265 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

There is such.............a.................big......................difference.

One encompasses the universe and everything inside it. The other is from a game.

[Rockpopple]

-Draikin- wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...
Tequila Man, you can't compare TIM's poor-ass version of Indoctrination to the real thing. Shepard was never, throughout the entire series, victim or nearly victim of the Reaper's most feared and insideous weapon. That alone begs the question: why in the 3rd act of this amazing trilogy did Shep never have to deal with Reaper Indoctrination?

Just checking, but basically you're saying that the scene where TIM was indoctrinating Shepard was in fact a hallucination in itself caused by Shepard already being indoctrinated? And he was in reality still lying on the ground in London after being hit by Harbinger's beam?

Yes!

The bullet points of Indoc. Theory holds that after Shep and HAMMER got ****kicked by Harbinger, he, and the player, were being indoctrinated. The endings are a result of whether they were successfull in indoctrinating you or not. Shepard never left London. 

Uhu. Shepard hallucinating about being indoctrinated because he was indoctrinated. If that's not grasping at straws I don't know what is. C'mon people, wake up, take a step back and look at the ending as a whole. Normandy and the epilogue included.

You don't understand, Shepard was NEVER indoctrinated. He was unconcious - maybe even dying, and hallucinating, and he was being indoctrinated at that point. Depending on the ending you choose, you're either indoctrinated or you're not. If you're indoctrinated, Shepard is completely and totally defeated. If he's not indocrinated, he at least has that, even if he dies. When you're fighting mano-a-mano with an Eldritch horror from beyond the stars, honestly not being driven insane is a victory.

Honestly, take a step back and look at the endings as a whole. All of them. The epilogue and Normandy included. 

[DarkSeraphym]

Rockpopple wrote...

I think it's a poor metaphor, in any case. Indoctrination theorists aren't adding new facts, ie: God, to the matter. They're in fact using all the stuff that they see in the endings, including the stuff that supposedly makes no sense, and seeing that in fact it makes perfect sense. 

And Indoctrinators have no hope that the outcome will someday be fixed through DLC or any reason. In fact, Indoctrinators are rather fatalistic. Most of us believe that the ending of ME3 will forever be a cliffhanger that explains nothing about the final outcome of the Reapers and the Galaxy forces. 

But those who take the endings at face value just accept everything that's given to them. Thematic consequences never introduced in the series before, space magic, out of character characters, they just accept it all, then they get angry.

It's just weird to me.

Head on over the 400+ page indoctrination/hallucination thread and look at the topics of discussion over the last couple of days. A lot of it has been analyzing the tweets of developers to see whether or not they can possibly find any confirmation that BioWare has Ending DLC in the works. That's not fatalism, that's hope.

As for the metaphor, human reasoning always develops in patterns. Not really sure why, that was never what my studies were about. Regardless, that is just what happens.

With regards to the space magic and face value, I've already had to accept a lot of stuff from the ME universe. I've had to accept that the Reapers have mass effect field technology powerful enough that they can keep a base from being destroyed by a supermassive black hole, an object of near infinite mass. I've had to accept that they can literally take an individual who died of asphyxiation (or so it would appear from the cinematic) and whose body suffered terrible trauma on impact with a planet and bring them back to life. I've also had to accept that, in the case of Mass Effect: Retribution, Reaper nanides are capable of defying the law of conservation of mass and energy and seemingly create synthetic parts in Grayson's body out of nothing. Finally, I've had to accept that the Reapers were too stupid to turn off the Mass Relays once they took the Citadel back to Earth, with which Vigil states the Reapers could turn off the relay network and had opted to do so in previous cycles.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 14 mars 2012 - 06:41 .

[Lemonwizard]

Mcfly616 wrote...

3 games of perfection

This right here. This is the problem with your argument.

[balance5050]

Zyrious wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Actually, Leafs43 is exactly right: you're the ones taking things at face value. You're the creationists. You were told that a space man made the earth in 7 days, you shrug your shoulders and believe it. Indoc. Theorists look at what's going on around them and question the official version.

Of course, I completely reject that. I don't want to call you or anyone else a creationist or whatever. I'm just using your own metaphor against you. No offense.

No offense Rockpopple, but I think you may have missed the point of the OP's metaphor. The ability to question is not something that is exclusive to either the evolution or creationist side of it. I believe in evolution and I believe it functions by the mechanic of natural selection. I've never done the tests myself. I've never seen it happen under a microscope. I'm a graduate student and it is something that has just been engrained in me enough that I trust those who use the scientific method more than I trust the theories tossed out by those who do not. I'm just taking their word for it.

What is similar is the way in which the arguments are formulated. The "indoctrinators" point out that the ending has too many holes in it and this is a way of filling in the gaps (God of the Gaps for Creationists). They claim that the writing is so poor that they cannot believe that a professional company who has put out quality games in the past could possibly have made something this poor. Thus they feel that it was intentional, that it was something that could not be mere coincidence and it must have had an Architect. Creationists believe the same thing. Likewise, "indoctrinators" seem to have an attachment to the outcome, hope, in the same way that creationists have an attachment to believing that Genesis is the literal word of God and is literally what happened.

I think it's a poor metaphor, in any case. Indoctrination theorists aren't adding new facts, ie: God, to the matter. They're in fact using all the stuff that they see in the endings, including the stuff that supposedly makes no sense, and seeing that in fact it makes perfect sense. 

And Indoctrinators have no hope that the outcome will someday be fixed through DLC or any reason. In fact, Indoctrinators are rather fatalistic. Most of us believe that the ending of ME3 will forever be a cliffhanger that explains nothing about the final outcome of the Reapers and the Galaxy forces. 

But those who take the endings at face value just accept everything that's given to them. Thematic consequences never introduced in the series before, space magic, out of character characters, they just accept it all, then they get angry.

It's just weird to me.

But you ARE adding more into it, you're adding interpretations that weren't intended. A "Mass Delusion" sequence does not match the flow of the series, breaks the narrative, and goes against the "ME 3 truly ends the trilogy" comments by the devs. When you see shepard in a pile of rubble (FYI there was barely any rubble approaching the conduit, it was flattened ground all the way on approach, wish some exploding vehicles nearby which i did not see in the "living" sequence) do you really think their intention was for people to nitpick the concrete and go "OMGOSH HES NOT ON CITADEL MUST BE DREAM!"? Really, do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that isnt a stretch?

A line of thought - Maybe people are just nitpicking the cutscene a little too closely, CGI developers are not the same as game developers or writers, sometimes things get mistranslated. CGI guy reads "Shepards body, head not visible, in pile of rubble. Takes breath, cut to black" and does that. He probably doesn't even know wtf the citadel is made of. Or even wtf a citadel is. He just follows the outlines.

Yep, you could write a short book and JUST fill it with clues, evidence and foreshadowing. notice how the hallucination thread is super long... now if you look at the stats, each page has been viewed 2-4 times as much as a page from the "so we cant get the ending we want" thread.

Everyday I see more and more people say "I can't believe it, but this indoctrination thing is actually starting to make sense"

But if  is your thing then don't let me stop you.

[Rockpopple]

Zyrious wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Actually, Leafs43 is exactly right: you're the ones taking things at face value. You're the creationists. You were told that a space man made the earth in 7 days, you shrug your shoulders and believe it. Indoc. Theorists look at what's going on around them and question the official version.

Of course, I completely reject that. I don't want to call you or anyone else a creationist or whatever. I'm just using your own metaphor against you. No offense.

No offense Rockpopple, but I think you may have missed the point of the OP's metaphor. The ability to question is not something that is exclusive to either the evolution or creationist side of it. I believe in evolution and I believe it functions by the mechanic of natural selection. I've never done the tests myself. I've never seen it happen under a microscope. I'm a graduate student and it is something that has just been engrained in me enough that I trust those who use the scientific method more than I trust the theories tossed out by those who do not. I'm just taking their word for it.

What is similar is the way in which the arguments are formulated. The "indoctrinators" point out that the ending has too many holes in it and this is a way of filling in the gaps (God of the Gaps for Creationists). They claim that the writing is so poor that they cannot believe that a professional company who has put out quality games in the past could possibly have made something this poor. Thus they feel that it was intentional, that it was something that could not be mere coincidence and it must have had an Architect. Creationists believe the same thing. Likewise, "indoctrinators" seem to have an attachment to the outcome, hope, in the same way that creationists have an attachment to believing that Genesis is the literal word of God and is literally what happened.

I think it's a poor metaphor, in any case. Indoctrination theorists aren't adding new facts, ie: God, to the matter. They're in fact using all the stuff that they see in the endings, including the stuff that supposedly makes no sense, and seeing that in fact it makes perfect sense. 

And Indoctrinators have no hope that the outcome will someday be fixed through DLC or any reason. In fact, Indoctrinators are rather fatalistic. Most of us believe that the ending of ME3 will forever be a cliffhanger that explains nothing about the final outcome of the Reapers and the Galaxy forces. 

But those who take the endings at face value just accept everything that's given to them. Thematic consequences never introduced in the series before, space magic, out of character characters, they just accept it all, then they get angry.

It's just weird to me.

But you ARE adding more into it, you're adding interpretations that weren't intended. A "Mass Delusion" sequence does not match the flow of the series, breaks the narrative, and goes against the "ME 3 truly ends the trilogy" comments by the devs. When you see shepard in a pile of rubble (FYI there was barely any rubble approaching the conduit, it was flattened ground all the way on approach, wish some exploding vehicles nearby which i did not see in the "living" sequence) do you really think their intention was for people to nitpick the concrete and go "OMGOSH HES NOT ON CITADEL MUST BE DREAM!"? Really, do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that isnt a stretch?

A line of thought - Maybe people are just nitpicking the cutscene a little too closely, CGI developers are not the same as game developers or writers, sometimes things get mistranslated. CGI guy reads "Shepards body, head not visible, in pile of rubble. Takes breath, cut to black" and does that. He probably doesn't even know wtf the citadel is made of. Or even wtf a citadel is. He just follows the outlines.

Name one more fact we're adding to what we see in the ending? An intepretation isn't an addition of a new fact. That's crazy-talk. 

I honestly think their intention was for people to wonder how Shepard supposedly survived being blown up on the Citadel, and how he survived re-entry, and why he's covered in rubble that's the exact same texture of the buildings used in London, yes. And that doesn't sound crazy to me, because those things don't make any sense. How do you suppose he did it? How did Shepard survive the explosion on the Citadel? Where is he when he takes his breath? You think it was explained in the face-value narrative? Then go ahead and explain it to me.

Because space-magic can be hand-waved and explained as a Deus Ex Machina. But you can't explain the simple fact that Shepard was in space, on a space station that blew up, but somehow survived long enough to take a breath. 

[balance5050]

Rockpopple wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

-Draikin- wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...
Tequila Man, you can't compare TIM's poor-ass version of Indoctrination to the real thing. Shepard was never, throughout the entire series, victim or nearly victim of the Reaper's most feared and insideous weapon. That alone begs the question: why in the 3rd act of this amazing trilogy did Shep never have to deal with Reaper Indoctrination?

Just checking, but basically you're saying that the scene where TIM was indoctrinating Shepard was in fact a hallucination in itself caused by Shepard already being indoctrinated? And he was in reality still lying on the ground in London after being hit by Harbinger's beam?

Yes!

The bullet points of Indoc. Theory holds that after Shep and HAMMER got ****kicked by Harbinger, he, and the player, were being indoctrinated. The endings are a result of whether they were successfull in indoctrinating you or not. Shepard never left London. 

Uhu. Shepard hallucinating about being indoctrinated because he was indoctrinated. If that's not grasping at straws I don't know what is. C'mon people, wake up, take a step back and look at the ending as a whole. Normandy and the epilogue included.

You don't understand, Shepard was NEVER indoctrinated. He was unconcious - maybe even dying, and hallucinating, and he was being indoctrinated at that point. Depending on the ending you choose, you're either indoctrinated or you're not. If you're indoctrinated, Shepard is completely and totally defeated. If he's not indocrinated, he at least has that, even if he dies. When you're fighting mano-a-mano with an Eldritch horror from beyond the stars, honestly not being driven insane is a victory.

Honestly, take a step back and look at the endings as a whole. All of them. The epilogue and Normandy included. 

You should also incude the "Shep wakes up" scene in there, pretty major give away if you ask me.

[Rockpopple]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

I think it's a poor metaphor, in any case. Indoctrination theorists aren't adding new facts, ie: God, to the matter. They're in fact using all the stuff that they see in the endings, including the stuff that supposedly makes no sense, and seeing that in fact it makes perfect sense. 

And Indoctrinators have no hope that the outcome will someday be fixed through DLC or any reason. In fact, Indoctrinators are rather fatalistic. Most of us believe that the ending of ME3 will forever be a cliffhanger that explains nothing about the final outcome of the Reapers and the Galaxy forces. 

But those who take the endings at face value just accept everything that's given to them. Thematic consequences never introduced in the series before, space magic, out of character characters, they just accept it all, then they get angry.

It's just weird to me.

Head on over the 400+ page indoctrination/hallucination thread and look at the topics of discussion over the last couple of days. A lot of it has been analyzing the tweets of developers to see whether or not they can possibly find any confirmation that BioWare has Ending DLC in the works. That's not fatalism, that's hope.

As for the metaphor, human reasoning always develops in patterns. Not really sure why, that was never what my studies were about. Regardless, that is just what happens.

With regards to the space magic and face value, I've already had to accept a lot of stuff from the ME universe. I've had to accept that the Reapers have mass effect field technology powerful enough that they can keep a base from being destroyed by a supermassive black hole, an object of near infinite mass. I've had to accept that they can literally take an individual who died of asphyxiation (or so it would appear from the cinematic) and whose body suffered terrible trauma on impact with a planet and bring them back to life. I've also had to accept that, in the case of Mass Effect: Retribution, Reaper nanides are capable of defying the law of conservation of mass and energy and seemingly create synthetic parts in Grayson's body out of nothing. Finally, I've had to accept that the Reapers were too stupid to turn off the Mass Relays once they took the Citadel back to Earth.

Hey, I'm not saying that conspiracy theorists havn't jumped into the Indoc/Hallucination discussion and are starting to nitpick every stupid little thing they see as evidence that proves the theory. You'll get that anywhere. As you say, human beings are excallent at finding patterns, especially ones that aren't there. I don't subscribe to their methods of thinking, nor can I control them. My evidence, and my questions, are as simple as they can be, and only include what we see in the endings. Nothing more. 

As I already said, space magic can be explained away. Shepard surviving an explosion that destroys a space station orbiting earth cannot.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 14 mars 2012 - 06:42 .

[Zyrious]

Rockpopple wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Rockpopple wrote...

Actually, Leafs43 is exactly right: you're the ones taking things at face value. You're the creationists. You were told that a space man made the earth in 7 days, you shrug your shoulders and believe it. Indoc. Theorists look at what's going on around them and question the official version.

Of course, I completely reject that. I don't want to call you or anyone else a creationist or whatever. I'm just using your own metaphor against you. No offense.

No offense Rockpopple, but I think you may have missed the point of the OP's metaphor. The ability to question is not something that is exclusive to either the evolution or creationist side of it. I believe in evolution and I believe it functions by the mechanic of natural selection. I've never done the tests myself. I've never seen it happen under a microscope. I'm a graduate student and it is something that has just been engrained in me enough that I trust those who use the scientific method more than I trust the theories tossed out by those who do not. I'm just taking their word for it.

What is similar is the way in which the arguments are formulated. The "indoctrinators" point out that the ending has too many holes in it and this is a way of filling in the gaps (God of the Gaps for Creationists). They claim that the writing is so poor that they cannot believe that a professional company who has put out quality games in the past could possibly have made something this poor. Thus they feel that it was intentional, that it was something that could not be mere coincidence and it must have had an Architect. Creationists believe the same thing. Likewise, "indoctrinators" seem to have an attachment to the outcome, hope, in the same way that creationists have an attachment to believing that Genesis is the literal word of God and is literally what happened.

I think it's a poor metaphor, in any case. Indoctrination theorists aren't adding new facts, ie: God, to the matter. They're in fact using all the stuff that they see in the endings, including the stuff that supposedly makes no sense, and seeing that in fact it makes perfect sense. 

And Indoctrinators have no hope that the outcome will someday be fixed through DLC or any reason. In fact, Indoctrinators are rather fatalistic. Most of us believe that the ending of ME3 will forever be a cliffhanger that explains nothing about the final outcome of the Reapers and the Galaxy forces. 

But those who take the endings at face value just accept everything that's given to them. Thematic consequences never introduced in the series before, space magic, out of character characters, they just accept it all, then they get angry.

It's just weird to me.

But you ARE adding more into it, you're adding interpretations that weren't intended. A "Mass Delusion" sequence does not match the flow of the series, breaks the narrative, and goes against the "ME 3 truly ends the trilogy" comments by the devs. When you see shepard in a pile of rubble (FYI there was barely any rubble approaching the conduit, it was flattened ground all the way on approach, wish some exploding vehicles nearby which i did not see in the "living" sequence) do you really think their intention was for people to nitpick the concrete and go "OMGOSH HES NOT ON CITADEL MUST BE DREAM!"? Really, do you honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that isnt a stretch?

A line of thought - Maybe people are just nitpicking the cutscene a little too closely, CGI developers are not the same as game developers or writers, sometimes things get mistranslated. CGI guy reads "Shepards body, head not visible, in pile of rubble. Takes breath, cut to black" and does that. He probably doesn't even know wtf the citadel is made of. Or even wtf a citadel is. He just follows the outlines.

Name one more fact we're adding to what we see in the ending? An intepretation isn't an addition of a new fact. That's crazy-talk. 

I honestly think their intention was for people to wonder how Shepard supposedly survived being blown up on the Citadel, and how he survived re-entry, and why he's covered in rubble that's the exact same texture of the buildings used in London, yes. And that doesn't sound crazy to me, because those things don't make any sense. How do you suppose he did it? How did Shepard survive the explosion on the Citadel? Where is he when he takes his breath? You think it was explained in the face-value narrative? Then go ahead and explain it to me.

Because space-magic can be hand-waved and explained as a Deus Ex Machina. But you can't explain the simple fact that Shepard was in space, on a space station that blew up, but somehow survived long enough to take a breath. 

I think shepard being somewhere on a high orbit space station in rubble is a bit more likely than the indoctrination theory. That things has its own mass effect fields and we don't know what it's full condition is after the initial blast of the destroy blast. We don't even know what shepard did after the initial conduit explosion. We just...don't...know.

But saying that what the dev's described as a nice "easter egg" for those who want shepard to live is actually "the only real ending" is by far...well it's rediculous.

[Rockpopple]

Zyrious wrote...

I think shepard being somewhere on a high orbit space station in rubble is a bit more likely than the indoctrination theory. That things has its own mass effect fields and we don't know what it's full condition is after the initial blast of the destroy blast. We don't even know what shepard did after the initial conduit explosion. We just...don't...know.

But saying that what the dev's described as a nice "easter egg" for those who want shepard to live is actually "the only real ending" is by far...well it's rediculous.

Now you're the one reaching, dude. Shepard being "somewhere" on a "high orbit space station"? What? He was on the Citadel and your explination to the breath scene is that he somehow managed to be somewhere else? And we're the ones adding new facts to the endings? You think that makes more sense than he having never left London in the first place?

I think our standards of what is "ridiculous" are widly different from each other.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 14 mars 2012 - 06:45 .

[Smiley556]

If anything, it is the other theory that take a wild assumption to try and fill in all the gaps. How did anderson get passed shepard? Plotholes. How did shepard survive the fall back to earth? Plotholes. How did my teammembers who were with with me at the conduit made it back to the normandy? Plotholes. Why did shepard never question the lying god kid? Plotholes.

Plotholes is in your theory what god is in creatrionism.

[DarkSeraphym]

Rockpopple wrote...

Hey, I'm not saying that conspiracy theorists havn't jumped into the Indoc/Hallucination discussion and are starting to nitpick every stupid little thing they see as evidence that proves the theory. You'll get that anywhere. As you say, human beings are excallent at finding patterns, especially ones that aren't there. I don't subscribe to their methods of thinking, nor can I control them. My evidence, and my questions, are as simple as they can be, and only include what we see in the endings. Nothing more. 

As I already said, space magic can be explained away. Shepard surviving an explosion that destroys a space station orbiting earth cannot.

I agree with you 100%, it shouldn't be something they can just write off. It isn't the first time they've given us something ridiculous though. Perhaps my understanding of physics is wrong, but I don't think there should have been a whole lot for them to scrape up of the Commander after his body plummeted down on the planet. Bringing him back should have been impossible. BioWare did it though. Doesn't surprise me they tried something like that all over again right here.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 14 mars 2012 - 06:47 .

[Lemonwizard]

Rockpopple wrote...

As I already said, space magic can be explained away.

Which is why I think the ending is terrible.



I just think it's a really big leap to go from "the ending is badly written" to "the ending isn't the ending".

[Zolt51]

77boy84 wrote...

Why do you hate hope.

You keep hoping for a light at the end of the tunnel, but that's an incoming train you're seeing.

Seriously that indoctrination theory is orders of magnitude worse than the real ending, or any alternate ending I've seen so far.

[Nassegris]

Might be the indoctrination theory is right, for all I know. It will break my effing heart all over again if that's the case, though.

The idea is so lame, and insulting that it makes my chest hurt, an ending even worse than the other one. If it does turn out to be true, I guess it would be the final nail in the coffin for me as far as Bioware is concerned.

[Rockpopple]

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based belief based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Modifié par Rockpopple, 14 mars 2012 - 06:49 .

[Smiley556]

Zolt51 wrote...

77boy84 wrote...

Why do you hate hope.

You keep hoping for a light at the end of the tunnel, but that's an incoming train you're seeing.

Seriously that indoctrination theory is orders of magnitude worse than the real ending, or any alternate ending I've seen so far.

But 'because I dont like it' doesnt make it untrue.

[Lemonwizard]

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based believe based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Accepting empirical observations isn't faith. I played the game and that was the ending, thus I believe that that was the ending.




I honestly believe that indoctrination theory is people who hated the ending so much that they are literally refusing to believe it, and clinging on to any alternate framework offered, even though I regard it as very poorly supported.

[garruslover123]

i hope they use the indoctrination theory cause seriously whatever writer thought of  the ending  is evil. He is worst then Dick Cheney    

see what i did there.

Modifié par garruslover123, 14 mars 2012 - 06:51 .

[Zyrious]

Rockpopple wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

I think shepard being somewhere on a high orbit space station in rubble is a bit more likely than the indoctrination theory. That things has its own mass effect fields and we don't know what it's full condition is after the initial blast of the destroy blast. We don't even know what shepard did after the initial conduit explosion. We just...don't...know.

But saying that what the dev's described as a nice "easter egg" for those who want shepard to live is actually "the only real ending" is by far...well it's rediculous.

Now you're the one reaching, dude. Shepard being "somewhere" on a "high orbit space station"? What? He was on the Citadel and your explination to the breath scene is that he somehow managed to be somewhere else? And you think that makes more sense than he having never left London in the first place?

I think our standards of what is "ridiculous" are widly different from each other.

The devs said it was an EASTER EGG, NOTHING MORE. We have the script, meant not to be seen by us and to be evaluated and used to plan out the whole game, and "indoctrination theory" is nowhere in sight. CGI artists have no idea what the citadel is made of.

Here is my theory based on simple fact: They had shepard survive, somehow, as a nice little easter egg for those who wanted the possibility. The CGI artists just read "Shepard in rubble" and made rubble, they didnt have to be specific. The writers, as stated by casey, wanted a shocking ending people wouldn't forget, so took a sharp turn. But they flubbed it as a result. So desperate to avoid the "cliche" the crapped out on the ending, which was written soley by mac walters and not the collective of the writing team (as has been tweeted by the devs).

People are reading too much into this, they are so desperate to believe bioware are writing gods incapable of screwing up. But guess what, there are plenty a movies where it's good right up until the end. Writing a satisfying ending is the hardest thing to do sometimes when writing, and the urge to be unique, and make something "Fresh" and "unforgetable" can lead one to make mistakes.

Modifié par Zyrious, 14 mars 2012 - 06:56 .

[Smiley556]

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based belief based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

Absolutely. Where we are presenting a constant list of evidence from the game. Everytime we point something out the answer is 'plotholes'. Plotholes is you universal answer to everything. Its like debating with a 5 year old who has his fingers in his ears yelling 'LA LA LA PLOTHOLES LA LA'. Can you please Try to even support your explenation to the story with any ingame evidence, and not plotholes?

[Lankist]

First: the ending is terribad.

That said, while the "it wasn't real!" idea is certainly a fun little fantasy to distract from the abhorrent conclusion that actually happened, it's very important that it doesn't take that step from fantasy into delusion.

Never assume conspiracy when incompetence will suffice. What's more likely? A major developer and publishing house decided to undertake an unprecedented and extremely risky stunt that has the potential to irreparably harm their reputation, or someone had a bad idea?

It's a fun idea, but you cannot go attributing fantasy-world logic to the real-life business aspects of this scenario.

Modifié par Lankist, 14 mars 2012 - 06:55 .

[GOODKyle]

Leafs43 wrote...

Actually its those that believe the ending is the ending is more like young earth creationism.

They are told what to believe and throw out all other evidence to the contrary.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[DarkSeraphym]

Rockpopple wrote...

Smiley's exactly right. And I'm tired of arguing this. People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe. It is my opinion that belief that the endings should be taken at face-value is a faith-based belief based on accepting a lot of nonsense, while Indoc. theory fills those plot holes without introducing ANY new facts and makes far more sense.

Whether or not you want to agree is up to you. I'm off to do some work.

I'm not sure I understand how this is a faith-based belief at all. I'm just going off precedent. The Mass Effect universe is full of plot holes. I just cited tons of them for you. BioWare waves their hands at them and hopes you don't question it too much. Truth be told, one of the nastiest culprits behavior is just about anyone who writes sci-fi. I'm pretty used to it being that way. Don't like it, wish I could change it; but alas, nothing I can do about it but voice my criticism to BioWare rather than praise them for some ingenius idea they have in the works.

[Lemonwizard]

Smiley556 wrote...

Absolutely. Where we are presenting a constant list of evidence from the game. Everytime we point something out the answer is 'plotholes'. Plotholes is you universal answer to everything. Its like debating with a 5 year old who has his fingers in his ears yelling 'LA LA LA PLOTHOLES LA LA'. Can you please Try to even support your explenation to the story with any ingame evidence, and not plotholes?

You have to understand that from my perspective, you look like the 5 year old who refuses to accept bioware could possibly have made a mistake and feels the need to justify every plot hole with some big theory, then disparages me for doubting it.