227 réponses à ce sujet

[nullobject]

DraCZeQQ wrote...

Well as close-minded cynic after rushed plot-hole fest called Dragon Age 2 I really have no problem believing that:

*EA uses RUSH another Bioware game
*It's super effective
*Ending's logic is defeated!

Occam's razor

I actually included evidence relevant to DA2 in the OP. You really should check it out.

[nullobject]

Aiyie wrote...

nullobject wrote...

I think both you and Silasqtx are actually overanalysing. While it may seem complex at first, after a closer look it is clear that the theory in the OP is actually the simplest and most likely to be correct.

you do realize the op was trolling us right?

that doesn't invalidate the theory or what the op was saying (on the face of things)... but it doesn't exactly support it either.

That confounded OP! Who does he think he is?

[MadRabbit999]

There is 1 simple reason why this theory makes sense actually:

The kid tells Shepeard "You will die if you choose to destroy syntethics because you are part made by them"

But in the ending Shepard is alive.. meaning the kid was lying.. and if he was lying about that, he probably was lying about other things too.

Also the glowing scar on shepard's face that only comes up at the ending which is just like the Illusive man indoctrinated, fits in too. (But this last one its not fact, only a personal opinion, unlike the first thing I wrote).

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 19 mars 2012 - 10:40 .

[Captain Shakespeare]

The glowing scar could be explained by the cybernetics which were used to rebuild Shepard. They'd be fairly easy to see after a reaper beam carved you up.

the fact that the kid lied though, that's suspicious.

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

nullobject wrote...

...I can't believe your small minds still refuse to face the truth of this.

While I agree with some of your argument, it doesn't change the fact that you're acting like something I can't say because of the new site rules and code of conduct.

Honestly though, that just means it goes from being "the worst possible ending" to "no ending."  If this really was some calculated marketing ploy, then I'd say its backfired horribly, wouldn't you?

[Captain Shakespeare]

Depends. If it's a "no ending" as you say, and they planned to continue on to a satisfactory end point, I wouldn't be one to argue.

[SamFlagg]

Could someone help me understand.

Why the solution can't be "Bioware chooses to do the indoctrination theory for the DLC"

and absolutely must be "Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"

Help me understand why this has to have all been planned.

[nullobject]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

nullobject wrote...

...I can't believe your small minds still refuse to face the truth of this.

While I agree with some of your argument, it doesn't change the fact that you're acting like something I can't say because of the new site rules and code of conduct.

Honestly though, that just means it goes from being "the worst possible ending" to "no ending."  If this really was some calculated marketing ploy, then I'd say its backfired horribly, wouldn't you?

I'm sorry if I offended you. I could refer you to my previous reply to Axolotl, who had a similar complaint.

Did you read past the first few lines or did my tone prevent that?

[nullobject]

SamFlagg wrote...

Could someone help me understand.

Why the solution can't be "Bioware chooses to do the indoctrination theory for the DLC"

and absolutely must be "Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"

Help me understand why this has to have all been planned.

I think the issue is that if 
"Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"  is NOT the case, it implies certain things about members of Bioware's staff and their competence. The OP is concerned with adressing this argument with reference to Bioware's previously released games.

[Morrden]

So your logic is basically that Bioware has made excellent titles in the past so clearly they couldn't have messed the ending up this badly?

I'm looking forward to the announcement coming any day now that Cars 2 was really just an elaborate ploy by Pixar and that they're releasing the actually good version any day now as a DVD extra.

Seriously though, I understand the draw of believing this sort of theory and I don't want to insult anyone who's invested in it as headcanon but... really? You think it's more likely Bioware would willingly deceive five year fans, generate so much negative publicity that it reaches national TV news, take a price hit on amazon, and generate this ****storm on the forums than the idea that they just plain messed up because the ending revisions had them pressed for time?

Really?

[SamFlagg]

nullobject wrote...

SamFlagg wrote...

Could someone help me understand.

Why the solution can't be "Bioware chooses to do the indoctrination theory for the DLC"

and absolutely must be "Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"

Help me understand why this has to have all been planned.

I think the issue is that if 
"Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"  is NOT the case, it implies certain things about members of Bioware's staff and their competence. The OP is concerned with adressing this argument with reference to Bioware's previously released games.

Isn't it reasonable to use a football analogy and suggest that they called a great play and threw an interception that got returned for a touchdown?  (I'm a 4th option proponent myself)

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

nullobject wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

nullobject wrote...

...I can't believe your small minds still refuse to face the truth of this.

While I agree with some of your argument, it doesn't change the fact that you're acting like something I can't say because of the new site rules and code of conduct.

Honestly though, that just means it goes from being "the worst possible ending" to "no ending."  If this really was some calculated marketing ploy, then I'd say its backfired horribly, wouldn't you?

I'm sorry if I offended you. I could refer you to my previous reply to Axolotl, who had a similar complaint.

Did you read past the first few lines or did my tone prevent that?

I did indeed read the rest of your post, and I agree with your reasoning.  Did you read the first line of mine, or did my tone prevent that?

I was all onboard with this idea until they released Final Hours.  I didn't think they could be that stupid.  Maybe this is the most epic April Fools joke in recorded history.  Now I'm not so sure. 

Regardless, people do have a habit of automatically assuming the worst.  That's not stupidity, that's human nature.  And there's a chance we'll be pleasantly surprised.

[nullobject]

SamFlagg wrote...

nullobject wrote...

SamFlagg wrote...

Could someone help me understand.

Why the solution can't be "Bioware chooses to do the indoctrination theory for the DLC"

and absolutely must be "Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"

Help me understand why this has to have all been planned.

I think the issue is that if 
"Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"  is NOT the case, it implies certain things about members of Bioware's staff and their competence. The OP is concerned with adressing this argument with reference to Bioware's previously released games.

Isn't it reasonable to use a football analogy and suggest that they called a great play and threw an interception that got returned for a touchdown?  (I'm a 4th option proponent myself)

I'm afraid I don't understand American Footbal references. Could you translate?

[joe1852]

so i have a small mind cuz im not in denial like the rest of u? lol ok

[Morrden]

nullobject wrote...

SamFlagg wrote...

nullobject wrote...

SamFlagg wrote...

Could someone help me understand.

Why the solution can't be "Bioware chooses to do the indoctrination theory for the DLC"

and absolutely must be "Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"

Help me understand why this has to have all been planned.

I think the issue is that if 
"Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"  is NOT the case, it implies certain things about members of Bioware's staff and their competence. The OP is concerned with adressing this argument with reference to Bioware's previously released games.

Isn't it reasonable to use a football analogy and suggest that they called a great play and threw an interception that got returned for a touchdown?  (I'm a 4th option proponent myself)

I'm afraid I don't understand American Footbal references. Could you translate?

Basically no matter how perfectly the first parts went, a last minute flub made under pressure can still ruin the entire endeavor. 

[nullobject]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

nullobject wrote...

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

nullobject wrote...

...I can't believe your small minds still refuse to face the truth of this.

While I agree with some of your argument, it doesn't change the fact that you're acting like something I can't say because of the new site rules and code of conduct.

Honestly though, that just means it goes from being "the worst possible ending" to "no ending."  If this really was some calculated marketing ploy, then I'd say its backfired horribly, wouldn't you?

I'm sorry if I offended you. I could refer you to my previous reply to Axolotl, who had a similar complaint.

Did you read past the first few lines or did my tone prevent that?

I did indeed read the rest of your post, and I agree with your reasoning.  Did you read the first line of mine, or did my tone prevent that?

I was all onboard with this idea until they released Final Hours.  I didn't think they could be that stupid.  Maybe this is the most epic April Fools joke in recorded history.  Now I'm not so sure. 

Regardless, people do have a habit of automatically assuming the worst.  That's not stupidity, that's human nature.  And there's a chance we'll be pleasantly surprised.

I did read the first line of your post, hence the apology. I'm not sure what to say at this point other than encouraging you to review the thread and the points covered in it, it's best I stop repeating myself.

[SamFlagg]

nullobject wrote...

SamFlagg wrote...

nullobject wrote...

SamFlagg wrote...

Could someone help me understand.

Why the solution can't be "Bioware chooses to do the indoctrination theory for the DLC"

and absolutely must be "Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"

Help me understand why this has to have all been planned.

I think the issue is that if 
"Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"  is NOT the case, it implies certain things about members of Bioware's staff and their competence. The OP is concerned with adressing this argument with reference to Bioware's previously released games.

Isn't it reasonable to use a football analogy and suggest that they called a great play and threw an interception that got returned for a touchdown?  (I'm a 4th option proponent myself)

I'm afraid I don't understand American Footbal references. Could you translate?

Certainly, calling a play would refer to the offensive scheme used in American football designed to get positive yardage and eventually a touchdown, or putting the football into the endzone. 

An interception is when the quarterback on offense would throw the ball in the air, and instead of someone on his team catching it, an opposing defender would catch it and run back the length of the field and score his own touchdown.  Typically scoring on defense is rare. 

The analogy then suggests that bioware had possibly the right framework in place, but handled the execution so poorly as to have taken what should've been a high mark (your team on offense) to a terribly low mark (your team managed to make the other guys score)

[nullobject]

Morrden wrote...

nullobject wrote...

SamFlagg wrote...

nullobject wrote...

SamFlagg wrote...

Could someone help me understand.

Why the solution can't be "Bioware chooses to do the indoctrination theory for the DLC"

and absolutely must be "Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"

Help me understand why this has to have all been planned.

I think the issue is that if 
"Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"  is NOT the case, it implies certain things about members of Bioware's staff and their competence. The OP is concerned with adressing this argument with reference to Bioware's previously released games.

Isn't it reasonable to use a football analogy and suggest that they called a great play and threw an interception that got returned for a touchdown?  (I'm a 4th option proponent myself)

I'm afraid I don't understand American Footbal references. Could you translate?

Basically no matter how perfectly the first parts went, a last minute flub made under pressure can still ruin the entire endeavor. 

OK I get that. I think I adressed that in the OP with reference to Bioware's back catalog, as such a thing would really be unprecedented, don't you think?

[pablosplinter]

Loving all the speculation. Keep it up guys!

[Morrden]

Going to stop this huge quote monster, but I'm responding to nullobject's post above.

It's not unprecedented for a company with nothing but success to make a mistake. There's a first time for everything. I mentioned Cars 2 earlier as an example. One could even say Bioware has already made their first mistake with DA2.

[SamFlagg]

Morrden wrote...

Going to stop this huge quote monster, but I'm responding to nullobject's post above.

It's not unprecedented for a company with nothing but success to make a mistake. There's a first time for everything. I mentioned Cars 2 earlier as an example. One could even say Bioware has already made their first mistake with DA2.

I am in agreement that DA2 is probably the best example we currently have going, and thats speaking as someone who saw all the flaws, but still managed to relatively enjoy the game.

(Except everything they did to Anders, and Merril's out of order cut scenes)

Modifié par SamFlagg, 19 mars 2012 - 11:09 .

[nullobject]

SamFlagg wrote...

Morrden wrote...

Going to stop this huge quote monster, but I'm responding to nullobject's post above.

It's not unprecedented for a company with nothing but success to make a mistake. There's a first time for everything. I mentioned Cars 2 earlier as an example. One could even say Bioware has already made their first mistake with DA2.

I am in agreement that DA2 is probably the best example we currently have going, and thats speaking as someone who saw all the flaws, but still managed to relatively enjoy the game.

(Except everything they did to Anders, and Merril's out of order cut scenes)

It's interesting that you both would bring that up, as I'm sure I referred to it in the OP, but rereading it I can't see where exactly. It may have been in the supporting links.

[SamFlagg]

As I'm off to work I'll point out something I said in the other indoc thread.

Here's the thing, there still can be something legendary.  I just think
it needs to be divorced from the thought that it was always planned
ahead of time.

[Aiyie]

SamFlagg wrote...

Could someone help me understand.

Why the solution can't be "Bioware chooses to do the indoctrination theory for the DLC"

and absolutely must be "Bioware was doing indocrintation the whole time, this was all planned"

Help me understand why this has to have all been planned.

thats where im at.

id love for it to come true... im just not convinced it was always true.  maybe it was planned but dropped due to the publisher (EA) demanding the developr (Bioware) release it too early.

i have faith in Bioware, but very little in EA.  one of the reasons im not abandonning Bioware.

[MrIllusion]

The indoctrination theory is just an interpretation of the ending. It may not explain every plot hole, but why should it? It's easy enough to pick holes at a theory, because if it is foolproof, it wouldn't just be a theory.

I haven't seen people queueing up to provide any other theory that can explain the ending, without (1) taking the ending at face value, or (2) rectconning the ending.

So let's say OP is right, and the indoctrination theory cannot work. Then what?

Modifié par MrIllusion, 19 mars 2012 - 11:24 .