254 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

The whole grabbing for straws argument is quite old. I feel its the exact opposite....I see cut and dry facts the Shep is atleast unconscious(him waking up)...and I see the nay-sayers grabbing for straws just saying we're wrong. Show me what disproves the fact that he wakes up? Please....cuz you seem like the one grabbing for straws....I'm sorry but it is FAR more likely that Bioware pulled off another great twist(best ever?) than the writers just fumbling the ball on a QB sneak on the goal line in the Super Bowl....yeah, that was a football analogy haha

[Doctoglethorpe]

Reyno411 wrote...

Well, I will at least have to agree with the Normandy part of this theory. I cannot imagine for the life of me that Liara and Javik (who I took on the final run during my first playthrough) would abandon my Shepard and just leave him there. What's more, in spite of the fact that they were both directly behind me as Harbinger's beam hit (and yes, I turned around to look at them just as it hit)... they both step out of the Normandy looking peachy as opposed to Shep being nearly FUBAR after the hit.

Even assuming the beam just somehow missed them, would Liara and Javik REALLY just leave Shep there? I mean, sure I didn't romance Liara but they were still very close. Hell she retrieved his dead body once because in her words she just couldn't let him go. And Javik, he wants vengeance against the Reapers badly and I cannot for the life of me imagine that he's okay with turning tail without damn good reason.

If the last part is mostly a dream, it would make sense out of the two you bring with you appearing from the Normandy perfectly unharmed. Also, it would explain why they chose to show the two squadmates that your Shep is closest to, as Shep would naturally dream about those closest to him.

I do think this is possible, and of course I'm hoping it turns out to be true and we get some real closure in the near future. I don't know WHY they would choose to make us wait for closure, but if these endings are ultimately just one big screwup then I'll understand that even less. So I'll take what I can get. Until I know for sure I remain highly skeptical.

Your seeing it!  The truth is in the ubsurdity of that one single aspect.

Why are they dragging it out?  Because it wouldnt have such a profound and memorable effect if we didn't have time to wallow in the emotions and confusion and contemplation and debating its causing us to have right now. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 15 mars 2012 - 12:49 .

[Tobey2011]

Warhawk7137 wrote...

Tobey2011 wrote...

Oh my, this is kind of sad. This "theory" is just desperate people grasping at straws.

People keep making this same exact post, without any argument to the contrary.  The theory may very well end up being false, but "the theory is false, ergo, the theory is false" is hardly proof.

Until we get more information, I don't think it can be proven or disproven.  It's a theory that fits the elements, therefore, it is a valid theory in the absence of further clarifying information.  It is a valid theory not because it has an element of truth, but because if BioWare were to come out tomorrow and say it is true, it would not contradict what is actually shown in the game.  Basically, whether its true or not, it is logically consistent in context, and thus is worthy of consideration for the time being.

Really...? Him being indoctrinated makes even less sense for an ending than the one we have. According to your logic, I can make up a theory aswell until disproven, listen up: Shepard never came back human from cerberus, he is merely a cloned body with reaper implants that have been controlling him throughout the series.

Or: Shepard is is the little boy that dreamt the mass effect trilogy.

It just doesn't make any sense, and if you weren't clouded by frustration and desperation(and maybe a bit older?) you would see it.

Modifié par Tobey2011, 15 mars 2012 - 12:50 .

[Kylamero]

the red boon wrote...

Kylamero wrote...

Tobey2011 wrote...

Oh my, this is kind of sad. This "theory" is just desperate people grasping at straws.

Why is it? There are certainly some compelling supporting arguments that give it at least some credability.

Tobey is correct and I find it sad you're trying to justify these horrible endings. We shouldn't let bioware screw us over with these endings. We the consumer should demand quality for the entire product. 

He may well be correct, then again he might not be. Play the ending again but this time choose control, notice the mIsplacing of paragon, renegade colours in the choices, notice the eyes of your Shepard, notice your armour set, notice the background before you leap into the beam (trees from the dream).

I am not trying to justify anything i just feel there are little bits here and there left in that might be cause for something more.

[Warhawk7137]

I'm not "clouded by frustration and desperation", It's just the interpretation of the work that appears to be the most logically consistent to me. It's the best way to explain what we saw on the screen. Art necessitates interpretation.

[JamesYHT]

Congratulations, u had been indoctrinated....

[Kylamero]

Tobey2011 wrote...

Warhawk7137 wrote...

Tobey2011 wrote...

Oh my, this is kind of sad. This "theory" is just desperate people grasping at straws.

People keep making this same exact post, without any argument to the contrary.  The theory may very well end up being false, but "the theory is false, ergo, the theory is false" is hardly proof.

Until we get more information, I don't think it can be proven or disproven.  It's a theory that fits the elements, therefore, it is a valid theory in the absence of further clarifying information.  It is a valid theory not because it has an element of truth, but because if BioWare were to come out tomorrow and say it is true, it would not contradict what is actually shown in the game.  Basically, whether its true or not, it is logically consistent in context, and thus is worthy of consideration for the time being.

Really...? Him being indoctrinated makes even less sense for an ending than the one we have. According to your logic, I can make up a theory aswell until disproven, listen up: Shepard never came back human from cerberus, he is merely a cloned body with reaper implants that have been controlling him throughout the series.

Or: Shepard is is the little boy that dreamt the mass effect trilogy.

It just doesn't make any sense, and if you weren't clouded by frustration and desperation(and maybe a bit older?) you would see it.

Indoctrination makes perfect sense.

Nobody saw it coming!

That's how it gets you.

MASTERSTROKE

[AllergevKev]

Cuz they just added Stargazer for ****s and giggles, right?

Modifié par AllergevKev, 15 mars 2012 - 12:56 .

[NReed106]

Here is my greatest proof it has to be indoc theory:
-Bioware/EA want money, every company does
-DLC is a great way to make money
-Single player DLC is confirmed
-Akin to "Broken Steel" in FO3, Single Player DLC will experience significantly less sales with the current ending, the forums are proof of that plain and simple
-Bioware/EA don't *want* to have lower sales, so they will try to come up with a solution to sell the DLC that gives good incentive for people to buy it

Here's to hoping that Bioware/EA think with their wallets as so many accuse them of doing

[Tobey2011]

Warhawk7137 wrote...

I'm not "clouded by frustration and desperation", It's just the interpretation of the work that appears to be the most logically consistent to me. It's the best way to explain what we saw on the screen. Art necessitates interpretation.

It appears the most logically consistent to you... you didn't stop and think that maybe the most logically consistent line of thought is that the ending is the ending we got and not some strange conspiracy theory?

Modifié par Tobey2011, 15 mars 2012 - 12:55 .

[Lookout1390]

Casey Hudson said he was pleased with the ending.

There won't be any end-changing DLC...as much as I wish there was.

Sometimes I think we just need to accept what has happened, so that we can get through it faster.

**** you, Casey

[JamesYHT]

the theory can really fit many things, but i don't think it can explain Normandy....that's why i don't think it's a proper explanation.

[ShaneP]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

People are missing my point and not focusing on the single piece of evedense I believe is the only wholly significant piece.

To answer an earler question, I don't think this is as big of a financial risk as your letting oN, they already made a ton of profit in less then a week. I also think the outcome, if theory is true, stands to do a lot more for the company then you are giving credit. I think the benefits outweigh the risks if the risk is based off something so profound. Second, this is not just the case of "employee slipped a plot hole, bioware didnt have time to catch it. This is the end of the game were talking about, this is the part they would of put the most thought in. After the depth of all the other missions why would the ending be the one part to suddenly get no attention payed to it? Plus the way the mechanics of the ending worked, seeing your companions dead on the ground with low ems scroe, that proves they we're thinking about what was happening during this scene and made specific programming chances in it reflecting these characters.  It wouldn't make sense for them to be aware of the inconsistencies and leave it in anyway.   And the plot hole itself is just too massive to of been an accident, theres no way it they would of done it if it was supposed to be taken as real. It just seems to dream like plain and simple.

I've weighed the two answers in every light, the answer is always the same. Big ploy to have most memorable ending ever (oh look, isnt that what Casey said he wanted) is more likely then massive sudden **** up after such a pronominal game.

Also, your point of DA2 is negated. DA2 was all around a somewhat rushed game. The ending was really no different then the rest of it. Mass Effect 3 is an entirely different case because we see through the entirety of the game a level of pure excellence at least on the story telling side and it suddenly and abruptly shifts at one specific point, the point that in all likely hood was the part they focused on the most throughout the development. Games aren't like writing an essay, you don't just start and the beginning and end with the end, you develop the thing as a whole and piece it together along the way. The ending would of been in for months if not years by the time the game was assembled and shipped. .

I still don't buy it. I simply find it impossible to believe that Bioware would purposely ship a game with an awful ending that leaves more questions than it answers. It's unprecedented even for them. I'm pretty sure they would want players to be happy with the product they shipped, and if they're really as smart as you're making out, it's very hard to see them not being able to fortell the reaction that these endings were going to have.

Shipping DLC to add bits to the story here and there makes sense. Shipping DLC to completely alter the understanding of the way a game ends (by design, not just admitting that you screwed up and fixing it) is unprecedented. And yes, Bioware still made a lot of money from the sales. That doesn't change the fact that they would have to have knowingly made the risk of the mass of negative PR an event that this was almost bound to create. I also have a problem wrapping my head around the idea that Bioware would knowingly release a game with an incomplete ending. It just makes no sense to me.

[STAR_KILLER423]

Tobey2011 wrote...

Warhawk7137 wrote...

I'm not "clouded by frustration and desperation", It's just the interpretation of the work that appears to be the most logically consistent to me. It's the best way to explain what we saw on the screen. Art necessitates interpretation.

It appears the most logically consistent to you... you didn't stop and think that maybe the most logically consistent line of thought is that the ending is what the ending we got and not some strange conspiracy theory?

Why does it matter if some want to believe this theory? Really? Why does it?
If you don't want to believe it then thats great, thats your opinion. Others want to thats their opinion. Guess what...we are all entitled to our own. 

[Warhawk7137]

Tobey2011 wrote...

Warhawk7137 wrote...

I'm not "clouded by frustration and desperation", It's just the interpretation of the work that appears to be the most logically consistent to me. It's the best way to explain what we saw on the screen. Art necessitates interpretation.

It appears the most logically consistent to you... you didn't stop and think that maybe the most logically consistent line of thought is that the ending is the ending we got and not some strange conspiracy theory?

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an interpretation of the ending we got.

[Warhawk7137]

JamesYHT wrote...

the theory can really fit many things, but i don't think it can explain Normandy....that's why i don't think it's a proper explanation.

Well, strictly speaking, if the theory is that it was all in Shepard's head, then that was in his head too.

[AndrewLBC]

I'm assuming pretty much everyone here has played ME1 and ME2 and because of that, has a thorough understanding of indoctrination because of the important role it played in the first two games.

Taking that into account, try and imagine being one of the countless players who never played the first two games and all you know about indoctrination comes from the few mentions of it during ME3... but without any big event such as Arrival or Sarin being indoctrinated to show you how important and powerful of a weapon indoctrination can be. If I hadn't played the first two games like many players out there, I'd be P*SSED at Bioware for not having at least one plot twist which could give players new to the series an understanding of indoctrination.

[JamesYHT]

Warhawk7137 wrote...

JamesYHT wrote...

the theory can really fit many things, but i don't think it can explain Normandy....that's why i don't think it's a proper explanation.

Well, strictly speaking, if the theory is that it was all in Shepard's head, then that was in his head too.

then, there is no ending...there is no way it works

it can only explains something...

Modifié par JamesYHT, 15 mars 2012 - 12:59 .

[Warhawk7137]

AndrewLBC wrote...

I'm assuming pretty much everyone here has played ME1 and ME2 and because of that, has a thorough understanding of indoctrination because of the important role it played in the first two games.

Taking that into account, try and imagine being one of the countless players who never played the first two games and all you know about indoctrination comes from the few mentions of it during ME3... but without any big event such as Arrival or Sarin being indoctrinated to show you how important and powerful of a weapon indoctrination can be. If I hadn't played the first two games like many players out there, I'd be P*SSED at Bioware for not having at least one plot twist which could give players new to the series an understanding of indoctrination.

FWIW, there is a fair bit of discussion of indoctrination in ME3.  A lot of little things, plus, obviously, T.I.M.

[Doctoglethorpe]

Disbelievers, I want to clarify that I am not giving Bioware a free pass in here. I am putting faith that they are doing something special and didn't just **** up. If they prove me wrong I will never forgive them for it. This thread is not about making you accept the ending, its about giving you hope that this isn't the ending! Hope and faith is not belief. Not in the literal translation. When I say I am now a believer, what I mean is that I now have faith in Bioware and believe that the ending is most likely not the real ending. Faith can still be broken but I am choosing to have a positive view going forward as we wait for the ending rather then a negative one. Honestly, I don't think I could of lasted much longer wallowing in the negativity I felt before. It was pretty bad... Bioware still stand to break my trust and for good this time. But for now... for now I am holding the line... with faith, not discontent.

I've made my point as clear as I can in this thread.  If you still have doubts, I simply emplore you to continue thinking about it and debating it.  When I say think about it, relive the ending over again.  Replay it a few times.  Study it, disguss its events with others.  This act is what really led me to my realization, a rather simple one but thats what it took none the less.  Not listening to other people, but listenign to my own thoughts and compiling them and reorganizing them until the equasion just fit.  I think anybody can come to the same realization in time.  I don't blame anyone for being skeptical, like I said I was in the exact same camp just a few short hours ago.   

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 15 mars 2012 - 01:03 .

[Kylamero]

AllergevKev wrote...

Cuz they just added Stargazer for ****s and giggles, right?

It creates a false environment for you to make a choice you think benefits the galaxy most, it even tries to convince you to pick control. You pick control you are indoctrinated.

Fighting the reapers isn't the only theme of this game, for many characters it's been a fight with indoctrination. TIM, Saren, they all tried to CONTROL the reapers, or MERGE with them.

[Dark Wyn]

ShaneP wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

People are missing my point and not focusing on the single piece of evedense I believe is the only wholly significant piece.

To answer an earler question, I don't think this is as big of a financial risk as your letting oN, they already made a ton of profit in less then a week. I also think the outcome, if theory is true, stands to do a lot more for the company then you are giving credit. I think the benefits outweigh the risks if the risk is based off something so profound. Second, this is not just the case of "employee slipped a plot hole, bioware didnt have time to catch it. This is the end of the game were talking about, this is the part they would of put the most thought in. After the depth of all the other missions why would the ending be the one part to suddenly get no attention payed to it? Plus the way the mechanics of the ending worked, seeing your companions dead on the ground with low ems scroe, that proves they we're thinking about what was happening during this scene and made specific programming chances in it reflecting these characters.  It wouldn't make sense for them to be aware of the inconsistencies and leave it in anyway.   And the plot hole itself is just too massive to of been an accident, theres no way it they would of done it if it was supposed to be taken as real. It just seems to dream like plain and simple.

I've weighed the two answers in every light, the answer is always the same. Big ploy to have most memorable ending ever (oh look, isnt that what Casey said he wanted) is more likely then massive sudden **** up after such a pronominal game.

Also, your point of DA2 is negated. DA2 was all around a somewhat rushed game. The ending was really no different then the rest of it. Mass Effect 3 is an entirely different case because we see through the entirety of the game a level of pure excellence at least on the story telling side and it suddenly and abruptly shifts at one specific point, the point that in all likely hood was the part they focused on the most throughout the development. Games aren't like writing an essay, you don't just start and the beginning and end with the end, you develop the thing as a whole and piece it together along the way. The ending would of been in for months if not years by the time the game was assembled and shipped. .

I still don't buy it. I simply find it impossible to believe that Bioware would purposely ship a game with an awful ending that leaves more questions than it answers. It's unprecedented even for them. I'm pretty sure they would want players to be happy with the product they shipped, and if they're really as smart as you're making out, it's very hard to see them not being able to fortell the reaction that these endings were going to have.

Shipping DLC to add bits to the story here and there makes sense. Shipping DLC to completely alter the understanding of the way a game ends (by design, not just admitting that you screwed up and fixing it) is unprecedented. And yes, Bioware still made a lot of money from the sales. That doesn't change the fact that they would have to have knowingly made the risk of the mass of negative PR an event that this was almost bound to create. I also have a problem wrapping my head around the idea that Bioware would knowingly release a game with an incomplete ending. It just makes no sense to me.

On the flip side of that coin though I can't see Bioware making this utterly spectacular game, having all the funds to pull off what is easily the crowning achievement in gaming only to somehow "goof" the ending.
It has to be a plan of thiers for something bigger coming for us.  The game is practically PERFECT.  I just can't see how they could muck up only the last ten minutes.
That's like James Cameron making Titanic and then forgetting that the damn boat sank.

[Tobey2011]

Warhawk7137 wrote...
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's an interpretation of the ending we got.

Great argument...(not), obviously you are implying that the writers conspired to decieve you, as there is no rock-hard evidence for indoctrination. There is however rock-hard evidence, as you can see it with your eyes, that you have three choices which are minally differentiated and are obviously meant serious and poor writing. This you all dispute by "Shepard was fed images by the reapers" or something vague like that.

So again, why do you think your line of thought is more logical, just because the endings in itself are illogically written? Maybe you should be a writer then as your fantasy appears to be well developed and logical.

[the red boon]

ShaneP wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

People are missing my point and not focusing on the single piece of evedense I believe is the only wholly significant piece.

To answer an earler question, I don't think this is as big of a financial risk as your letting oN, they already made a ton of profit in less then a week. I also think the outcome, if theory is true, stands to do a lot more for the company then you are giving credit. I think the benefits outweigh the risks if the risk is based off something so profound. Second, this is not just the case of "employee slipped a plot hole, bioware didnt have time to catch it. This is the end of the game were talking about, this is the part they would of put the most thought in. After the depth of all the other missions why would the ending be the one part to suddenly get no attention payed to it? Plus the way the mechanics of the ending worked, seeing your companions dead on the ground with low ems scroe, that proves they we're thinking about what was happening during this scene and made specific programming chances in it reflecting these characters.  It wouldn't make sense for them to be aware of the inconsistencies and leave it in anyway.   And the plot hole itself is just too massive to of been an accident, theres no way it they would of done it if it was supposed to be taken as real. It just seems to dream like plain and simple.

I've weighed the two answers in every light, the answer is always the same. Big ploy to have most memorable ending ever (oh look, isnt that what Casey said he wanted) is more likely then massive sudden **** up after such a pronominal game.

Also, your point of DA2 is negated. DA2 was all around a somewhat rushed game. The ending was really no different then the rest of it. Mass Effect 3 is an entirely different case because we see through the entirety of the game a level of pure excellence at least on the story telling side and it suddenly and abruptly shifts at one specific point, the point that in all likely hood was the part they focused on the most throughout the development. Games aren't like writing an essay, you don't just start and the beginning and end with the end, you develop the thing as a whole and piece it together along the way. The ending would of been in for months if not years by the time the game was assembled and shipped. .

I still don't buy it. I simply find it impossible to believe that Bioware would purposely ship a game with an awful ending that leaves more questions than it answers. It's unprecedented even for them. I'm pretty sure they would want players to be happy with the product they shipped, and if they're really as smart as you're making out, it's very hard to see them not being able to fortell the reaction that these endings were going to have.

Shipping DLC to add bits to the story here and there makes sense. Shipping DLC to completely alter the understanding of the way a game ends (by design, not just admitting that you screwed up and fixing it) is unprecedented. And yes, Bioware still made a lot of money from the sales. That doesn't change the fact that they would have to have knowingly made the risk of the mass of negative PR an event that this was almost bound to create. I also have a problem wrapping my head around the idea that Bioware would knowingly release a game with an incomplete ending. It just makes no sense to me.

Well you just admitted you are in denial which is a sad thing because you are truly glorifying bioware to the point of inhuman. "I find it impossible to believe they would purposely ship a game with an awful ending that leaves more questions than answers." Bioware did ship a game that left more questions then answers that's why there is so much hate towards the endings and that's why you're making up a theory that makes sense to an otherwise unfinished game which they did release. Do you have any idea how companies work and what deadlines are?

[cbutz]

I listened to the background of the "breathing clip" and it sounds like one of two things, wind and creaking of rubble...... BUT it also sounds like the first sound is the thud of a gun, the second sound sounds like a distant reaper shout, another thud and then shep breathes

Or maybe im grabbing at anything.. .but seriously just liaten to the clip with your eyes closed