281 réponses à ce sujet

[Xerkysz]

eddieoctane wrote...

2: Lodon does have an undergound mass-transit system. Who's to say he didn't fall into a (plot)hole the Reaper attack opened up.

I see what you did there xP

[Jaze55]

I guess I will just keep on quoting myself till someone responds:

[quote]MassEffected555 wrote...

I like how my post with the video showing you how completely wrong you guys are about Anderson looking at Shepard and not TIM when Anderson says "They're controlling you" is being completely ignored. HERE IS IS AGAIN I want to hear the explanation on that one.

[quote]MassEffected555 wrote...

[quote]Saku39 wrote...

I just can't believe how out to lunch some of you deniers are. Anderson looks RIGHT AT YOU and says "They're controlling YOU!". Not at TIM, at YOU, the player.

Does anyone who denies this theory have some kind of explanation of why the Destroy/4k EMS ending happens? Can someone explain why that's there? Because that, plus the Codex, plus the dreams, plus the foreshadowing, plus the Kid, plus the phantasmagoric, non-sensical Citadel walk through your memories, plus the everyone-dies ending, plus resurrected squad mates, all the BW tweets, just on and on, and on. You know what makes NO sense?

The idea that we saw the complete ending.[/quote]

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.


Edit - In case you can't grasp what this means. He is looking at Shep because he has no control over his body. However when he looks at TIM and says YOU he breaks control for a second and is able to turn his head. DERP ok so that is out the window, or let me guess, that video was edited by Reapers to indoctrinate us into believing the Indoc Theory is not true. Right, RIGHT????!!!!!!

[/quote]

[/quote][/quote]

[sAxMoNkI]

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. - I think by this point we can say Shepard is pretty unique in terms of his willpower

-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. 
- I would argue that the catalyst is that alien voice in his mind though I admit I have nothing when it comes to the feeling of being watched. The codex does also say rapid indoctrination is possible it just increases the rate of the deterioration of mental capacity meaning the thrall is less viable over the long term, Shepard would not be a long term asset to this reapers in this scenario however, they are trying to stop him at all costs.

-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.
- Again valid but Shepard has been around reaper artifacts since ME1 now, not for particulrly long periods of time, but there was the dead reaper and (I admit this one is assumption) the collector base. Also the artifact in Arrival. Could have laid the groundwork to make indoctrination easier.

-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.
- The ending after he wakes up hasnt been fleshed out I agree, however what would be wrong with a boss fight vs. Harbinger leading to the actual ascension into the citadel and activating the crucible. Perhaps the crucible then disrupts reaper shielding giving the assembled fleets a realistic chance (/speculation).

-Bioware wouldn't play the same cutscenes in both the 'success' ending and the 'failure' ending. Its just illogical.
True but it depends whether or not they wanted fans to question the ending and look for a hidden one, again no idea until they themselves comment.

-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.
I would imagine a reaper's main gun would cause come form of crater if it can cut through a dreadnought...

-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.
Agreed, this facet of the theory deals more with fixing the general tone of the endings and providing the opportunity for bioware to then include a greater range of endings from "happy" to "complete reaper victory". So while the current endings are functional in that they result in the end of the reaper threat, they do it in such a way that the current ME universe is effectively destroyed.

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

Does that make them right? No.
At this point nobody is right or wrong only Bioware know what they are going to do. I think this situation with ending theories should be treated as a Schrodinger's cat paradox. We are all correct until one ides is proved correct.

Both the real endings and this theory are full of holes in both logic and lore. On that we can agree, thus the need for debate and discussion to fix holes and suggest alternatives until we hear anything concrete.

[Talogrungi]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

This. 

There is simply no reason whatsover for Bioware to release ME3 without a proper ending.

Well, there is one fairly possible one:

To sell the ending DLC.

Or do you think that EA is too moral to resort to that kind of tactic?

[Candidate 88766]

eddieoctane wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The other big problem with the theory is that Shepard 'waking' up in the best ending pretty much disproves it. You can clearly see he isn't in the same place as when he was shot at by Harbinger. He's surrounded by massive piles of rubble instead of the pretty flat ground in front of the Conduit, and the blue glow of the Conduit is gone. This leads to only a few outcomes:

Candidate 88766 wrote...

-The rubble has somehow appeared in front of the Conduit, but the Reapers have turned it off - hence the lack of blue glow. This means that even if Shepard wakes up, he has no way of getting inside the Citadel to open the arms. This means he fails, and seeing as the theory states that every other choice leads to failure this can't be true - Bioware isn't going to make every choice lead to failure automatically.

1: Shep could have been knocked away when he was blasted by Harbinger. Grenades can knock enemies around, I would expect the blast from Harbinger's main gun to at least knock up some dust.
2: Lodon does have an undergound mass-transit system. Who's to say he didn't fall into a (plot)hole the Reaper attack opened up.
3: If position the camera between shep and the "magic reaper space elevator", you could looka t one or the other, but not both. There is nothing to indicate that that the elevator would still be in frame.

No theory, including "that's just how it is going to be, deal" makes perfect sense. Some don't work in-game. Some don't work in reality. Ignoring the business side of the debate is foolhardy. And once you factor that in, the indoctrination theory gains mroe credence.

1. Granted, but he would have to have been thrown an awful long way to be out of the range of the blue light of the Conduit - the entire area is bathed in blue in the run-up to it.

2. The underground system is deep underground. If Shepard has fallen down that far, in his state he's not going to up for doing anything, let alone reaching the Conduit.

3. its not that you can't see the beam itself, its that you can't see any light from it at all.

As for the business arguement giving credence to the theory - what??

It would make no financial sense to release a game this big without its ending. The backlash would be volcanic. A game this big is not one you take risks on, let alone something as stupid as witholding the real ending for the sake of 'tricking' the fans.

[Xerkysz]

MassEffected555 wrote...

I guess I will just keep on quoting myself till someone responds.

I saw this on my first play through, dunno who thought he looks at the player.

[Candidate 88766]

Talogrungi wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

This. 

There is simply no reason whatsover for Bioware to release ME3 without a proper ending.

Well, there is one fairly possible one:

To sell the ending DLC.

Or do you think that EA is too moral to resort to that kind of tactic?

I doubt even EA has the balls to try this. Particularly after BF3 failed to the CoD-killer they anticipated.

And after the backlash against Origin, and all the fan backlash there has been towards parts of ME3 (Day One DLC, MP, Origin being required) there is no way in hell that they would take this kind of gamble. Even Activision wasn't willing to do it with something as large as CoD.

[InfiniteDemise]

Talogrungi wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

This. 

There is simply no reason whatsover for Bioware to release ME3 without a proper ending.

Well, there is one fairly possible one:

To sell the ending DLC.

Or do you think that EA is too moral to resort to that kind of tactic?

The problem with this is that it's costing them money RIGHT NOW. They're losing money from returns, people canceling their SWTOR subs, and people just not buying the game. They're not going to make up that loss with DLC sales.

[Jaze55]

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

I guess I will just keep on quoting myself till someone responds.

I saw this on my first play through, dunno who thought he looks at the player.

Dude seriously it's as plain asy day he turns his head and looks at TIM. And a few people that support the theory use that as an example, look at the guy I quoted. 

Modifié par MassEffected555, 18 mars 2012 - 06:53 .

[mooney6023]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Sailers wrote...

While I like the indoctrination theory... Saying that the destruction ending is the only good ending, doesn't sound like something Bioware would do to me. There has been some stuff establishing canons, but to say that one out of three endings is the right one... I don't know, I just don't think BW would do that.

But in terms of Indoc theory the destroy "ending" isnt the ending but a means of accessing the actual conclusion with end choices etc etc.

Bioware releasing the concluding part to one their most successful franchises without its actual ending is just too muhc of a stretch to be believable.

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.

[InfiniteDemise]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
As for the business arguement giving credence to the theory - what??

It would make no financial sense to release a game this big without its ending. The backlash would be volcanic. A game this big is not one you take risks on, let alone something as stupid as witholding the real ending for the sake of 'tricking' the fans.

I think you meant "The backlash IS volcanic". 

[jules_vern18]

Xerkysz wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...


Bioware did not design the Indoctrination ending - you guys did.  And that's fine.  It's just really going to suck when they open a dialogue on the ending and this theory gets more and more debunked/invalidated.

From what I read,
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).

BioWare did.

Um, Source? I remember reading this too, but they never said "fall under full reaper control."  You added that part - they omitted a section of gameplay where Shep loses control of his body to TIM, just like he did in the conversation with him and Anderson.  Even if it were true that Bioware wanted a scene where Shep is controlled by the Reapers, the fact that they didn't include it is not somehow proof of your theory. 

[Candidate 88766]

sAxMoNkI wrote...
On that we can agree, thus the need for debate and discussion to fix holes and suggest alternatives until we hear anything concrete.

The problem is that people aren't doing this - they're becoming fixated on this one theory without noticing that all it does is raise new plot holes.

The only way to get a satisfactory ending is to at least remove the entire sequence with the Catalyst child. Trying to fit any kind of sensical plot into this scene is just doomed to fail. Better to scrap it.

Everything up until Anderson' death, bar a couple of plot holes (squaddies abandoning you) was actually pretty good. Change a couple of bits here and there, and most of the groundwork for a great ending has already been laid, 

[sAxMoNkI]

jules_vern18 wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Xerkysz wrote...

sAxMoNkI wrote...

Wait a minute, he's pointed out some inconsistencies and is asking for an explanation from a counter-theory and the best you've got is that he is an idiot?
On what grounds?
Why isn't he allowed to post here?

In terms of suspending disbelief having Shepard unconciosuly in London and imagining these events is every bit as plausible as him surviving re-entry to earth, through a vacuum, in an unsealed partially destroyed set of armour, after a cataclysmic explosion and still be breathing let alone not a charred hunk of carbon?

*snip*
* Assuming
you get the 'best ending' (the only one with special footage only shown
with extra high EMS)... Shephard still draws breath in the ruins of the Citadel, which makes sense as this is the only ending where he doesn't seem to disolve on a molecular level.  There are no indications whatsoever that point to him being on earth.  In fact, considering that this was the "secret" ending, wouldn't it have ended with a more obvious allusion to the indoctrination theory if it were true?  Developers have been vague about their endings before, but never that vague.

Fixed.

One question, where would the concrete rubble he is lying in have come from as the area where he is speaking to the catalyst is metal. Also in the ending you see the citadel fall apart. Not an attack on your post just curious for your thoughts.

I've heard this argument before, and I'm pretty sure that the rubble at the end of ME3 looks pretty similar to the rubble Shep comes out of at the end of ME1 - both on the Citadel.  Yes, it does sort of look like concrete - I'm guessing that room he was in was metal paneling over concrete or some other mineral substance.  Even in the future, it wouldn't be necessary or cost effective to build any structure purely out of metal. 

If you were on the international space station and looked at an interior wall to see a metal or plastic panel, would you assume that the entire station was made of metal or plastic through and through?

But even arguing about this is silly.  Even if the "concrete" rubble didn't make sense (and I think it can be justified quite easily), that doesn't mean that it absolutely had to be on earth.  It could be that Bioware art design was tasked with making rubble and decided to model concrete, which is almost always found in scenes of rubble.  They probably just didn't think about the fact that there isn't concrete on the citadel (which we have no proof of; there may be).

Almost every piece of "evidence" for the indoctrination theory can just as easily be chalked up to bad writing, sloppy art design, and a rushed finish to an otherwise great game.  All of the evidence put forward by the Cult of Indoctrination has been speculative, contingent upon assumptions, and distracting from our overall aim of pressing Bioware for alternate-ending DLC.  

I'm not saying it's not an interesting theory or that you shouldn't be able to craft whatever theory you need to make sense out of this horrible ending.  But to say that Bioware had it planned all along and just hasn't let us know despite our outrage just doesn't make any sense. 

Bioware did not design the Indoctrination ending - you guys did.  And that's fine.  It's just really going to suck when they open a dialogue on the ending and this theory gets more and more debunked/invalidated.

A very interesting point of view, and I agree with you for the most part. I had forgotten about that bit in the council chambers in ME1 .
I am still pressing just as hard as anyone for an ending amendment I just think its equally important to present ideas to bioware that address what our previous greivances with the ending were or to help them with the development of a solution. It is a flawed theory but if nothing else it is a testament to how much people don't want to believe Bioware could have made such errors on purpose.

[InfiniteDemise]

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.

[Candidate 88766]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

I guess I will just keep on quoting myself till someone responds.

I saw this on my first play through, dunno who thought he looks at the player.

Dude seriously it's as plain asy day he turns his head and looks at TIM. And a few people that support the theory use that as an example, look at the guy I quoted. 

Yeah, he's lookig at TIM.

Bioware isn't going to break the fourth wall in the conclusion of the Mass Effect trilogy.

[Xerkysz]

MassEffected555 wrote...

Xerkysz wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

I guess I will just keep on quoting myself till someone responds.

I saw this on my first play through, dunno who thought he looks at the player.

Dude seriously it's as plain asy day he turns his head and looks at TIM. And a few people that support the theory use that as an example, look at the guy I quoted. 

I saw that, and I don't think my face ever hit my hand as hard as it did at that point.

[Kanon777]

From Casey:

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.

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.

These quotes are very good evidence that they didnt expect the backlash that they recieved and have no clue on how to make the endings most peple want.

They are asking for feedback because they are LOST and dont know what we want. There is no secret plan, they are just thrying to fix the problem.

[Xerkysz]

jules_vern18 wrote...

Um, Source? I remember reading this too, but they never said "fall under full reaper control."  You added that part - they omitted a section of gameplay where Shep loses control of his body to TIM, just like he did in the conversation with him and Anderson.  Even if it were true that Bioware wanted a scene where Shep is controlled by the Reapers, the fact that they didn't include it is not somehow proof of your theory. 

I didn't add it, thanks very much.

Sauce: http://www.escapistm...urs-Ending-Info

Statement:
On Deciding the End of the Game
The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still
much debate. 'One night walters scribbled down some thought on various
ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for
Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'
In truth the final bits of dialogue were debated right up until the
end of 2011. Martin sheen's voice-over session for the illusive man,
originally scheduled for August, was delayed until mid-November so the
writers would have more time to finesse the ending.
And 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).

[Kanon777]

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.

That fact that they DIDNT put a to be continued at end is evidence that they didnt expect to make post game dlc. They even stated that there was not going to be any post game DLC, until now that they have this huge backlash

[mooney6023]

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.

[jules_vern18]

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.

Modifié par jules_vern18, 18 mars 2012 - 07:02 .

[Candidate 88766]

Xerkysz wrote...

jules_vern18 wrote...

Um, Source? I remember reading this too, but they never said "fall under full reaper control."  You added that part - they omitted a section of gameplay where Shep loses control of his body to TIM, just like he did in the conversation with him and Anderson.  Even if it were true that Bioware wanted a scene where Shep is controlled by the Reapers, the fact that they didn't include it is not somehow proof of your theory. 

I didn't add it, thanks very much.

Sauce: http://www.escapistm...urs-Ending-Info

Statement:
On Deciding the End of the Game
The illusive man boss fight had been scrapped... but there was still
much debate. 'One night walters scribbled down some thought on various
ways the game could end with the line "Lots of speculation for
Everyone!" at the bottom of the page.'
In truth the final bits of dialogue were debated right up until the
end of 2011. Martin sheen's voice-over session for the illusive man,
originally scheduled for August, was delayed until mid-November so the
writers would have more time to finesse the ending.
And 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).

That they thought of doing it doesn't mean that this isn't proof of the theory.

All the dark energy build up in ME2 and the fact that the original story had the Reaper motive revolving around dark energy isn't proof that the Reaper motivation in ME3 is wrong.

Still, it would have been a veyr interesting sequence to play.

[Nefelius]

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.

[Kanon777]

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.