1594 réponses à ce sujet

[Tiax Rules All]

sorentoft wrote...

zarnk567 wrote...

Not gonna lie OP you are coming off as very condescending in every post you make.....

I must agree. I do not like the tone of taking this theory (for that is what it is) as fact. It is outright foolish. <_<

 I'm just trying to help. I have already got private messages from people thanking me for the explaination. If you are reading condescention or a negative tone. Then that is on you.

I know there is no proof.. i guess we would need a dev quoting me as truth here for that, which of course will not happen. But if you do not agree with me and don't give a reason why I'm wrong that i can debate, thenyou have added nothing.

[Tiax Rules All]

Dr_Hello wrote...

@OP,

A question for you: in the extra cutscene where Shepard wakes up, why is he/she in the generic N7 armor and not the player's custom suit?

because that is a pre-rendered video cutscene not in in engine screen.

sorry no interesting answer there. just a technical one.

[DarkSpider88]

@OP

While I see validity to the hallucination/indoctrination theory the problem is I think that would create more of a backlash. While us more involved fans would be thrilled to see an ending that makes sense and gives closure, the casual gamer will be pissed if the intended plan was to sell game with a fake ending to a trilogy. If they sell DLC or expansion it will not sell as well as the original game, none ever do. I honestly feel they thought it would be cool and edgy to end something so vague.

Hence the Princess Bride Stargeezer crap.

Modifié par DarkSpider88, 13 mars 2012 - 12:12 .

[sorentoft]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

zarnk567 wrote...

Not gonna lie OP you are coming off as very condescending in every post you make.....

I must agree. I do not like the tone of taking this theory (for that is what it is) as fact. It is outright foolish. <_<

 I'm just trying to help. I have already got private messages from people thanking me for the explaination. If you are reading condescention or a negative tone. Then that is on you.

I know there is no proof.. i guess we would need a dev quoting me as truth here for that, which of course will not happen. But if you do not agree with me and don't give a reason why I'm wrong that i can debate, thenyou have added nothing.

I did give a reason, a page or two back, Tiax. I think it was my second post in this thread. I quite honestly wish this theory was correct because then a lot of the problems with the ending vanish. I just do not believe that, even while I understand the theory for why this should be the case.

Point in case however, I do not like that this theory is presented as fact until it has been confirmed as fact. Right now it is just a theory, there is no need to 'educate' people when they form their own opinions on this. I have absolutely nothing against you presenting it as a theory or helping, in fact I would encourage you to.

Modifié par sorentoft, 13 mars 2012 - 12:13 .

[Tony208]

-Merk- wrote...

No offense to the OP, but I just wanted to say this.

If the ending of any big budget movie, game, or novel has to be explained to the average consumer, then it's badly written.

This game was not an artistic game, or a game designed to target a niche market. Mass Effect 3 was a big budget game designed to appeal to a wide audience. You don't do "deep thoughts" and "artistic endings" with mass market media. That's the fastest way to lose your mass market.

Agreed, they failed to please both their fanbase and the wider audience they wanted to appeal to.
They dropped the ball and then tripped over it.

That hallucination theory still sounds like denial to me.

[Tiax Rules All]

-Merk- wrote...

No offense to the OP, but I just wanted to say this.

If the ending of any big budget movie, game, or novel has to be explained to the average consumer, then it's badly written.

This game was not an artistic game, or a game designed to target a niche market. Mass Effect 3 was a big budget game designed to appeal to a wide audience. You don't do "deep thoughts" and "artistic endings" with mass market media. That's the fastest way to lose your mass market.

 not everybody gets the meaning of Donnie Darko but it seems to be a hit cult movie none the less.

[Humakt83]

zarnk567 wrote...

Not gonna lie OP you are coming off as very condescending in every post you make.....

I, on the other hand, commend him for his patience.

[piemanz]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

If this is true, then why is my shepard a 'legend' for choosing the wrong option?

 
he is already a legend for assembling the galactic fleet that ultimately beats the reapers.
that shepard dies heroicly during the charge on the beam in London. His story was passed on by all who knew of him

But according to this theory, my shep did everything wrong. She didn't survive and chose the control option. And still got the ending with the stargazers some 200 years in the future, which would have been impossible had the Reapers won, which would have been the case if your theory is correct.

I also still got the message congratulating me on becoming a legend.

Just out of intrest, do you still get the stargazer and legend status if you choose the Sythesis ending?

yes but remember synthesis never happens, Shep imagines it but really he loses his battle to indoctrination and never "wakes up" at end.

so in a black and white way, control and synthesis are the same. you comprimise with reapers.. you get indoctrinated. ONLY sticking to the 3 game running morals of destroying them do you get to conquer indoctrination and live.

It just makes no sense, that they would indoctrinate Shep and even give him/her an option to destroy them. It seems kind os stupid, surely withholding that infomation would have been the better option for them.

And i don't see why, no matter what ending you chose, you get elevated to legendary status even though two options are clearly 'bad' endings according to this theory.

sorry but you are still not getting the point.

Shepard is never on the citadel on ANY ending. ALL if it is in his head. He is in actuallity in a rubble pile in london.
the destroy option doesnt "destroy" anything.

its a metaphor for breaking the indoctrination, he imagines the epilogue earth and relays and normady crash on happy land as the ending. but its just him dying alone/and we see this only after he wakes up at the end. where you and shep (cause your supposed to be the same mind) both realise its all a dream and shep draws breath and "turns away from the light"

So basicly you're saying that regardless of what option you choose, the reapers are defeated, and the end scene is just Shep fighting indoctrination.

Modifié par piemanz, 13 mars 2012 - 12:17 .

[kongenial]

Well maybe you're right about indoctrination, but this is still problematic as we miss any closure to Shepards story. And that is my point. ME was planned as a trilogy from the very beginning. I got no problems with that.

But I expected some answers I did not get. So Shepards indoctrinated but may live may fight. So what? I don't have an ending. I would have not problem if they let Shepard die or win. I were even okay if they made the end like "The cycle is not broken, it will continue as it has to be in order to guarantee the existence/balance of the universe".

But we got nothing but some strange clips we have to interpret.

[Smiley556]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

sorentoft wrote...

zarnk567 wrote...

Not gonna lie OP you are coming off as very condescending in every post you make.....

I must agree. I do not like the tone of taking this theory (for that is what it is) as fact. It is outright foolish. <_<

 I'm just trying to help. I have already got private messages from people thanking me for the explaination. If you are reading condescention or a negative tone. Then that is on you.

I know there is no proof.. i guess we would need a dev quoting me as truth here for that, which of course will not happen. But if you do not agree with me and don't give a reason why I'm wrong that i can debate, thenyou have added nothing.

Same here, many have thanked me for explaining the ending to them. We fully understand that the ending is hard to figure out, I dont think it was written to be easy. And I would even argue that yes, maybe Bioware made it a bit to hard to understand, but as discussed earlier here in this thread, its a hard thing to balance, making it to blatent and obvious defeats the purpose of having an indoctrination scene like this. It succeeds greatly in decieving the players to doubt their own motivation and willingly pick the options that lead to indoctrination, that is for sure.

[Adsinjapan]

I know a lot of people like to think "Hey it was all a hallucination, he never made it." but this just feels entirely flawed to me.

Look at it this way. For those of us Paragons, the destroy option just doesn't sit right considering we just saved a species only to doom them moments later. Why would we go through that for a "good" ending?
Another point is this. If Shepherd really did fall before getting to the Beam and everything leading up to that point was a dream, then that's a big "f**k you" to everyone who's played, because in the end EVERYONE lost. No saving the galaxy, all the races are now doomed because Shepherd didn't do his job. At that point it's now the worst ending possible.

Should Bioware have intended this to be the final outcome, only to release a concluding DLC later on at price, then it's the worst marketing ploy possible! To destroy a company's reputation for the sake of cashing in with extra content? That makes no real marketing sense!

A lot of us are speculating about a "hallucination" ending, because quite frankly, that's the only hope most of us have that this wasn't one big f**k-up, writing mishap on Bioware's part.

Let's face it, something slipped through on the development side that shouldn't have and the company tried to patch it up and pass it for intentionally done.
I highly doubt it was fake, or Shepherd was indoctrinized, because without that actual realization and resolution later on, ME3 falls VERY short of the mark.

[Rulycar]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Rulycar wrote...

So ... according to OP's theory
... building the crucible was a futile waste of effort?
... Was Hackett indoctrinated, too?
... He assured Shepard, the Reapers could not be defeated by conventional means.
... Therefore,
... the reapers win,
... Shepard dies in a pile of rubble in London,
... the cycle continues,
... and the Mass Effect Trilogy becomes a pointless exercise in futility.

It is easier to believe a corporation took my money and sold me fecal matter.

... not a waste it won the war, just not with shep at the helm, he was on earth. Others moved crucible into place in space.

... no? why would he be, he gave you a direct order to destroy TIM and reapers before finale
... shep took down a few reapers by conventional means. he didnt lie, just didnt believe
... the reapers only win if you do not get above 4000 EMF,
... shepard MAY die but thats seperate from wether or not the war is won
... not if you chose destroy
... no

So, the conclusion of the trilogy is:
... someone NOT Shepard turns out to be the hero
... you spent three games deluding yourself.

If Shepard couldn't make it into the Citadel to open it for Crucible insertion,
... then who did in your fantasy world?

[KaeserZen]

Tony208 wrote...

Agreed, they failed to please both their fanbase and the wider audience they wanted to appeal to.
They dropped the ball and then tripped over it.

That hallucination theory still sounds like denial to me.

However insignificant these theory might seem to you, we will fight, we will sacrifice and we will find a way to make the endings appealing. That's what humans do.

[hawat333]

"And possibly a lot more "happy" though I'm more interested in "real" then some contrived happiness."
That says all that is needed to be said.
That's what makes the story more serious and not just a cheesy Duke Nukem storyline.

[AlexXIV]

Nice theory but it's not clear. Many people before you have considered the 'hallucination theory' that everything after the rush to the beam and the explosions is unreal. But do you consider this a proper ending with people not knowing if it all is for real? Or if the Reapers win? I would hope that you are right and the end is 'Reapers win, Shepard hallucinating and dying like the rest of the people'. But seriously I fear Bioware have been perfectly sincere with the ending they provided and didn't mean it as an illusion/dream. However they will not sell alot of DLC with this ending so I am actually curious what happens next.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 mars 2012 - 12:20 .

[AlexXIV]

Rulycar wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Rulycar wrote...

So ... according to OP's theory
... building the crucible was a futile waste of effort?
... Was Hackett indoctrinated, too?
... He assured Shepard, the Reapers could not be defeated by conventional means.
... Therefore,
... the reapers win,
... Shepard dies in a pile of rubble in London,
... the cycle continues,
... and the Mass Effect Trilogy becomes a pointless exercise in futility.

It is easier to believe a corporation took my money and sold me fecal matter.

... not a waste it won the war, just not with shep at the helm, he was on earth. Others moved crucible into place in space.

... no? why would he be, he gave you a direct order to destroy TIM and reapers before finale
... shep took down a few reapers by conventional means. he didnt lie, just didnt believe
... the reapers only win if you do not get above 4000 EMF,
... shepard MAY die but thats seperate from wether or not the war is won
... not if you chose destroy
... no

So, the conclusion of the trilogy is:
... someone NOT Shepard turns out to be the hero
... you spent three games deluding yourself.

If Shepard couldn't make it into the Citadel to open it for Crucible insertion,
... then who did in your fantasy world?

TIM.

[Humakt83]

Adsinjapan wrote...

Look at it this way. For those of us Paragons, the destroy option just doesn't sit right considering we just saved a species only to doom them moments later. Why would we go through that for a "good" ending?
Another point is this. If Shepherd really did fall before getting to the Beam and everything leading up to that point was a dream, then that's a big "f**k you" to everyone who's played, because in the end EVERYONE lost. No saving the galaxy, all the races are now doomed because Shepherd didn't do his job. At that point it's now the worst ending possible.

Catalyst is lying to you. It is that simple. It is a dream which Reapers are manipulating. 

[Tiax Rules All]

piemanz wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

If this is true, then why is my shepard a 'legend' for choosing the wrong option?

 
he is already a legend for assembling the galactic fleet that ultimately beats the reapers.
that shepard dies heroicly during the charge on the beam in London. His story was passed on by all who knew of him

But according to this theory, my shep did everything wrong. She didn't survive and chose the control option. And still got the ending with the stargazers some 200 years in the future, which would have been impossible had the Reapers won, which would have been the case if your theory is correct.

I also still got the message congratulating me on becoming a legend.

Just out of intrest, do you still get the stargazer and legend status if you choose the Sythesis ending?

yes but remember synthesis never happens, Shep imagines it but really he loses his battle to indoctrination and never "wakes up" at end.

so in a black and white way, control and synthesis are the same. you comprimise with reapers.. you get indoctrinated. ONLY sticking to the 3 game running morals of destroying them do you get to conquer indoctrination and live.

It just makes no sense, that they would indoctrinate Shep and even give him/her an option to destroy them. It seems kind os stupid, surely withholding that infomation would have been the better option for them.

And i don't see why, no matter what ending you chose, you get elevated to legendary status even though two options are clearly 'bad' endings according to this theory.

sorry but you are still not getting the point.

Shepard is never on the citadel on ANY ending. ALL if it is in his head. He is in actuallity in a rubble pile in london.
the destroy option doesnt "destroy" anything.

its a metaphor for breaking the indoctrination, he imagines the epilogue earth and relays and normady crash on happy land as the ending. but its just him dying alone/and we see this only after he wakes up at the end. where you and shep (cause your supposed to be the same mind) both realise its all a dream and shep draws breath and "turns away from the light"

So basicly your saying that regardless of what option you choose, the reapers are defeated, and the end scene is just Shep fighting indoctrination.

pretty close actually but you wll never see Shep wake at the end unless you get the highest requirements and right choice at end. Its the extra for getting the "real" ending. I believe they is more to be said on shepard. but future post ending dlc will have shep starting as alive and still on earth having never gone up to citadel.

[piemanz]

It also completely goes against the fact that the crucible was effectively our only hope of defeating them.

Somehow the forces Shep gathered overcame the Reapers despite losing on almost every front and faced with overwhelming odds.

The only way this would work if Shep did infact overcome indoctirnation and manage to use the crucible to destroy the Reaper fleet.

Modifié par piemanz, 13 mars 2012 - 12:23 .

[Lugaidster]

Tony208 wrote...

-Merk- wrote...

No offense to the OP, but I just wanted to say this.

If the ending of any big budget movie, game, or novel has to be explained to the average consumer, then it's badly written.

This game was not an artistic game, or a game designed to target a niche market. Mass Effect 3 was a big budget game designed to appeal to a wide audience. You don't do "deep thoughts" and "artistic endings" with mass market media. That's the fastest way to lose your mass market.

Agreed, they failed to please both their fanbase and the wider audience they wanted to appeal to.
They dropped the ball and then tripped over it.

That hallucination theory still sounds like denial to me.

That works the other way around too. You could also be in denial. Which is why denial by itself is not a valid argument to counter this theory (or any for that matter).

[Archer]

Interesting theory but this still goes againsnt all the promises of closure and multiple endings the bioware PR machine told us we would be getting.

If the ending was made this way to pave the way for a true ending via DLC then shame on you Bioware.

However....

I will say this theory is a potentialy sound idea to use to fix the state of the endings as they stand down the line. It would be a shame if this was the plan all along though

[kalamity116]

-Merk- wrote...

No offense to the OP, but I just wanted to say this.

If the ending of any big budget movie, game, or novel has to be explained to the average consumer, then it's badly written.

This game was not an artistic game, or a game designed to target a niche market. Mass Effect 3 was a big budget game designed to appeal to a wide audience. You don't do "deep thoughts" and "artistic endings" with mass market media. That's the fastest way to lose your mass market.

This sums it up well. IF what BW was going for was to show Shepard conquering indoctrination (which by itself is a great concept), they made it too unclear. It should have been obvious to the player (at least in the cinematic AFTER you've made your choice) that the whole thing after Shep got knocked out was a hallucination forced upon Shepard with the intent of indoctrinating him. The absence of such clarity creates the notion that everything in the supposed hallucination was actually real, which if true, is as horrible an ending as everyone is saying it is.

Long story short, if this was BW's actual goal, then they did not make it clear enough to the average consumer.

[deathscythe517]

Oh no, we understand the ending perfectly, it's that it's executed terribly and feels forced which is why we're mad. I have noticed a trend of talking points in the opposite side of things it's either "you're ungrateful cry babies" or "you just don't get it, man" and both are equally obnoxious.

[LeTtotheC]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

-Merk- wrote...

No offense to the OP, but I just wanted to say this.

If the ending of any big budget movie, game, or novel has to be explained to the average consumer, then it's badly written.

This game was not an artistic game, or a game designed to target a niche market. Mass Effect 3 was a big budget game designed to appeal to a wide audience. You don't do "deep thoughts" and "artistic endings" with mass market media. That's the fastest way to lose your mass market.

 not everybody gets the meaning of Donnie Darko but it seems to be a hit cult movie none the less.

The important term here was 'cult' and not 'epic space opera'.  Donnie Darco plays to it's strengths in that it makes an audience come to their own conclusion as to what the hell is going on (Unless you watch with the directors comments).  ME never even hinted at being anywhere near that cerebral.  It was about telling a good story and getting people to think about the consquences of their actions. In that the ending fails because the consquences are all fairly similar in how they play out. 

[Lugaidster]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

piemanz wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

piemanz wrote...

If this is true, then why is my shepard a 'legend' for choosing the wrong option?

 
he is already a legend for assembling the galactic fleet that ultimately beats the reapers.
that shepard dies heroicly during the charge on the beam in London. His story was passed on by all who knew of him

But according to this theory, my shep did everything wrong. She didn't survive and chose the control option. And still got the ending with the stargazers some 200 years in the future, which would have been impossible had the Reapers won, which would have been the case if your theory is correct.

I also still got the message congratulating me on becoming a legend.

Just out of intrest, do you still get the stargazer and legend status if you choose the Sythesis ending?

yes but remember synthesis never happens, Shep imagines it but really he loses his battle to indoctrination and never "wakes up" at end.

so in a black and white way, control and synthesis are the same. you comprimise with reapers.. you get indoctrinated. ONLY sticking to the 3 game running morals of destroying them do you get to conquer indoctrination and live.

It just makes no sense, that they would indoctrinate Shep and even give him/her an option to destroy them. It seems kind os stupid, surely withholding that infomation would have been the better option for them.

And i don't see why, no matter what ending you chose, you get elevated to legendary status even though two options are clearly 'bad' endings according to this theory.

sorry but you are still not getting the point.

Shepard is never on the citadel on ANY ending. ALL if it is in his head. He is in actuallity in a rubble pile in london.
the destroy option doesnt "destroy" anything.

its a metaphor for breaking the indoctrination, he imagines the epilogue earth and relays and normady crash on happy land as the ending. but its just him dying alone/and we see this only after he wakes up at the end. where you and shep (cause your supposed to be the same mind) both realise its all a dream and shep draws breath and "turns away from the light"

So basicly your saying that regardless of what option you choose, the reapers are defeated, and the end scene is just Shep fighting indoctrination.

pretty close actually but you wll never see Shep wake at the end unless you get the highest requirements and right choice at end. Its the extra for getting the "real" ending. I believe they is more to be said on shepard. but future post ending dlc will have shep starting as alive and still on earth having never gone up to citadel.

While I wholeheartedly agree with your rationale, you should still refer to the possibility of a future DLC containing the continuation of the ending as just that, a possibility. Meaning that this "
future post ending dlc will have shep starting as alive and still on earth having never gone up to citadel" should go as this "
future post ending dlc should have shep starting as alive and still on earth having never gone up to citadel".

They could've gone for an open ending for all we know. I agree with your theory but we don't know for certain that there will be an "ending" DLC (unless I'm missing something).

Modifié par Lugaidster, 13 mars 2012 - 12:27 .