, the only part of the ending that irked me was the part AFTER shepard and anderson were done with the Illusive Man. The events up to that I did not mind, even with the randomness of why anderson was there in the first place. It was the star child. The catalyst. The 3 similar endings. I was behind the ending before I realized how similar it was to all of the others. That's why I just want that little bit of DLC that confirms that it was all a pleasant dream, not just some hurried up anti-climax that didn't play off of any of our choices.

[Rockpopple]

Pamine, you might be right, but I'd prefer if people were angry at the ending for the right reasons. The problem with the real ending is that there isn't one. The game basically ends or cuts off before the final battle with the Reapers is resolved.

That's the problem with the ending. Not green space magic or blue space magic or Joker being out of character or Shepard being out of character or Synthetic beings suddenly becoming organic or squadmates on earth suddenly transporting to the Normandy, all that stuff was a head-fake. It never happened.

Honestly, I wish more people stopped to ask themselves questions of what they just saw. Myself included. Why would a writing team suddenly forget how everything in the ME universe worked in the last 5 minutes of the game? Why would there be such glaring plotholes, like squadmates on Earth suddenly appearing on your ship? Why would they reduce such a strong, powerful character like Shepard into one that just accepts what he's told without question? Why would they forget that the Citadel isn't made of stone and concrete? Why would they have Shepard survive an explosion in space, or re-entry into an atmosphere, even when they proved that he couldn't before?

Those are questions people should ask themselves. Instead, they just assume the writers suddenly went all ****** in the last stages of the game. Cuz it's simpler to believe, maybe?

Modifié par Rockpopple, 14 mars 2012 - 03:24 .

[Zyrious]

Is anyone else starting to get annoyed at what has to be the ultimate form of grasping at straws in recent narrative history?

[Zyrious]

Rockpopple wrote...

Pamine, you might be right, but I'd prefer if people were angry at the ending for the right reasons. The problem with the real ending is that there isn't one. The game basically ends or cuts off before the final battle with the Reapers is resolved.

That's the problem with the ending. Not green space magic or blue space magic or Joker being out of character or Shepard being out of character or Synthetic beings suddenly becoming organic or squadmates on earth suddenly transporting to the Normandy, all that stuff was a head-fake. It never happened.

Honestly, I wish more people stopped to ask themselves questions of what they just saw. Myself included. Why would a writing team suddenly forget how everything in the ME universe worked in the last 5 minutes of the game? Why would there be such glaring plotholes, like squadmates on Earth suddenly appearing on your ship? Why would they reduce such a strong, powerful character like Shepard into one that just accepts what he's told without question? Why would they forget that the Citadel isn't made of stone and concrete? Why would they have Shepard survive an explosion in space, or re-entry into an atmosphere, even when they proved that he couldn't before?

Those are questions people should ask themselves. Instead, they just assume the writers suddenly went all ****** in the last stages of the game. Cuz it's simpler to believe, maybe?

Why would they forget to put the ending in the game they promised to end the trilogy? You are actually accusing bioware of worse things than most of us. We just think they flubbed the ending. Indoctrination theory supporters are saying bioware intentionally left it out to sell back to us.

With things like the Normandy scene and the Stargazer scene it *has* to be obvious what the *intent* of the writers were. It *wasnt* "it was all a dream". We have the script people, and this isnt in it.

Modifié par Zyrious, 14 mars 2012 - 03:27 .

[Cirreus]

I didn't see this description on the Mass Effect 3 box at the store...




Apparently it's value added content

Modifié par Cirreus, 14 mars 2012 - 03:27 .

[Tiax Rules All]

QwertyMusicMan wrote...

Although I really want to believe in these indoctrination theories, I still think it's just a way to explain the inherently nonsensical ending.

well. of course its a way of trying to explain things.. because things NEED explaining.

your not trusting Bioware, They want you to reject the absurd and nonsensical ending. Its on purpose to get you to realise that it really in sheps head.   I believe you are supposed to eventually jump to the indoctrination side of thinking, and its that some people cant seem to let go of that nonsense. instead just call Bioware bad writers for having holes. even though up until the ending the plot is rock solid. Its like you are just unwilling to accept that Bioware would even try twist ending.

[Reaperbeta]

This again is just hope and a shot in the dark aswell, it's built up like this but is it just a coincidence are we looking to deeply into this?

[Zofiya]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Its like you are just unwilling to accept that Bioware would even try twist ending.

A "twist" ending would have been included in the game, because that is how twist endings work. What if you got to the end of a movie, were presented with a completely nonsensical resolution, and then told to go check YouTube for the real, final ending? Or read a book that ended on a cliffhanger, and then had to read the author's blog to find out what happens in the epilogue?

Most people would be mad.

Imagining that they are withholding the true ending on purpose makes this whole debacle seem like some bizarre social experiment, and that is not a good way to run a business.

It's like you are just unwilling to accept that BioWare made a bad decision.

[comrade gando]

http://social.biowar...index/7655224/1

read some of the posts in that, from 9 months ago

[Tiax Rules All]

www.youtube.com/watch

This is London, that building to the left. look at the grey stone walls. look at the color, texture and designs. then tell me shepard is not in a rubble pile of those bricks at the breath ending...
www.youtube.com/watch[

whats my point? If this is not explained by "shepard never left London" then how, honestly how does this work?

p.s please dont tell me he got blasted outta the citadel through space down to earth and back to london and lived. *Facepalm*

Modifié par Tiax Rules All, 14 mars 2012 - 03:38 .

[Rockpopple]

Zyrious wrote...

Why would they forget to put the ending in the game they promised to end the trilogy? You are actually accusing bioware of worse things than most of us. We just think they flubbed the ending. Indoctrination theory supporters are saying bioware intentionally left it out to sell back to us.

With things like the Normandy scene and the Stargazer scene it *has* to be obvious what the *intent* of the writers were. It *wasnt* "it was all a dream". We have the script people, and this isnt in it.

I'm afraid you're missing the point. Indoctrination theory doesn't hold that "It was just a dream." Shepard was being Indoctrinated, as were you, the player. You either broke Indoctrination or you didn't. If you did, the game just full-stops. If you didn't, the game ends: Shepard dies, and the Reapers win.

And while yes, it would be crappy if BioWare left out a real "wrap it all up" ending for extra money. But as I said, that is the proper thing to be angry about. By being angry at the FALSE endings, you're just insulting BioWare's writing staff. I believe their writers know what they're doing. I can't be angry at the writing, but I can be angry with the marketing gimmick. 

And really, if you don't like it, you don't have to hang around here with all the people making sense. Go tilt at windmills somewhere else.

[ApplesauceBandit]

No, I get it. I get that its a half assed ending that's completely unacceptable.

[Rockpopple]

And again, if your theory is just that BioWare's writers were just bad, bad writers, despite - as Tiax said, writing a supurb plot for the first 98% of the game, then explain to me how the Destroy ending makes any kind of sense. Explain how Shepard survives re-entry, or the Citadel explosion. Explain why he's covered in London stone and mortor, and not Citadel glitz and tech?

That ending is designed to make you QUESTION everything! That's what got me to realize there was more here than meets the eye.

But at this point, you either want to question or you just want to believe that BioWare's writers got stupid and lazy for no apparent reason.

Be angry at the RIGHT things!

[Tiax Rules All]

Rockpopple wrote...

And again, if your theory is just that BioWare's writers were just bad, bad writers, despite - as Tiax said, writing a supurb plot for the first 98% of the game, then explain to me how the Destroy ending makes any kind of sense. Explain how Shepard survives re-entry, or the Citadel explosion. Explain why he's covered in London stone and mortor, and not Citadel glitz and tech?

That ending is designed to make you QUESTION everything! That's what got me to realize there was more here than meets the eye.

But at this point, you either want to question or you just want to believe that BioWare's writers got stupid and lazy for no apparent reason.

Be angry at the RIGHT things!

this has been my general thought. i came here to help those that had questions. and there are many. i have an inbox full of thatnk yous right now.

If you really want to dislike the ending so be it. if your reason for not liking it are based on flase assumptions (yes, the face value ending as truth is a false assumption) then you never gave the game a chance and its no wonder you wont ever like it.

[cinderburster]

comrade gando wrote...

http://social.biowar...index/7655224/1

read some of the posts in that, from 9 months ago

I did, and oh look:

Lucifer_Cheney wrote...

Why can't there be a "Matrix Reloaded"
plot twist where Shepard enters a room to find a Prothean "architect"
who explains in a pretentious, self-indulgent diatribe about how it
created Reapers, describes this will be the sixth time the galaxy will
have been harvested and tells Shep he/she is the eventuality of "an
anomaly that it has been unable to eliminate from the harmony of
mathematical precision, vis-a-vis, concordantly ergo".

From
there it gives Shep the choice of saving Earth and allow the other
species to die or try in vein to save the galaxy despite the simple
obvious truth that everyone will die and there is nothing he/she can do
to stop it.

Then Shep leaves and warns the Prothean that they had better not meat again, to which the Protean responds: We won't!

I see what you did there, Bioware. <_<

Instead of a Prothean we got a Star Child, but that is eerily similar to what happened, minus Shep being able to flip the bird and walk away.

(I do buy into the indoctrination theory, though.  That ending was just too bizarre, what with Shep waking up in the rubble in the "perfect" ending and various other oddities like TIM being shown attempting the "paragon" option.)

Modifié par cinderburster, 14 mars 2012 - 03:53 .

[Himmelstor]

Indoctrination theory.
Please do not lose sight of this. This is guessing, however well thought out.  Any evidence you come up with is insufficient to definitively say what you are saying is absolutely correct.
You may believe as you wish, but do not refer to the theory as fact.


As for my opinion, the wound is still quite raw. It will likely remain raw until there is a fix or until I forget about this series.
The Mass Effect game franchise is (or, cynically, was) the last thing I've looked forward to in gaming for a long time.  No theory will fix my irritation at the ambiguity of this promised 'definitive ending.'

Good day to you all.

[MB957]

I get what you say OP. My deal is...how pushing the destroy button is right choice...if indeed fighting indoctrination...any physical choice offered by the reaper is not going to end well for shep and the galaxy. if shep is laying on the ground, what actual "button" is he pushing?

Is it a metaphorical button...symbolizing his choice to refute the indoctrination?

why would the reaper say..sure..push that button..destroy us. it has to go on in sheps mind.

at that point..any choice is fine..since all end reaper threat. even symbolicly...destroy, control, merge...give shep the power to end the reaper threat. the only difference is sheps conscience, and what makes shep at peace.

if...shep is under the reaper influence.

that would be a fine twist....and then....continue the tale...not in dlc..but here. now.

[Drenick18]

I think what's better evidence than Shep breathing in rubble IN London, is the fact that the Reaper/catalyst told Shep he would die if he chose Red explosions, but he obviously didn't. Catalyst lied.

[Rockpopple]

Good point, Himmelstor, at this point it's only a theory. But it has a lot of evidence behind it and it just fits. But you're right that it's not fact. It won't be until BioWare finally comes out with their say one way or the other.

[Drenick18]

 Right now it's the only thing most of us (who are still in the stages of grief) has. been running it through my head for days now, and yeah it all fits. would totally redeem Bioware in my eyes if true.
Now if Bioware releases this as FREE DLC, aka "indoctrination/hallucination-continue the game from London", everyone will rejoice say "oh you Bioware, you almost had me there". They just broke the fourth wall and played everyone. "hah! you guys just got indoctrinated IRL lol". 
if they charge for this DLC, there's gonna be so much backlash. People will still buy the DLC sure, but I don't think a lot of people will trust Bioware/EA ever again.

[Gallron395]

MB957 wrote...

I get what you say OP. My deal is...how pushing the destroy button is right choice...if indeed fighting indoctrination...any physical choice offered by the reaper is not going to end well for shep and the galaxy. if shep is laying on the ground, what actual "button" is he pushing? 

Is it a metaphorical button...symbolizing his choice to refute the indoctrination? 

why would the reaper say..sure..push that button..destroy us. it has to go on in sheps mind.

at that point..any choice is fine..since all end reaper threat. even symbolicly...destroy, control, merge...give shep the power to end the reaper threat. the only difference is sheps conscience, and what makes shep at peace.

if...shep is under the reaper influence.

that would be a fine twist....and then....continue the tale...not in dlc..but here. now.

The catalyst did not put the destroy choice there because he wants Shepard to break free. The destroy choice is there because that is Shepard's self conscious saying "this is the right thing, do it!" that is why the catalyst dresses it in red. He says it will do more than destroy just the reapers, it will destroy things you care about, like the geth, edi, or your own body. He makes it appear renegade. But in part of that explanation, Shepard sees ANDERSON shooting the canister, and TIM controlling the reapers. The catalyst even says "you can TRY to control us." and in further detail he says you can control us, but you will die. 

It seems so backwards because it is backwards. The entire sequence between harbinger blowing shep up and his breath if you choose correctly would have made more sense had choosing incorrectly resulted in critical mission failure, because that is the reality of this "ending," which incidentally is truly not the ending. It's a cliffhanger. Although a rather rude one. 

[El_Draque]

 this man speaks truth i think

[SolonTheWhite]

If the indoctirnation theory is true, and I am still not convinced it is, I would still think all the backlash Bioware has reseaved was appropriate and would not respect them for the ending. There is a difference between fooling the character and fooling the player. The child fooling Shepard with indoctirnation is a perfectly fine ending, but it must then be followed up and made clear what happened so that the player can recieve closure. The entire point of telling a story is to take the listener on a journey in which they can walk away from knowing it has been complete. If Bioware wanted to be "edgy" and go through all this trouble to confuse and fool the player with their ending, then I also have a problem with them doing it with Mass Effect. The series has never been about peeling back layers of inception to find the truth. That is simply not the game that was made in Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2, and 99% of Mass Effect 3. If they wanted that kind of series/game then they should have made that kind of series/game. Do not make a complete 180 in the last 5 minutes of hundreds of hours long gameplay and not expect people to react negativly to it. The amount of time a player must invest to finish all 3 games should entitle the player to a sense of closure at the end of it

[Thrawn777]

If your theory is true, why would the reapers have all three choices result in the destruction of the relays? Wouldn't the "control" and "synthesis" choices (you giving in to indoctrination) have their pot sweetened with the relays remaining intact?

[Gallron395]

Thrawn777 wrote...

If your theory is true, why would the reapers have all three choices result in the destruction of the relays? Wouldn't the "control" and "synthesis" choices (you giving in to indoctrination) have their pot sweetened with the relays remaining intact?

The whole thing is meant to be subtle. If control and synthesis were obviously perfect choices, it would be much easier to spot them as fakes. 

It's like cheating on a test when the teacher knows you are a c student. If you get a 100/100, it obvious you cheated. But if you get a 87/100, now the teacher just shrugs off the incident as random. But in reality, the student still cheated. 

If bioware made it an obvious illusion, we would have noticed, shep would have, and the illusion would be meaningless. The subtlety makes it difficult to deal with, and therefore more meaningful.