631 réponses à ce sujet

[Zyrious]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

L
O
L

I never said Starchild was or wasn't lying. But the way you present it is this:

If not Indoc., Starchild lied because we lived, therefore Shep we see at the end of Good ending is Shep who crashed to Earth miraculously from Citadel after destroying it.

But if endings are not real, i.e. Indoc, then destruction never happened. We never chose the red option. Starchild cannot be a liar, because we haven't chosen anything yet, we wake up after our hallucination. Then we have to go forward.


It also makes ZERO sense why we would hallucinate a full ending if we avoided indoctrination. Why wouldn't you wake up ASAP after fighting it off? 

i dont know how else to say this but you areguement is just no good. It seems to me as childish and i apologise for what is not doubt going to make you mad.

the choice is in his head. nothing physical ever happend, she never pushes a button. but by chhosing to reject the reapers he beats indoctrination.

there is no one thing the child says thats a lie. ITS ALL I LIE. its an illusion. its a mask over the indoc process.

and please stop writing lol at all my responses I dont thiink its having the undermining results that you think it is.

the end shows sheps victory over indoctrination and the stargazer shows the victory over the reapers

Why, pray tell, would they show a cutscene about "victory over the reapers" if you have not yet achieved that victory. If indoctrination is true, Stargazer ruins the narrative flow by throwing the conclusion in your face before actually reaching it. That makes no sense.

Modifié par Zyrious, 15 mars 2012 - 12:08 .

[Rafe34]

paul2e wrote...

Halo Trilogy (Ok one unanswered question, but you won the day)

Gears of War.

Even Fallout 3 was handled better than ME3.. I don't mind dying but at least make it mean something to everyone who I saved.

Yeah this would be like if the FO3 ending caused the world to blow up in nuclear fire again, and they left it ambiguous as to whether anyone you knew got out alive.

Speaking of FO3- Broken Steel. A game dev, a big game dev, Bethesda, changing their ending because of what the fans wanted.

Modifié par Rafe34, 15 mars 2012 - 12:11 .

[s.nebulous]

I don’t know what Bioware has planned, but this thread makes me feel like I am being indoctrinated. I hope it is not my desire to see the ending expanded upon clouding my judgment.

[Smiley556]

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

 And S G ending shows Reapers were stopped/Shep is a hero.

Fact: It doesnt.

[Smiley556]

Rafe34 could you stop the pyramid quotes please?

[viperabyss]

hex23 wrote...

The Star Gazer scene is out of place regardless. It makes no sense regardless of what theory you pick.

If the game is taken at face value, that means it's some point in the future. Ok, how far in the future would it have to be, for an old man to not know what's "beyond the stars"? This is odd because in the Mass Effect universe aliens are well documented, and would continue to be well documented in the story he just told the kid.

Seriously, how would you tell the story of Shepard with zero references to aliens? It would be different if the old man mentioned the space-faring races from the series....he seemed to have no idea whether or not there was life out there, only that "there could be".

I agree that scene is entirely out of place. I'm not sure how 20 people from the Normandy can somehow sustain a colony for hundreds of years. The lack of Alien information is also odd, since a lot of the crews that survived the Normandy Crash would've been alien. It is also possible that BW simply neglected that part. After all, the entire sequence was about 15 seconds long.  

However, just because it is out of place, we cannot discount it. Just because a puzzle piece doesn't fit in for the puzzle you're building, does it mean you can just throw it away and pretend it doesn't count?

[Rafe34]

Zyrious wrote...

Why, pray tell, would they show a cutscene about "victory over the reapers" if you have not yet achieved that victory. If indoctrination is true, Stargazer ruins the narrative flow by throwing the conclusion in your face before actually reaching it. That makes no sense.

The entire Stargazer scene makes no sense. It's a dumb scene.

There are way more plotholes if the endings are real than if its Indoc.

Modifié par Rafe34, 15 mars 2012 - 12:12 .

[Tiax Rules All]

Chrisimo wrote...

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

But if endings are not real, i.e. Indoc, then destruction never happened. We never chose the red option. Starchild cannot be a liar, because we haven't chosen anything yet, we wake up after our hallucination. Then we have to go forward.

We would have chosen the red option in our head.

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...
It also makes ZERO sense why we would hallucinate a full ending if we avoided indoctrination. Why wouldn't you wake up ASAP after fighting it off? 

This is a good point.

the nature of the indoc attack. Shep was hallucinating already due to the fact he was bleeding out and dying after the destroyer beam. Without indoc, sheps mind is still racing with thoughts of victory and being able to create something peacefull for his friends and loved ones. his mind cannot deal with hes bodies defeat and he is hallucinating.

at the same time in this weakened and comprimised state, and close proximty to harby and reaper tech and having the eyes of the repers focused on shep now completely, the indoc attempt is able to take hold.

the Choice at the end is you as shepard deciding the results of that mind war. he blows up the citadel in his mind, indoc is defeated and now his mind continues to dream the rest of the happy thoughts of victory and peace.

then he wakes up into the dark, mature and gritty world of ME again

Modifié par Tiax Rules All, 15 mars 2012 - 12:11 .

[Rafe34]

Smiley556 wrote...

Rafe34 could you stop the pyramid quotes please?

Only for you.

[Deventh]

Anyone else not getting this cut scene with Shepard being alive? I have more than 4000 (5550) i destroyed the Reapers and it still doesn't show up.

[stevesyanks17hotmail.com]

Rafe34 wrote...

stevesyanks17hotmail.com wrote...

I never said Starchild was or wasn't lying. But the way you present it is this:

If not Indoc., Starchild lied because we lived, therefore Shep we see at the end of Good ending is Shep who crashed to Earth miraculously from Citadel after destroying it.

But if endings are not real, i.e. Indoc, then destruction never happened. We never chose the red option. Starchild cannot be a liar, because we haven't chosen anything yet, we wake up after our hallucination. Then we have to go forward.

It also makes ZERO sense why we would hallucinate a full ending if we avoided indoctrination. Why wouldn't you wake up ASAP after fighting it off? 

You must have failed basic logic and basic english. That's about the only thing I can come up with.

How can you not get this? I am pointing out Starchild lying as a plothole in the original ending that is explained via the Indoctrination ending- but not explained if the endings are real.

He hallucinates what he does because his mind wants everyone he loves to be safe. How do you explain how his LI is on the Normandy when 5 minutes earlier she was hit by a laser blast from Harbinger?

As for why he doesn't immediately wake up... 

HARBINGER JUST HIT HIM WITH A ****ING LASER BLAST! That kinda hurts. He's kinda unconcious. He's not super-human, just Shepard. It takes him a bit to recover from it.

Holy crap - you're dumb. You said starchild is lying because you still live after the red option - when we never see the red option if Shep still lives. You also are acting like the hallucination period was a 5-10 minute affair. Which, if you believe it to have happened, it didn't. If you do believe the time is literal, then the 3 minutes to imagine the Normandy part is all he needs to wake up? come on man.

O K.

[tenacious_err]

Honestly, yes. It makes more sense to me that Shepard is still on Earth. The problem with the indoctrination theory, to me, is that the other excuse for all of the things that people use to support it (or most of them, anyway,) is lazy/rushed writing. How WOULD you show Shepard in the rubble of the Citadel? I'm not really sure what that would look like, not in bits and pieces.

I'd like to agree that this is a sign Shepard is waking up after the blast, but I feel it's more likely just a poorly put together scene.

Modifié par tenacious_err, 15 mars 2012 - 12:13 .

[Smiley556]

Rafe34 wrote...

Smiley556 wrote...

Rafe34 could you stop the pyramid quotes please?

Only for you.

[Candidate 88766]

If Shepard is waking up where he fell, why is there rubble everywhere?

The area where Harbinger shoots at you is devoid of rubble - it is barren, scorched ground. Yet when Shepard wakes up he is on, and surrounded by, massive heaps of rubble that are very obviously London buildings.

It doesn't make sense in the real ending or the indoctrination ending. In both cases, it is a plothole. I'm not saying it disproves the indoctrination theory, but at the same time it doesn't prove it either.

I still personally believe that bad writing is more likely than Bioware leaving out the actual ending of their biggest ever game simply to release it a month or two later, although I don't get how the writing could have gone so wrong given the very high standard of the bulk of the game.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 15 mars 2012 - 12:14 .

[Tiax Rules All]

Zyrious wrote...



Why, pray tell, would they show a cutscene about "victory over the reapers" if you have not yet achieved that victory. If indoctrination is true, Stargazer ruins the narrative flow by throwing the conclusion in your face before actually reaching it. That makes no sense.

its in the future and shep is long gone no matter what happens at the end or after the game ends.

and by "one more story" you can have mutiple post ending dlc's and the stagazers story never needs chaging cause it was written to be vague.

[Zyrious]

Rafe34 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Why, pray tell, would they show a cutscene about "victory over the reapers" if you have not yet achieved that victory. If indoctrination is true, Stargazer ruins the narrative flow by throwing the conclusion in your face before actually reaching it. That makes no sense.

The entire Stargazer scene makes no sense. It's a dumb scene.

There are way more plotholes if the endings are real than if its Indoc.

It isnt about wether it makes sense, it's about author intentions. Having the "Post-reaper invasion scene" shows the devs intentions on the end actually being THE END, with the hint of more stories about "back before the attack on Earth". Stargazer scene would not exist if indoctrination was the intent of the author, or else it breaks the narrative flow. If anything a good narrative clue would've been shepard being called over the radio in blackness after the credits ended. Stargazer is entirely counter-intuitive to Indoctrination theory.

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Zyrious wrote...



Why, pray tell, would they show a cutscene about "victory over the reapers" if you have not yet achieved that victory. If indoctrination is true, Stargazer ruins the narrative flow by throwing the conclusion in your face before actually reaching it. That makes no sense.

its in the future and shep is long gone no matter what happens at the end or after the game ends.

and by "one more story" you can have mutiple post ending dlc's and the stagazers story never needs chaging cause it was written to be vague.

That is bad writing one way or the other, and it doesnt make sense. If indoctrination theory is true, you wouldnt do Stargazer because it would break the feeling of threat from the reapers before actually finishing the conflict with them. If the reapers are still attacking the stargazer scene completely nullifies any future conflict against them and ruins the emotional tie to the conflict.

If you are an author and indoctrination is your goal,  you dont do Stargazer. Its that simple imo.

Modifié par Zyrious, 15 mars 2012 - 12:16 .

[Tiax Rules All]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

If Shepard is waking up where he fell, why is there rubble everywhere?

The area where Harbinger shoots at you is devoid of rubble - it is barren, scorched ground. Yet when Shepard wakes up he is on, and surrounded by, massive heaps of rubble that are very obviously London buildings.

It doesn't make sense in the real ending or the indoctrination ending. In both cases, it is a plothole. I'm not saying it disproves the indoctrination theory, but at the same time it doesn't prove it either.

plot device to show you hes on earth.. therefore indoc theory.

[Candidate 88766]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Zyrious wrote...



Why, pray tell, would they show a cutscene about "victory over the reapers" if you have not yet achieved that victory. If indoctrination is true, Stargazer ruins the narrative flow by throwing the conclusion in your face before actually reaching it. That makes no sense.

its in the future and shep is long gone no matter what happens at the end or after the game ends.

and by "one more story" you can have mutiple post ending dlc's and the stagazers story never needs chaging cause it was written to be vague.

But you see Alliance ships in the debree around the Citadel. You the battle on Earth end when the Crucible activates. The scene isn't in the future, its happening right then.

[Tiax Rules All]

tenacious_err wrote...

Honestly, yes. It makes more sense to me that Shepard is still on Earth. The problem with the indoctrination theory, to me, is that the other excuse for all of the things that people use to support it (or most of them, anyway,) is lazy/rushed writing. How WOULD you show Shepard in the rubble of the Citadel? I'm not really sure what that would look like, not in bits and pieces.

I'd like to agree that this is a sign Shepard is waking up after the blast, but I feel it's more likely just a poorly put together scene.

they wouldnt need to show shep in the rubble at citedel.

they wouldnt need to show shep in rubble at earth either unless to prove indoc theory... it has no other point

[Candidate 88766]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

If Shepard is waking up where he fell, why is there rubble everywhere?

The area where Harbinger shoots at you is devoid of rubble - it is barren, scorched ground. Yet when Shepard wakes up he is on, and surrounded by, massive heaps of rubble that are very obviously London buildings.

It doesn't make sense in the real ending or the indoctrination ending. In both cases, it is a plothole. I'm not saying it disproves the indoctrination theory, but at the same time it doesn't prove it either.

plot device to show you hes on earth.. therefore indoc theory.

Thats not proof of the indoctrination theory.

The theory states that Shepard wakes where he fell. If this were true, then why would Bioware show him waking up in an entirely different area of London?

[Tiax Rules All]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Zyrious wrote...



Why, pray tell, would they show a cutscene about "victory over the reapers" if you have not yet achieved that victory. If indoctrination is true, Stargazer ruins the narrative flow by throwing the conclusion in your face before actually reaching it. That makes no sense.

its in the future and shep is long gone no matter what happens at the end or after the game ends.

and by "one more story" you can have mutiple post ending dlc's and the stagazers story never needs chaging cause it was written to be vague.

But you see Alliance ships in the debree around the Citadel. You the battle on Earth end when the Crucible activates. The scene isn't in the future, its happening right then.

its happening in sheps mind.

[RyMann88]

Also, at some point in the game, Hackett mentions the Yhagg (spelling?) homeworld was left alone by the Reapers. Could the Normandy have crashed there?

[stevesyanks17hotmail.com]

Rafe34 wrote...

The entire Stargazer scene makes no sense. It's a dumb scene.

There are way more plotholes if the endings are real than if its Indoc.

It doesn't make sense any way you slice it.

If you take the endings to be real, Shep (if it is Shep., and it is Earth, and it is not after destruction) being alive messes things up, but you still have to make some assumptions. One could just say it's Earth post-red option and be just as legit as saying what I said in parentheses, it's Earth pre-strike.

The whole weird stuff is explained by the fact that starchild/Reaper tech is crazy. Calling it a dream is lazy. Some stuff can be explained logically, some stuff can't. But some infinite ammo and people showing up is more logical than saying S G doesn't matter.

[Candidate 88766]

Zyrious wrote...

That is bad writing one way or the other, and it doesnt make sense. If indoctrination theory is true, you wouldnt do Stargazer because it would break the feeling of threat from the reapers before actually finishing the conflict with them. If the reapers are still attacking the stargazer scene completely nullifies any future conflict against them and ruins the emotional tie to the conflict.

If you are an author and indoctrination is your goal,  you dont do Stargazer. Its that simple imo.

I agree with this.

If the stargazer scene is in the future, after Shepard wakes up and beats the Reapers, then WHY NOT SHOW THAT?

Why would Bioware cut the story from Shepard waking up to the Reapers being beaten, without actually showing the Reapers being beaten?

And it makes no sense whatsoever for it to be shown if Shepard fails to beat indoctrination.

[Tiax Rules All]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

If Shepard is waking up where he fell, why is there rubble everywhere?

The area where Harbinger shoots at you is devoid of rubble - it is barren, scorched ground. Yet when Shepard wakes up he is on, and surrounded by, massive heaps of rubble that are very obviously London buildings.

It doesn't make sense in the real ending or the indoctrination ending. In both cases, it is a plothole. I'm not saying it disproves the indoctrination theory, but at the same time it doesn't prove it either.

plot device to show you hes on earth.. therefore indoc theory.

Thats not proof of the indoctrination theory.

The theory states that Shepard wakes where he fell. If this were true, then why would Bioware show him waking up in an entirely different area of London?

its artistic licence. they put the london building bricks right on top of them so you see them and say "oh hes on earth" they are trying to help you and you just are not letting them