281 réponses à ce sujet

[Xerkysz]

jules_vern18 wrote...

An open question to all the Indoctrination theory believers:

First, assume for a second that you're wrong. Just hypothetically. What would it take to convince you of the fact? What sequence of events have to occur to convince you that Bioware did not in fact have this all planned from the beginning? I'm not trying to be antagonistic; I'm genuinely curious.

At this point, if I'm wrong, I'm in the same position a lot of people are, back to square 1 trying to make sense of the ending.

To convince me that I'm wrong as to the Indoctrination side of things, it would take a post from a Dev saying that although they planned to indoctrinate shephard during the TIM speach, they did not intend on continuing through the story with shepard awaking from indoctrination, and if that be true, I'll be amazed to see what they pull out of their ass to rectify this, and how they do it, as it would be something ****ing huge.

[InfiniteDemise]

mooney6023 wrote...

InfiniteDemise wrote...

mooney6023 wrote...

Why?  Square-enix did it with FFXIII-2.   Sure Bioware didn't stick a big "To be continued" up at the end, but it was still quite similar.

Squeenix didn't do it on purpose. That might be a tiny difference.

I'm not sure I understand.  Square seems to have definitely ended the sequel to FFXIII on a extremely tragic cliffhanger where everyone including the entire human population dies despite any efforts by the player complete with a large font "To be continued" as a final note with a secret ending available via 100% completion that just rubs salt in the wound.

It's seems to me that Square was being even more blantant with the "buy our post-game dlc" anti-used game marketing ploy.

My point is, they didn't do it knowing that it would hurt sales and their profitability.

[InfiniteDemise]

Xerkysz wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

An open question to all the Indoctrination theory believers:

First, assume for a second that you're wrong. Just hypothetically. What would it take to convince you of the fact? What sequence of events have to occur to convince you that Bioware did not in fact have this all planned from the beginning? I'm not trying to be antagonistic; I'm genuinely curious.

At this point, if I'm wrong, I'm in the same position a lot of people are, back to square 1 trying to make sense of the ending.

To convince me that I'm wrong as to the Indoctrination side of things, it would take a post from a Dev saying that although they planned to indoctrinate shephard during the TIM speach, they did not intend on continuing through the story with shepard awaking from indoctrination, and if that be true, I'll be amazed to see what they pull out of their ass to rectify this, and how they do it, as it would be something ****ing huge.

You're still grasping at straws thinking that they plan on doing anything to rectify this.

[nyogen]

tobito113 wrote...

Nefelius wrote...

NightAntilli wrote...

There is a very simple but large hole in the indoctrination theory. In most (if not all) versions of the indoctrination theory, it is said that 'destroy' is the only good option, and if you choose any of the other two options, you ultimately do what the reapers wanted you to do and thus they succeed in fully indoctrinating you. If you choose destroy, you remain independent and free. Problem here is that at the lowest possible military strength, destroy is the only option. How can a much greater military strength give you two additional options that are suddenly worse than the default low military strength one? That doesn't make any sense. 

Yep.

Wrong, destroy is only the option if you destroyed the collector base, control is the option if you saved the base in ME2.

And that is supposed to change what in the utter lack of logic ? Plus Destroy remains an ONLY option even with higher EMS in some cases.

www.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings  <_<

[MrIllusion]

MassEffected555 wrote...
LOL NO HE DOESN'T he looks at TIM. 

Wow you people will twist anything

LOOK - 
 

Watch 12:05 .. Anderson say "They're controlling" looking at Shep then "YOU" and he looks DIRECTLY AT TIM.

HAHAHAHA so much delusion and truth warping going on in this thread.

You posted that video. How did you miss the part where Anderson is missing a bullet hole in his body after being shot by Shepard?

[ApplesauceBandit]

WOW, some proof there bro, you totally convinced me, you know despite the overwhelming posts on here that describe why it's all Indoctrination, some in great detail. but yeah i'm totally going to believe your 1 paragraph just saying that "It doesn't make any sense" yeah ok, geez how could anyone believe indoctrination theory after your fantastic deduction that its all bullcrap.

[Peer of the Empire]

You girls are trying to lay the blame for the endings on us instead of Bioware.

There's no holes in indoctrination theory.  Keep trying

Zyrious wrote...
There's also the fact that in the script it was originally possible to get through the run towards the beam totally unscathed (and with scenes involving the normandy), and that nowhere in the script, notes, comments, or designer interviews is their any indication of any desire for it all being a dream sequence.

On the contrary, the writers had planned for an indoctrination sequence

Modifié par Peer of the Empire, 18 mars 2012 - 07:22 .

[mooney6023]

InfiniteDemise wrote...

mooney6023 wrote...

InfiniteDemise wrote...

mooney6023 wrote...

Why?  Square-enix did it with FFXIII-2.   Sure Bioware didn't stick a big "To be continued" up at the end, but it was still quite similar.

Squeenix didn't do it on purpose. That might be a tiny difference.

I'm not sure I understand.  Square seems to have definitely ended the sequel to FFXIII on a extremely tragic cliffhanger where everyone including the entire human population dies despite any efforts by the player complete with a large font "To be continued" as a final note with a secret ending available via 100% completion that just rubs salt in the wound.

It's seems to me that Square was being even more blantant with the "buy our post-game dlc" anti-used game marketing ploy.

My point is, they didn't do it knowing that it would hurt sales and their profitability.

Now that I agree with.  But you are inferring that Bioware did know such an end would hurt sales.   Perhaps they did.  But assuming that a DLC ending was always planned (assuming this for argument's sake), they expect or expected sales to rebound significantly.

Unfortunately for Bioware's stress levels I don't believe they expected the degree of discontent they got.

If they really were planning a DLC ending they probably wish they were a a little more blatant now.

Modifié par mooney6023, 18 mars 2012 - 07:20 .

[Xerkysz]

Take some time aside from out debating, and enjoy the nerd rage.


Who get's that mad over $10? I'm in tears.

That last 40 secs.
Pure.
Win.

Modifié par Xerkysz, 18 mars 2012 - 07:25 .

[Xerkysz]

mooney6023 wrote...

Now that I agree with.  But you are inferring that Bioware did know such an end would hurt sales.   Perhaps they did.  But assuming that a DLC ending was always planned (assuming this for argument's sake), they expect or expected sales to rebound significantly.

Unfortunately for Bioware's stress levels I don't believe they expected the degree of discontent they got.

If they really were planning a DLC ending they probably wish they were a a little more blatant now.

The best thing for them to do would have been to say something in regards to it when it first went up in flames, like "There will be something coming, it has to do with the "What I like to call "Beginning of the end""

Instead of play PR Damage Control and remain silent.

[nyogen]

Xerkysz wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

An open question to all the Indoctrination theory believers:

First, assume for a second that you're wrong. Just hypothetically. What would it take to convince you of the fact? What sequence of events have to occur to convince you that Bioware did not in fact have this all planned from the beginning? I'm not trying to be antagonistic; I'm genuinely curious.

At this point, if I'm wrong, I'm in the same position a lot of people are, back to square 1 trying to make sense of the ending.

To convince me that I'm wrong as to the Indoctrination side of things, it would take a post from a Dev saying that although they planned to indoctrinate shephard during the TIM speach, they did not intend on continuing through the story with shepard awaking from indoctrination, and if that be true, I'll be amazed to see what they pull out of their ass to rectify this, and how they do it, as it would be something ****ing huge.

ok here's your statement from Bioware, now kind Sir there is need of you in the Hold the Line movement not in the polarization movement they clearly stated they intended for the community.

I hope all here agree these are not the endings the series deserves. There have been plenty of very sensible arguments and motifs why indoctrination does not stand, ranging from in game logical arguments to RL strong hard evidence as CASH balance for Bioware.

Occam's razor (very short adapted interpretation) states the simpler explanations tend to be true, in this case it seems to me easier to believe the Bioware dropped the ball than the interpretation of the y axis of the gaze of Anderson when he hicks up.

Cheers everyone. :innocent:

fanzonepow.blogspot.com/2012/03/casey-hudson-defends-polarizing-ending.html

[Mallissin]

NightAntilli wrote...

There is a very simple but large hole in the indoctrination theory. In most (if not all) versions of the indoctrination theory, it is said that 'destroy' is the only good option, and if you choose any of the other two options, you ultimately do what the reapers wanted you to do and thus they succeed in fully indoctrinating you. If you choose destroy, you remain independent and free. Problem here is that at the lowest possible military strength, destroy is the only option. How can a much greater military strength give you two additional options that are suddenly worse than the default low military strength one? That doesn't make any sense. 

There is more than one Indoctrination theory.

It's just the basic idea that the ending was an indoctrination hallucination. There are several theories built ontop of it, including my own (link in signature, Shepard is the Catalyst).

You're arguing against one of the theories built ontop of it, not the actual idea of the ending being an indoctrination hallucination.

And I should add, that the Destroy option seems to be the only option you could survive from seeing as one option has you being electricuted and the third being torn to pieces in a high energy beam.

So, I don't agree with people reading into the breathing ending as being the "right" choice. It's just the only ending they could have that scene.

Modifié par Mallissin, 18 mars 2012 - 07:25 .

[FirstBlood XL]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

FirstBlood XL wrote...
-Snip-

Indoc has just as many flaws.

-Indoctrination isn't something you can 'break free' of through willpower, particularly if you've just been shot by a Reapers' laser.

-Indoctrination manifests itself through feelings of being watched to eventually hearing alien voices in your mind, which the codex says is pretty much the last stage. Not only is there no foreshadowing of this (dreams are just that - dreams. They don't indicate anything other than Shepard being haunted by the death of this one child), but the games and codex have never given any indication that indoctrination leads to full-blown hallucinations. 

-Indoctrination does not just happen instantly. It takes time. Given the lack of previous indications of it, it cannot just happen instantly because Harbinger is near.

-Bioware wouldn't end ME3 before the ME story is over. In all the indoc theory endings, the Reapers are yet to be defeated. Bioware isn't going to one of their most succesful series, one of the highest rated series of all time, without ending the story.

-Bioware wouldn't play the same cutscenes in both the 'success' ending and the 'failure' ending. Its just illogical.

-The 'true' ending of Shepard waking up disproves the theory. Shepard is clearly somewhere else when he wakes up - he is surrounded by large piles of rubble, whereas the land in front of the Conduit is pretty flat and scorched. Not to mentioned bathed in a blue glow. This means either the rubble has appeared from nowhere, in which case the Conduit has been turned off (Shepard fails in eveyr ending if this is the case, which Bioware wouldn't do) or Shepard is still indoctrinated (again, every ending leads to Shepard failing). If Shepard had been moved by any of his team, they wouldn't have just abandoned him on a pile of rubble, and if he had been captured by the enemy, again they wouldn't have just left him lying around on his own.

-The game outright tells you that, in what you just played and saw, that Shepard ended the Reaper threat. Not that he will go on to do so later, or that the next Cycle uses Liara's beacons, or that someone else enters the Citadel and ends the Reeaper threat, or that you will end the threat in DLC, but that in what you literally just played and saw, Shepard ended the Reaper threat. This is simply not the case if the indoc theory is true.

Does the theory have less plotholes than the real endings? Yes.

Does that make them right? No.

Both the real endings and this theory are full of holes in both logic and lore.

You didn't answer for any  of the bullet points I listed, which was full of fact-based DID HAPPEN content in the last few minutes of gameplay... while the list you created shows personal opinion, small logic gaps or just flat out assumes Bioware's motives, which we cannot know till they announce it (even then, they'll have xxxx amount of time to come up with their press release).

Quoting the end screen that says "BUY MORE DLC!!!" is laughable.

Saying that it's "clear" that Shep wakes up somewhere else is as far from fact as possible.  It's very UNclear.  It's a close up in a pile of non-descript rubble. But what are you arguing for in this part of your statement anyway?  Please tell me how Shep, half dead with no armor, survives a gunshot wound and the explosion at the citadel, after bleeding out for a fairly long period of time with TIM and Anderson and the Catalyst?  (without using the indoc theory, of course -- which completely explains how he could still draw breath)

The point of my post that you quoted was that at every 'section' of the ending, there are MAJOR plot holes that can only be filled with the Indoc Theory or utterly, offensively, poor writing/editing.  Not just one or two, but at every turn.

BTW... I'm not arguing whether Bioware MEANT for either view of the ending (cut and dry vs indoc).  They failed at explaining either, quite obviously.  And my opinion is they discussed the merits of both versions up until the very end, and the result is a hodge-podge of both, where nothing is coherent.  It's like a last minute hatchet job.

I'm simply arguing what ending MAKES SENSE.  Cut and dry, it makes no sense at all.  Indoc Theory may have a small gap here or there, but nothing even remotely close to the nonsense of looking at it superficially.

Modifié par FirstBlood XL, 18 mars 2012 - 07:33 .

[MegumiAzusa]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

FirstBlood XL wrote...
-Snip-

Indoc has just as many flaws.

-Indoctrination isn't something you can 'break free' of through willpower, particularly if you've just been shot by a Reapers' laser.

-Indoctrination manifests itself through feelings of being watched to eventually hearing alien voices in your mind, which the codex says is pretty much the last stage. Not only is there no foreshadowing of this (dreams are just that - dreams. They don't indicate anything other than Shepard being haunted by the death of this one child), but the games and codex have never given any indication that indoctrination leads to full-blown hallucinations. 
[...]

So explain:
esp Sheps last remark. Similar remarks are all over ME2 while in the derelict reaper and ME3.

[Kanon777]

nyogen wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

Nefelius wrote...

NightAntilli wrote...

There is a very simple but large hole in the indoctrination theory. In most (if not all) versions of the indoctrination theory, it is said that 'destroy' is the only good option, and if you choose any of the other two options, you ultimately do what the reapers wanted you to do and thus they succeed in fully indoctrinating you. If you choose destroy, you remain independent and free. Problem here is that at the lowest possible military strength, destroy is the only option. How can a much greater military strength give you two additional options that are suddenly worse than the default low military strength one? That doesn't make any sense. 

Yep.

Wrong, destroy is only the option if you destroyed the collector base, control is the option if you saved the base in ME2.

And that is supposed to change what in the utter lack of logic ? Plus Destroy remains an ONLY option even with higher EMS in some cases.

www.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings  <_<

No, if you read it carefully, only control is avaliable if you have low EMS and saved the base in ME2, the article talks about the choices that are unlocked after each now tier of EMS

Modifié par tobito113, 18 mars 2012 - 07:40 .

[nyogen]

tobito113 wrote...

nyogen wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

Nefelius wrote...

NightAntilli wrote...

There is a very simple but large hole in the indoctrination theory. In most (if not all) versions of the indoctrination theory, it is said that 'destroy' is the only good option, and if you choose any of the other two options, you ultimately do what the reapers wanted you to do and thus they succeed in fully indoctrinating you. If you choose destroy, you remain independent and free. Problem here is that at the lowest possible military strength, destroy is the only option. How can a much greater military strength give you two additional options that are suddenly worse than the default low military strength one? That doesn't make any sense. 

Yep.

Wrong, destroy is only the option if you destroyed the collector base, control is the option if you saved the base in ME2.

And that is supposed to change what in the utter lack of logic ? Plus Destroy remains an ONLY option even with higher EMS in some cases.

www.ign.com/wikis/mass-effect-3/Endings  <_<

No, if you read it carefully, only control is avaliable if you have low EMS and saved the base in ME2, the article talks about the choices that are unlocked after each now tier of EMS

Actually yes, if you read them carefully in both cases both with EMS at the very lowest and in the middle range there is Destroy as an only option, but hey maybe my internets are different space magically induced indoctrination

Modifié par nyogen, 18 mars 2012 - 07:44 .

[Karakuri]

To the original topic poster,

I think I have a probable answer to that hole you are refering to...... Might be a bit long...

I believe that the Child is Harbinger not the actual Catalyst.

The real Catalyst is a dark energy emission device that is hidden within Citadel. It can amplify the dark energy by several folds via mass relays and destroy every synthetic and organic lives in the galaxy. It was  first created by one of the civilizations driven extinct by the reapers billions of years ago. Knowing that this weapon will not only wipe out reapers but also all lives possible in this galaxy, they couldn’t find  the courage to activate their last resort. Eventually, civilizations  from the cycles afterward discovered this device and each added a bit of their own design to better harness this energy. In the end, it became the crucible as we know it. Notice that if Crucible is poorly build with a low war asset rating, the energy will wipe out everything, and no one will survive. But if properly build with a high war asset rating, the device will only kill reapers and render buildings, human lives, and  even half  synthetic Shepard unharmed.

When reapers discovered this weapon, their immediate response was to eliminate this threat. However,
further examination revealed that if tempered by reaper signal or any  violent  means, Catalyst will prematurely activate itself and wipe out all forms of synthetic and organic lives in the galaxy via mass relay.  Notice that in the red ending, Shepard simply had to shoot catalyst to activate it. This further proves my point that Catalyst is highly
volatile. Any damage done to it will cause the eruption of the dark energy .

So Harbinger devised a plan to get rid of the catalyst.  That was their plan all along in London. They were building their own designs to complement our crucible. Their purpose is to modify the  function of the Catalyst so it would present Shepard two other options to waste this energy. Hence we were given Control and Synthesis as well.
Both of which will render reapers unharmed.

Modifié par Karakuri, 23 mars 2012 - 03:54 .

[Xerkysz]

nyogen wrote...

ok here's your statement from Bioware, now kind Sir there is need of you in the Hold the Line movement not in the polarization movement they clearly stated they intended for the community.

Cheers everyone. :innocent:

fanzonepow.blogspot.com/2012/03/casey-hudson-defends-polarizing-ending.html

This doesn't say "they did not intend on continuing through the story with shepard awaking from indoctrination"
I won't be joining the movement till this is said.

:Still supporting Indoctrination:

[ULS 980]

nyogen wrote...
Occam's razor (very short adapted interpretation) states the simpler explanations tend to be true, in this case it seems to me easier to believe the Bioware dropped the ball than the interpretation of the y axis of the gaze of Anderson when he hicks up.

Playing Devil's Advocate here: on the other hand, I find it very hard to believe a company that's done so well through two games and 99.9% of a third game without any significant plot-holes and whatnot would drop the ball so hard in the last ten minutes of the third game. It's completely out of character for Bioware, or more specifically the ME team, (I'd say) to somehow manage to screw up this badly, even if they actively tried to.

I could argue that Bioware screwing up this badly makes even less sense than the indoctrination theory.

Not saying the theory is true, just that I think it has it's merits and at least tries to make sense of an ending that's completely uncharacteristic of ME Team's high standards if taken at face value.


I think it's clear Bioware was trying to go for something high brow that isn't necessarily taking the ending at face value (hence "Lot's of speculation for everyone!"). So I don't necessarily think what we get is what we saw.
Again, not necessarily saying indoctrination is what's going on, just that Bioware coulda been going for that and flubbed it up a bit.

Modifié par ULS 980, 18 mars 2012 - 07:51 .

[Karakuri]

oops double post

Modifié par Karakuri, 18 mars 2012 - 07:47 .

[Holoe4]

It's just a theory...

[ElementL09]

The theory makes the most sense considering the secret ending and dreams shepard had. Alot more evidence there then in any other theory.

[Rusty0918]

ElementL09 wrote...

The theory makes the most sense considering the secret ending and dreams shepard had. Alot more evidence there then in any other theory.

Agreed. It also makes sense if they're vehemently defending the "ending." I mean, after looking at the YouTube videos, it all makes sense. The clues are extremely compelling, and I'm not saying this from a denial standpoint here.

However, a "real" ending is still needed. What we saw wasn't enough, if the indoctrination theory is true.

[Jaze55]

ElementL09 wrote...

The theory makes the most sense considering the secret ending and dreams shepard had. Alot more evidence there then in any other theory.

How about we don't go with other THEORYS and just go with that FACT that Casey Hudson said it's done and we got a 'definitive and ....something something ending"

ITS OVER.

Now let's focus on getting it fixed instead of trying to convice everyone how smart you guys are for figuring out the master plan from BW

[CitizenSnips]

ULS 980 wrote...

nyogen wrote...
Occam's razor (very short adapted interpretation) states the simpler explanations tend to be true, in this case it seems to me easier to believe the Bioware dropped the ball than the interpretation of the y axis of the gaze of Anderson when he hicks up.

Playing Devil's Advocate here: on the other hand, I find it very hard to believe a company that's done so well through two games and 99.9% of a third game without any significant plot-holes and whatnot would drop the ball so hard in the last ten minutes of the third game. It's completely out of character for Bioware, or more specifically the ME team, (I'd say) to somehow manage to screw up this badly, even if they actively tried to.

I could argue that Bioware screwing up this badly makes even less sense than the indoctrination theory.

Not saying the theory is true, just that I think it has it's merits and at least tries to make sense of an ending that's completely uncharacteristic of ME Team's high standards.

http://www.gamefront...ination-theory/

The article actually mentions how the ending isn't just bad compared to all the content before it, but that it's anomalously bad. I have to agree.