281 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaze55]

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

One side has a theory that Bioware simply screwed up, the other has a theory that Shepard was indoctrinated and that it will be continued, neither have any truly solid evidence, neither know for sure yet assert that their belief is true. Reminds me of two religious nut jobs arguing over whos God is real.

On one side you have the script itself, the developers, behind the scenes interviews, and developer notes all showing that having the ending as a dream sequence was *NOT* intended. Infact they were originally going to have it be possible to get through the run to the beam sequence unscathed if your EMS was high enough, and have joker show up.

Then you have a collection of theories based on nitpicking of various details throughout the game that could amount to nothing more than plot holes and artistic license if Occams Razor is applied, yet having it presented as evidence that the end is a dream sequence.

I'll side with the developers and the script itself, even though i hate the endings.

You have a pre release script that was subject to change, and for all you know, could have had some details purposely hidden. You also have no idea, what so ever, if they are planning DLC (Broken Steel anyone?) Next assertion please.

Like I said, faith in percieved notion. Until a dev gives a direct statement in response to the ending, then you are all simply grasping at straws.

Maybe you havent been paying attention, but we HAVE had the developers give direct statements about their endings, and defending them AS IS. They even go into great detail on how Starchild A)is most definitely real and was originally more indepth but they wanted to "Leave Mystery" as they decided Vigil Exposition is lame. It is you who is now putting your fingers in your ears and going "i dont hear it lalalalalala".

I agree with you, but trust me after 3 days of trying to tell these people the same thing you just did, don't bother they won't be happy till the beloved indoc ending is fact. I gaurentee you even if we get a new better ending, and even if its fantastic, most of the indoc theory supports will still try to convince us, and Bioware, they are correct. 

[Priss Blackburne]

Where are these posts? links please I'd like to read them I've only seen the vague noncommittal ones.

Just to note I do have serious doubts about the endings being anything more then a horrible mess.

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 18 mars 2012 - 04:49 .

[Xerkysz]

Davies993 wrote...

If you bothered to read my comment, I said neither have SOLID evidence.

That is not solid evidence. That is faith in percieved notion. Thanks for playing.

All this is now proven with an app that was released with production details:

The ending is a mess because the following was cut out (as late as Nov '11):
- Reapers indoctrinating and assuming control of Shepard during this speech/battle

This was removed because even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

Need more evidence?

/Popcorn

[H. Birdman]

No, Night. The indoctrination theory looks at a whole bunch of objective facts about the ending and says, "Based on this evidence, there is a strong logical argument that none of this is real." May be right, may be wrong. But it's based on looking at evidence, not "pretending." You can pretend without any supporting facts.

[Leafs43]

low EMS probably means you die because there are no extraction units, because the Reapers can easily wipe them out.

So you die and cannot be indoctrinated, nor can you live.

[dointime85]

Xerkysz wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

If you bothered to read my comment, I said neither have SOLID evidence.

That is not solid evidence. That is faith in percieved notion. Thanks for playing.

All this is now proven with an app that was released with production details:

The ending is a mess because the following was cut out (as late as Nov '11):
- Reapers indoctrinating and assuming control of Shepard during this speech/battle

This was removed because even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

Need more evidence?

/Popcorn

On the other hand: Haven't we learned that we cannot trust anything that Bioware has said in the past about the endings?

[Davies993]

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

One side has a theory that Bioware simply screwed up, the other has a theory that Shepard was indoctrinated and that it will be continued, neither have any truly solid evidence, neither know for sure yet assert that their belief is true. Reminds me of two religious nut jobs arguing over whos God is real.

On one side you have the script itself, the developers, behind the scenes interviews, and developer notes all showing that having the ending as a dream sequence was *NOT* intended. Infact they were originally going to have it be possible to get through the run to the beam sequence unscathed if your EMS was high enough, and have joker show up.

Then you have a collection of theories based on nitpicking of various details throughout the game that could amount to nothing more than plot holes and artistic license if Occams Razor is applied, yet having it presented as evidence that the end is a dream sequence.

I'll side with the developers and the script itself, even though i hate the endings.

You have a pre release script that was subject to change, and for all you know, could have had some details purposely hidden. You also have no idea, what so ever, if they are planning DLC (Broken Steel anyone?) Next assertion please.

Like I said, faith in percieved notion. Until a dev gives a direct statement in response to the ending, then you are all simply grasping at straws.

Maybe you havent been paying attention, but we HAVE had the developers give direct statements about their endings, and defending them AS IS. They even go into great detail on how Starchild A)is most definitely real and was originally more indepth but they wanted to "Leave Mystery" as they decided Vigil Exposition is lame. It is you who is now putting your fingers in your ears and going "i dont hear it lalalalalala".

1. Where? There has been no definitive statement on the ending. Have you not been keeping up with it? They are waiting until more people have a chance to finish the game to discuss it - fact. Go onto any of the dev teams twitters to see that.

2. I never said the starchild was not real, and as far as I have read the indoc theory thread, neither has anybody else. They state that the 'Tell me another story about the Shepard' 'OK, one more story...' is the continuation. Again, you have no idea whether they plan DLC for the rest of the ending, and there has not been any statement from the devs to explain what it means and what is next. That is fact. 'Open to interpretation' does not count, and even if it did, then the indoc theory would be perfectly credible as is because there is no right or wrong answer there.

Next please. 

[Zyrious]

Davies993 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

One side has a theory that Bioware simply screwed up, the other has a theory that Shepard was indoctrinated and that it will be continued, neither have any truly solid evidence, neither know for sure yet assert that their belief is true. Reminds me of two religious nut jobs arguing over whos God is real.

On one side you have the script itself, the developers, behind the scenes interviews, and developer notes all showing that having the ending as a dream sequence was *NOT* intended. Infact they were originally going to have it be possible to get through the run to the beam sequence unscathed if your EMS was high enough, and have joker show up.

Then you have a collection of theories based on nitpicking of various details throughout the game that could amount to nothing more than plot holes and artistic license if Occams Razor is applied, yet having it presented as evidence that the end is a dream sequence.

I'll side with the developers and the script itself, even though i hate the endings.

You have a pre release script that was subject to change, and for all you know, could have had some details purposely hidden. You also have no idea, what so ever, if they are planning DLC (Broken Steel anyone?) Next assertion please.

Like I said, faith in percieved notion. Until a dev gives a direct statement in response to the ending, then you are all simply grasping at straws.

Maybe you havent been paying attention, but we HAVE had the developers give direct statements about their endings, and defending them AS IS. They even go into great detail on how Starchild A)is most definitely real and was originally more indepth but they wanted to "Leave Mystery" as they decided Vigil Exposition is lame. It is you who is now putting your fingers in your ears and going "i dont hear it lalalalalala".

1. Where? There has been no definitive statement on the ending. Have you not been keeping up with it? They are waiting until more people have a chance to finish the game to discuss it - fact. Go onto any of the dev teams twitters to see that.

2. I never said the starchild was not real, and as far as I have read the indoc theory thread, neither has anybody else. They state that the 'Tell me another story about the Shepard' 'OK, one more story...' is the continuation. Again, you have no idea whether they plan DLC for the rest of the ending, and there has not been any statement from the devs to explain what it means and what is next. That is fact. 'Open to interpretation' does not count, and even if it did, then the indoc theory would be perfectly credible as is because there is no right or wrong answer there.

Next please. 

I suggest you watch the Final Hours documentary, and not just read threads on it. The devs go into GREAT detail on the endings and their intentions behind them, INCLUDING saying they have no intention for ANY post-ending DLC (which has probably changed since after the interview, but as a result of outcry. They did not intend it).

[Navasha]

The only hole in the indoctrination theory is actually external to the game.

I have a hard time believing that a company would take such a risk as this in producing this kind of 'press', before releasing the 'true' ending.

Not saying they wouldn't do it, but its hard to believe they would actually take that risk. It could (maybe has) backfired.

That is truly the only hole in the theory, everything in the game substantiates it.

[Capeo]

H. Birdman wrote...

No, Night. The indoctrination theory looks at a whole bunch of objective facts about the ending and says, "Based on this evidence, there is a strong logical argument that none of this is real." May be right, may be wrong. But it's based on looking at evidence, not "pretending." You can pretend without any supporting facts.

You need to learn the difference between subjective and objective. Objective evidence is the script, Final Hours, dev comments, the willingness of devs to adjust the endings (something they wouldn't be doing if they had something planned all along) and what the god damn game straight up tells you: no matter your choice you defeat the Reapers. Subjective evidence is a whole bunch of inconsistent crap that is result of fans not being able to see objective reality. 

Modifié par Capeo, 18 mars 2012 - 04:55 .

[eddieoctane]

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. 

Simple: with the highest EMS rating, Shepard take a breath after the ending sequence. Think of this as closer to the stargazer scene than an effect from your decisions. It was going to happen regardless of EMS score, you just didn;t get to see it, just like you needed a new game+ or an import for Stargazer. Destroy was the only true option all along. That's what 3 games have been building to. With a low enough score, Shepard knows he can't possibly win without the Crucible, so his brian disregarded the other illusions.

By bulding up more resources, you gave yourself a false sense of
security that the Reapers could exploit by interjecting the bits about synthesis and control. Likewise, you also created a much more profound threat than the Reapers are accustomed to, requiring a more concerted effort in your indoctrination. But by sticking to your guns, by refusing to accept Reaper logic, your willpower overcomes the indoctrination. You wake up.

Make more sense now?

[Davies993]

dointime85 wrote...

Xerkysz wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

If you bothered to read my comment, I said neither have SOLID evidence.

That is not solid evidence. That is faith in percieved notion. Thanks for playing.

All this is now proven with an app that was released with production details:

The ending is a mess because the following was cut out (as late as Nov '11):
- Reapers indoctrinating and assuming control of Shepard during this speech/battle

This was removed because even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an
endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's
movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped
because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices).

Need more evidence?

/Popcorn

On the other hand: Haven't we learned that we cannot trust anything that Bioware has said in the past about the endings?

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound from a neutral standpoint? Your 'solid evidence' is a removed gameplay mechanic where Shepard became indoctrinated? How in anyway shape of form is that A. solid evidence and B. relevant? It does not even remotely mean your theory is correct because it involves the concept of Shepard being indoctrinated.

[S Atomeha]

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

One side has a theory that Bioware simply screwed up, the other has a theory that Shepard was indoctrinated and that it will be continued, neither have any truly solid evidence, neither know for sure yet assert that their belief is true. Reminds me of two religious nut jobs arguing over whos God is real.

On one side you have the script itself, the developers, behind the scenes interviews, and developer notes all showing that having the ending as a dream sequence was *NOT* intended. Infact they were originally going to have it be possible to get through the run to the beam sequence unscathed if your EMS was high enough, and have joker show up.

Then you have a collection of theories based on nitpicking of various details throughout the game that could amount to nothing more than plot holes and artistic license if Occams Razor is applied, yet having it presented as evidence that the end is a dream sequence.

I'll side with the developers and the script itself, even though i hate the endings.

You have a pre release script that was subject to change, and for all you know, could have had some details purposely hidden. You also have no idea, what so ever, if they are planning DLC (Broken Steel anyone?) Next assertion please.

Like I said, faith in percieved notion. Until a dev gives a direct statement in response to the ending, then you are all simply grasping at straws.

Maybe you havent been paying attention, but we HAVE had the developers give direct statements about their endings, and defending them AS IS. They even go into great detail on how Starchild A)is most definitely real and was originally more indepth but they wanted to "Leave Mystery" as they decided Vigil Exposition is lame. It is you who is now putting your fingers in your ears and going "i dont hear it lalalalalala".

can we get a link?

[Priss Blackburne]

Chris Priestly wrote...

TO BE CLEAR:
The app in question was created by Geoff Keighley of Gametrailers. It was made from materials he collected, with support from BioWare, in the weeks before Mass Effect 3 is launched. This app is NOT BioWare's "official response about the endings of the game", or similar. We will be addressing the endings in the future as I have indicated in this thread.

I'm not saying either one is true. or that the endings are not the real ones. But they have not commented on them yet officially

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 18 mars 2012 - 04:58 .

[Davies993]

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

Zyrious wrote...

Davies993 wrote...

One side has a theory that Bioware simply screwed up, the other has a theory that Shepard was indoctrinated and that it will be continued, neither have any truly solid evidence, neither know for sure yet assert that their belief is true. Reminds me of two religious nut jobs arguing over whos God is real.

On one side you have the script itself, the developers, behind the scenes interviews, and developer notes all showing that having the ending as a dream sequence was *NOT* intended. Infact they were originally going to have it be possible to get through the run to the beam sequence unscathed if your EMS was high enough, and have joker show up.

Then you have a collection of theories based on nitpicking of various details throughout the game that could amount to nothing more than plot holes and artistic license if Occams Razor is applied, yet having it presented as evidence that the end is a dream sequence.

I'll side with the developers and the script itself, even though i hate the endings.

You have a pre release script that was subject to change, and for all you know, could have had some details purposely hidden. You also have no idea, what so ever, if they are planning DLC (Broken Steel anyone?) Next assertion please.

Like I said, faith in percieved notion. Until a dev gives a direct statement in response to the ending, then you are all simply grasping at straws.

Maybe you havent been paying attention, but we HAVE had the developers give direct statements about their endings, and defending them AS IS. They even go into great detail on how Starchild A)is most definitely real and was originally more indepth but they wanted to "Leave Mystery" as they decided Vigil Exposition is lame. It is you who is now putting your fingers in your ears and going "i dont hear it lalalalalala".

1. Where? There has been no definitive statement on the ending. Have you not been keeping up with it? They are waiting until more people have a chance to finish the game to discuss it - fact. Go onto any of the dev teams twitters to see that.

2. I never said the starchild was not real, and as far as I have read the indoc theory thread, neither has anybody else. They state that the 'Tell me another story about the Shepard' 'OK, one more story...' is the continuation. Again, you have no idea whether they plan DLC for the rest of the ending, and there has not been any statement from the devs to explain what it means and what is next. That is fact. 'Open to interpretation' does not count, and even if it did, then the indoc theory would be perfectly credible as is because there is no right or wrong answer there.

Next please. 

I suggest you watch the Final Hours documentary, and not just read threads on it. The devs go into GREAT detail on the endings and their intentions behind them, INCLUDING saying they have no intention for ANY post-ending DLC (which has probably changed since after the interview, but as a result of outcry. They did not intend it).

Pity for you then, that I actually watched it. 

The actual quote is;

"Whatever we do would likely happen before or during the events of Mass Effect 3, not after"

Not only is this not definite, Likely does not = definitely.
Also, the indoc theory takes place DURING the events of ME3, not after. It supposedly begins when Shepard is hit by Harbinger's laser.

Modifié par Davies993, 18 mars 2012 - 04:59 .

[Davies993]

S Atomeha wrote...

can we get a link?

No need. What he is saying is simply not true.

Chris Priestly wrote...

'TO BE CLEAR:
The app in question was created by Geoff Keighley of Gametrailers. It was made from materials he collected, with support from BioWare, in the weeks before Mass Effect 3 is launched. This app is NOT BioWare's "official response about the endings of the game", or similar. We will be addressing the endings in the future as I have indicated in this thread.'

Modifié par Davies993, 18 mars 2012 - 05:01 .

[sAxMoNkI]

Indoctrination is a theory. A theory is not fact, nevertheless when a theory seems so compelling and fits what is observed then it generally gains traction. In terms of tangible proof it has not been confirmed as correct. HOWEVER there is nothing to stop anyone creating their own theories and nothing says a theory is more or less correct than another except rigourous testing (or in this case discussion). Remember evolution is still technically a theory but it has held up to testing for over 150 years, it may not have been proven yet but is generally accepted as it correlates best with observation compared to other theories (e.g. Lamarckism).

EDIT: Forgot to make my point

My point is people are completely entitled to critique indoctrination theory if anything it should be encouraged, if a true hole is found then the theory should be revised or updated. At the same time it should be acknowledged that thus far no one has suggested a more widely agreed upon option.

Modifié par sAxMoNkI, 18 mars 2012 - 05:03 .

[FearTheLiving]

I don't think it was intended but I hope they add it, would make me feel a whole lot better about the endings. Plus would allow them to add a better ending one without a god child >.>.

[Rusty0918]

FYI...the Final Hours does not disprove of the indoctrination theory, just that "full reaper control" doesn't work too well. You see, Harbinger is TRYING to indoctrinate you. That also is why the VI in whatever doesn't detect it, because it hasn't happened yet.

As with the choices - the reason the green and blue choices (synthesis and control) become available to you with higher EMS is that Harbinger is trying even harder to get you to turn, because he knows he and his chums are in some serious doo-dah. Not to mention with high-enough EMS, you see Shepard breating in the rubble.

Now even if this is the case, I still say Bioware made a bad mistake in this. It threw many people off as what we can see. I don't mind the indoc test, but we need more stuff AFTER this.

[Xerkysz]

Davies993 wrote...

Do you realise how ridiculous you sound from a neutral standpoint? Your 'solid evidence' is a removed gameplay mechanic where Shepard became indoctrinated? How in anyway shape of form is that A. solid evidence and B. relevant? It does not even remotely mean your theory is correct because it involves the concept of Shepard being indoctrinated.

The thing is, indoctrination was there, you were being indoctrinated.
They removed that bit from the gameplay because the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement
alongside dialogue choices.

This DOES NOT, mean the entire indoctrination part was scrapped.

[Jaze55]

 "
There’s been a lot of discussion and debate about the conclusion of Mass Effect 3, so I thought I’d share my  perspective with you here. I’ll avoid outright spoilers, but I’d still recommend finishing the game and experiencing it for yourself before reading this.  

For the last eight years, Mass Effect  has been a labor of love for our team; love for the characters we’ve created, for the medium of video games, and for the fans that have supported us.  For us and for you, Mass Effect 3 had to live up to a lot of expectations, not only for a great gaming experience, but for a resolution to the countless storylines and decisions you’ve made as a player since the journey began in 2007. So we designed Mass Effect 3 to be a series of endings to key plots and storylines, each culminating in scenes that show you the consequences of your actions.  You then carry the knowledge of these consequences with you as you complete the final moments of your journey.

We always intended that the scale of the conflict and the underlying theme of sacrifice would lead to a bittersweet ending—to do otherwise would betray the agonizing decisions Shepard had to make along the way.  Still, we wanted to give players the chance to experience an inspiring and uplifting ending; in a story where you face a hopeless struggle for basic survival, we see the final moments and imagery as offering victory and hope in the context of sacrifice and reflection.

We've had some incredibly positive reactions to Mass Effect 3, from the New York Times declaring it “a gripping, coherent triumph”, to Penny Arcade calling it “an amazing accomplishment”, to emails and tweets from players who have given us the most profound words of appreciation we've ever received.   

But we also recognize that some of our most passionate fans needed more closure, more answers, and more time to say goodbye to their stories—and these comments are equally valid. Player feedback such as this has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the series.

I am extremely proud of what this team has accomplished, from the first art concepts for the Mass Effect universe to the final moments of Mass Effect 3.  But we didn't do it on our own.  Over the course of the series, Mass Effect has been a shared experience between the development team and our fans—not just a shared experience in playing the games, but in designing and developing them.  An outpouring of love for Garrus and Tali led to their inclusion as love interests in Mass Effect 2.  A request for deeper RPG systems led to key design changes in Mass Effect 3.  Your feedback has always mattered.  Mass Effect is a collaboration between developers and players, and we continue to listen. 

So where do we go from here? Throughout the next year, we will support Mass Effect 3 by working on new  content.  And we’ll keep listening, because your insights and constructive feedback will help determine what that content should be. This is not the last you’ll hear of Commander Shepard.  

We look forward to your continued support and involvement as we work together to shape the remaining experiences in the story of the Mass Effect trilogy.

Thanks for taking this journey with us.
 
Casey Hudson"

http://social.biowar.../index/10089946 

That's really all there is to say.

[sadako]

If the indoctrination theory is true. Why is there stargazer and starchild in the ending for ALL the choices?

That essentially invalidates the indoctrination theory.

[Xerkysz]

Rusty0918 wrote...

FYI...the Final Hours does not disprove of the indoctrination theory, just that "full reaper control" doesn't work too well. You see, Harbinger is TRYING to indoctrinate you. That also is why the VI in whatever doesn't detect it, because it hasn't happened yet.

Any meeting with the VI before assaulting TIM's base it doesn't pick it up because you're only having nightmares.
As for the meeting at TIM's base, as I said in my evidence.
Prothean VI: "Security protocols have been overridden, I will comply." This is in
TIM's base, so why did he tell TIM about the Catalyst? when TIM was
clearly Indoctrinated? Yet if Shep is indoctrinated it won't tell him?

[Rusty0918]

Davies993, Xerkysz is right. You see, the reapers were TRYING to indoctrinate you. The scribblings in Final Hours say "Full Reaper Control." Shepard wasn't under this...yet...

[cyric085]

i'll give you one example why indo. theory makes more sense than the "real" ending

joker "fleeing" the battlefield

real ending: well hes just a coward and wants to save his ass (after he dodged some reapers in orbit, landed on earth and picked up all your crewmembers , which are also traitors, dead or alive, and resurrect them with space magic )

indoctrination ending: the reaper ai tells you that in all 3 choices you can make, the mass relays will get destroyed, shepard is no idiot, he knows with all those aliens trapped in SOL system there will be a huge and costly conflict about the remaining recources. so his mind made up a story that the normandy and all her friends and loved ones stranded on a green/paradise looking planet.

to me the indoctrination theory makes more sense, is more in line with the lore and even if its not true its already canon for me (and many others).

Modifié par cyric085, 18 mars 2012 - 05:08 .