161 réponses à ce sujet

[GBGriffin]

Led Guardian wrote...


Interesting. Not my personal opinion though. I think of it as bad writing that has the possibility to become something else if the theory is applied and an "actual" ending added. Just that difference in perception of what is happening plus something new to conclude the game would make it enjoyable. No need to scrap the sequence entirely if they do opt to make ending DLC.

I guess, if anything, what I'd like to get across is this:

You have your opinion and I have mine, and at this present time, both are valid because both are pure speculation.

As for them applying it...I honestly don't know how I'd feel about it. I think it'd be convenient for them because the fans basically wrote it out for them and it would appease a lot of people, but what about those who currently like the ending? For indoctrination theory to work, imo, it needs post-game DLC where Shep "wakes up"...but, at present, that's only even barely hinted at through the Destroy ending. If it stays as is, players would be forced to pick Destroy to wake up...otherwise, what, they become indoctrinated and it's game over?

TL;DR: It'd be easy for them to implement it, but it wouldn't be perfect. I'd personally just like to see them stick with the ending as is and expand on it, give more options or a chance to argue the logic, and those choices coudld springboard into a wider range of endings, from letting the Reapers win to walking away into the sunset.

[Mbednar]

Encarmine wrote...

Mbednar wrote...

Encarmine wrote...

People give up this totally stupid Indoc theory, it makes us all look stupid.

Bioware really did totally mess up their ending, there is no seret double dutch ending meaning. They ruined the ending, and destroyed the galaxy we all love because EA has told them to focus on MMOs and 3rd person multiplayers.

Thats the ONLY future mass effect lore has, as a base for a future set Multiplayer Game of some kind.

The days of RPG bioware are over. Its been walking dead since DA2 and ME3 ending is just that corpse finally falling over.

Stop living in denial

I don't believe it was their plan either.

That doesn't mean that they can't jump on the bandwagon and say it was their plan all along though ha.

I'd be fine with that.

If not then well...

RIP: Bioware     For me at least.

me to, we need to all stop staring at this Coffin and hoping bioware is going to jump out of it, Its not going to happen. The Bioware we knew 2 years ago, is dead.

This is just infinity ward all over again.

The sad part is, EA didn't kill Bioware.  They killed themselves when they "took a Dragon Age 2 to the knee".

They've been with EA since ME1 or longer.

They did this to themselves.

[legaldinho]

Every time I visit a thread criticising, finding flaws, or otherwise doubting the indoctrination theory, I come away totally disappointed- it's always plagued by bald assertion or poor reasoning. This one's the same.

There are flaws in the indoc theory, sure, but they are not insurmountable. And it doesn't save the ending. A true multiple interpretation type ending- like Total Recall's or Inception, would have made the actual ending make much more sense in its own right. And left the fanboys to argue whether it was true or whether an alternative interpretation- namely indoctrination- existed. Unfortunately here we're left with just indoctrination. It doesn't make Bioware geniuses. It doesn't save the ending from being poor. But it does mean they tried to do things differently from the typical choose-your-own ending, and for that they should be praised. It is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all.

[spychi]

All I am seeing is that they got lazy with choosing the endings and finishing them
We won't probably ever know how the development process and writing went through those past years ...and claiming that they are in control of the community, taking a breath and watching over might be also false

StarCraft 2 had the worst story made ever in the history of video gaming and I am talking about the expectations and the actual story ... and in the end nobody can say that blizzard didn't care about the story and it was just a rushed piece of **** because that claim is based on how you see it
from the point people sit or stand it's relative and until we see any official response lie or not lie it is official after all and must kill all the speculations we have and we are going to have for a long time in the future of BSN

tl:dr we need an official version on how to understand the endings or wait for the fix for it

Modifié par spychi, 21 mars 2012 - 02:05 .

[Jaze55]

Welcome back to reality.

[Fingertrip]

Why do you say the indoctrination theory doesn't fit, when you obviously haven't read anything about it? Just reading one paragraph was sufficient.

Or you're just blatanly trolling.

[Rohirrim]

GBGriffin wrote...

Rohirrim wrote...

- the recorring child in Shepard's mind and dreams (watch it closely being ignored by others)
- the treas and shrubs from his dreams after being struck by Harbinger (weren't there before)
- renegade and paragon colours mixed (give it some thoughts)
- Shepard only surviving when choosing the red option (think about it)
- the "oily" strands (ask the rachni queen about them)
- unlimited ammo in the gun (admittedly could be simply cinematic)
- shooting Anderson causes Shepard to bleed from the same spot he shot Anderson
- the beam moving up the humans leading straight to panel (ok, could be due to "shifting walls")
- the utter destruction of the plot of Mass Effect 1 (why Sovergein if you have Starchild on the C.?)

All this ONLY makes sense if the events after Harbinger's blast were hallucinations/ dreams/ indoctrination attempts.

OR if it was bad writing / execution as a result of a rushed product. That makes sense too. They rushed the product, cut some things while scrapping others, and we got an imperfect product.  Seriously, everything you've listed I can counter with "poor writing" or "bad design choice", and you cannot prove me wrong because both of our views are speculation at best.

Of course. However, if you have to counter several valid arguments with "bad design" or "poor writing", you are making a very valid point for requiring an overhaul to the ending. Personally, I don't care if the game continues after Shepard wakes up in the rubble or if we get an altogether new ending. But it has to be one or the other to make any sense of this mess.

[greywardencommander]

Trace007 wrote...

I like the indoctrination theory, but I think it loses steam after TIM's and Anderson's deaths. Firstly, I think it's very possible that Anderson could be teleported closer to the console than Shepard, and I think that has just as much credit as the indoctrination theory. Same goes for TIM's sudden arrival. I think around when Shepard kills Kai Lang, must be before the fight, TIM says he's going back to the Citadel. Plus, I believe that there wouldn't be a mention of the Citadel itself shifting if it wasn't critical info to understanding what's happening. I'd put my stake into other paths being opened, allowing the other characters to arrive unexpectedly just as much as the indoctrination theory.

Anyway, as I said I do like the indoc theory, but I think it loses steam after the other guy's deaths. If TIM represents the side of Shepard that is already indoctrinated, then symbolically, it only makes sense that when Shepard destroys TIM, he breaks his hold over the indoctrination. To say that "oh, but he's still indoctrinated" just seems silly to me. Plus, after that point, if your only option do break the indoc is to choose the destroy ending, that only limits my choices even more.

Now, I'm not just left with three choices, but only one choice, which is made while Shepard is delusional. This forces the player to think that destroying machines is the only way to go. The only following outcome would be Shepard realizing that he broke the indoc. "Well, that was lucky."

I say, if you want the indoctrination theory to be true, and don't get me wrong, it's an awesome theory, it should end before the meeting with the star child. If you want a different ending, something else completely would be better.

The idea is to present it as Shepard choosing between the three options, deliberately making it look like destroy is the worst option so he doesn't choose it. By choosing it, he wins the battle for his mind and wakes up still in London.

My post above gives a thread to my alternate way to make it work as a battle of the mind and wake up but allowing for people who chose synthesis and control, a reapers win ending and a happy ending plus lots of closure at the end through cut scenes. It also says that having a ME2 style tactic where your decision who does what etc can impact how many losses you take again.
http://social.biowar.../index/10350970

[tsd16]

Heres the deal, whether indoc is intended or not, its probably the "easiest" way for them to fix the endings. Because they can essentially chalk everything up after getting blasted by harbinger as all happening in your head, thus not real.

So what if after everyone gets blasted by harbinger the top brass say everyones dead. Apparently they were wrong about Shepard and Anderson. (and apparently the squadmates you took without on that push make it. I watched ashley step out of the normandy at the end.).

Seriously the simplest way to fix it is to go with the indoc theory. It at least makes that part of the game slightly cool and it can just pick up after you make your decision from whereever they deem the indoctrination episode occurred.

and Who says you cant "undoctrinate" yourself. Benezia came damn close to doing it, Its effing shepard he/she has a stronger will!

[Mcjon01]

Mbednar wrote...

I really hate that most arguments against the theory are quick one liners saying:

"Shut up"

or

"You're wrong"

How about some explanation as to why its wrong?  Other than the fact that its unlikely that they will do this.

I know it's wrong because I actually paid attention to the logs in the derelict Reaper and Arrival, and read Retribution, so I know that actual indoctrination doesn't resemble anything that happens to Shepard even a little bit.

[Encarmine]

legaldinho wrote...

Every time I visit a thread criticising, finding flaws, or otherwise doubting the indoctrination theory, I come away totally disappointed- it's always plagued by bald assertion or poor reasoning. This one's the same.

There are flaws in the indoc theory, sure, but they are not insurmountable. And it doesn't save the ending. A true multiple interpretation type ending- like Total Recall's or Inception, would have made the actual ending make much more sense in its own right. And left the fanboys to argue whether it was true or whether an alternative interpretation- namely indoctrination- existed. Unfortunately here we're left with just indoctrination. It doesn't make Bioware geniuses. It doesn't save the ending from being poor. But it does mean they tried to do things differently from the typical choose-your-own ending, and for that they should be praised. It is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all.

nah, im sorry, untill Bioware come out and say 'yeah we wrote the most backward story ever, indoc is true' then im going to assume, quite rightly, that the indoc theory, is for people who just cant accept the truth. Bioware broke your game, and by the looks of it, your reality.

I do feel sorry for those who have gotten too far into the world. It must be soul destroying.

Im just so glad HBO is releasing Game of Thrones next month, theres a fantastic story i cant wait to enjoy  

[GBGriffin]

spychi wrote...

All I am seeing is that they got lazy with choosing the endings and finishing them
We won't probably ever know and claiming that they are in control of the community, taking a breath and watching over might be also false

StarCraft 2 had the worst story made ever in the history of video gaming and I am talking about the expectations and the actual story ... and in the end nobody can say that blizzard didn't care about the story and it was just a rushed piece of **** because that claim is based on how you see it
from the point people sit or stand it's relative and until we see any official response lie or not lie it is official after all and must kill all the speculations we have and we are going to have for a long time in the future of BSN

Actually, have you heard about the current FF XIII-2 debacle? Talk about an awful ending. In some ways, they actually got it worse than we did. We got a poor ending, and they literally got a "to be continued" + an announcement that there will be DLC.

[dointime85]

Mcjon01 wrote...

dointime85 wrote...

Well, no, that has been Bioware who wrote the Codex in ME3 so that it fits to what we witness.

But it doesn't.

How does it not fit?

[Mbednar]

spychi wrote...

All I am seeing is that they got lazy with choosing the endings and finishing them
We won't probably ever know and claiming that they are in control of the community, taking a breath and watching over might be also false

StarCraft 2 had the worst story made ever in the history of video gaming and I am talking about the expectations and the actual story ... and in the end nobody can say that blizzard didn't care about the story and it was just a rushed piece of **** because that claim is based on how you see it
from the point people sit or stand it's relative and until we see any official response lie or not lie it is official after all and must kill all the speculations we have and we are going to have for a long time in the future of BSN

I think that nobody cares about the SC2 story because everyone that plays SC2, is too busy playing online to care.

No one will be writing tales of the grand design of Mass Effect 3's multiplayer in the future.  I can tell you that much lol.  So the single player campaign takes a huge hit in ME3, for good reason.

[GBGriffin]

Rohirrim wrote...

Of course. However, if you have to counter several valid arguments with "bad design" or "poor writing", you are making a very valid point for requiring an overhaul to the ending.

Well...yeah. They need to fix it or, at the very least, address it directly. As Shep says, "On that, we can agree."

My solution is to expand the current endings. There's no need for indoctrination theory if they just work to make the present endings make sense and expand on them with a wider range of choices.

[spychi]

GBGriffin wrote...

spychi wrote...

All I am seeing is that they got lazy with choosing the endings and finishing them
We won't probably ever know and claiming that they are in control of the community, taking a breath and watching over might be also false

StarCraft 2 had the worst story made ever in the history of video gaming and I am talking about the expectations and the actual story ... and in the end nobody can say that blizzard didn't care about the story and it was just a rushed piece of **** because that claim is based on how you see it
from the point people sit or stand it's relative and until we see any official response lie or not lie it is official after all and must kill all the speculations we have and we are going to have for a long time in the future of BSN

Actually, have you heard about the current FF XIII-2 debacle? Talk about an awful ending. In some ways, they actually got it worse than we did. We got a poor ending, and they literally got a "to be continued" + an announcement that there will be DLC.

Nah, never was interested in those kind of games ...seeing how we've got it I can imagine that it was a disaster
and Japan that is known from their fanbase and a high % of people commiting sucide it might be even worst

[Jaze55]

Anyone that wants to know why it doesnt fit just see here

http://social.biowar...695/19#10352787

I laid it all out for you.

[JrSlackin]

GBGriffin wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

The current ending is far less possible.

Why though? I don't see why it's so hard to accept that they rushed the product rather than buy into a massive conspiracy that is, as of right now, 100% fan-made. 

Seriously. Indoctrination theory is a fan theory, one that seeks to make sense of the plotholes and inconsistencies. BioWare has neither confirmed or denied it, but they've acknowledged that an indoctrination mechanic was on the table before being scrapped.

At this point, both are entirely possible. People seem hellbent on proving the indoctrination theory or disproving it, but you simply can't. An argument in one camp is just as valid as an argument in another because it is pure speculation vs pure speculation. Without any word or input for BioWare, none of us know if this is planned or not.

Yes, I believe they made a mistake and launched the ending as is. I went from beleiving in the theory to dismissing it after Final Hours, but I understand the need to explain all of that away. 

If indoctrination theory works for you and keeps you holding the line, then believe in it. If it doesn't, then make your peace with the fact they launched a game with a poor ending. At this point, what no one seems to want to admit is that those are both entirely valid. There's no need to pick fights with one another over a theory vs another theory.

^This^

It's becoming tiresome of people shooting down one another for their opinions. Theories are theories. Perfect example is Who shot first, Han or Greedo. Was in debate for AGES until recently Lucas came out and said "Greedo shot first". Until Bioware comes out and says "yes this is how it is" or doesn't say anything at all, then there we have it.

[Mbednar]

Mcjon01 wrote...

Mbednar wrote...

I really hate that most arguments against the theory are quick one liners saying:

"Shut up"

or

"You're wrong"

How about some explanation as to why its wrong?  Other than the fact that its unlikely that they will do this.

I know it's wrong because I actually paid attention to the logs in the derelict Reaper and Arrival, and read Retribution, so I know that actual indoctrination doesn't resemble anything that happens to Shepard even a little bit.

Indoctrination can take a variety of different forms though.  AND can take a variable amount of time.

AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT BIOWARE IS INTENDING THIS.  MAYBE THEY WERE AT ONE POINT AND THEN SCRAPPED IT.

Just want you to know I'm not a crazy person hanging on to the hope that its true still lol.

Still, like I said, Bioware COULD make believe they were planning this anyway and just run with it.  Just sayin.

[moater boat]

The points you made, 2-4 SUPPORT the indoctrination theory, and hint that Shepard is on the ground in London, and all of that is happening in his head. I honestly don't understand what you are getting at.

[GBGriffin]

spychi wrote...


Nah, never was interested in those kind of games ...seeing how we've got it I can imagine that it was a disaster
and Japan that is known from their fanbase and a high % of people commiting sucide it might be even worst

I personally gave up on the series after X, but gave XIII a chance and was disappointed. I was actually considering buying FF XIII-2 for a few days or so because it fixed many of the issues, but to end a game, an hours and hours long JRPG, with a "to be continued"...damn.

[legaldinho]

Encarmine wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

Every time I visit a thread criticising, finding flaws, or otherwise doubting the indoctrination theory, I come away totally disappointed- it's always plagued by bald assertion or poor reasoning. This one's the same.

There are flaws in the indoc theory, sure, but they are not insurmountable. And it doesn't save the ending. A true multiple interpretation type ending- like Total Recall's or Inception, would have made the actual ending make much more sense in its own right. And left the fanboys to argue whether it was true or whether an alternative interpretation- namely indoctrination- existed. Unfortunately here we're left with just indoctrination. It doesn't make Bioware geniuses. It doesn't save the ending from being poor. But it does mean they tried to do things differently from the typical choose-your-own ending, and for that they should be praised. It is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all.

nah, im sorry, untill Bioware come out and say 'yeah we wrote the most backward story ever, indoc is true' then im going to assume, quite rightly, that the indoc theory, is for people who just cant accept the truth. Bioware broke your game, and by the looks of it, your reality.

I do feel sorry for those who have gotten too far into the world. It must be soul destroying.

Im just so glad HBO is releasing Game of Thrones next month, theres a fantastic story i cant wait to enjoy  

You're going to assume wrong, then: I just told you I think they failed with the ending, and I believe in the indoctrination theory. The ending had to work- "the truth" as you call it should have been believable. To compensate, the hints about indoctrination should have been stronger. Rather than stick "warning" "danger" and "caution" in scenery over the Godchild, rather than make Anderson look at the camera when saying "you're indoctrinated", have whispers ringing in shep's ear in the final dreamlike sequence, have the downed reaper tell you Harbinger told him you "resist" but will fail etc etc, they should have made it a bit more obvious. Gamers are simple beasts and they need less nuanced clues. That's why Bioware "broke" the game. In a way though, I salute their optimism. The medium and its fans just aren't ready for something so subtle. If there is DLC on the way, it may make more sense: they were after making some money. I predict 1200 points...

edit- if you hate endings, then GoT is going to be perfect for you...

Modifié par legaldinho, 21 mars 2012 - 02:12 .

[spychi]

JrSlackin wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

Unit-Alpha wrote...

The current ending is far less possible.

Why though? I don't see why it's so hard to accept that they rushed the product rather than buy into a massive conspiracy that is, as of right now, 100% fan-made. 

Seriously. Indoctrination theory is a fan theory, one that seeks to make sense of the plotholes and inconsistencies. BioWare has neither confirmed or denied it, but they've acknowledged that an indoctrination mechanic was on the table before being scrapped.

At this point, both are entirely possible. People seem hellbent on proving the indoctrination theory or disproving it, but you simply can't. An argument in one camp is just as valid as an argument in another because it is pure speculation vs pure speculation. Without any word or input for BioWare, none of us know if this is planned or not.

Yes, I believe they made a mistake and launched the ending as is. I went from beleiving in the theory to dismissing it after Final Hours, but I understand the need to explain all of that away. 

If indoctrination theory works for you and keeps you holding the line, then believe in it. If it doesn't, then make your peace with the fact they launched a game with a poor ending. At this point, what no one seems to want to admit is that those are both entirely valid. There's no need to pick fights with one another over a theory vs another theory.

^This^

It's becoming tiresome of people shooting down one another for their opinions. Theories are theories. Perfect example is Who shot first, Han or Greedo. Was in debate for AGES until recently Lucas came out and said "Greedo shot first". Until Bioware comes out and says "yes this is how it is" or doesn't say anything at all, then there we have it.

Exactly my point
Until we see some kind of official response on those endings or a fix/dlc we can speculate as much as we can but that will never make it true and some people here (as much as I am not just bashing the idea) are being overzealous in order to keep themselfs happy and allowing them to headcanon what they want 
I don't disapprove but seriously as much as I want the endings to be fixed and fanfic is ok to me, let's not loose our minds over this
it's all relative

Modifié par spychi, 21 mars 2012 - 02:15 .

[Rohirrim]

GBGriffin wrote...

Rohirrim wrote...

Of course. However, if you have to counter several valid arguments with "bad design" or "poor writing", you are making a very valid point for requiring an overhaul to the ending.

Well...yeah. They need to fix it or, at the very least, address it directly. As Shep says, "On that, we can agree."

My solution is to expand the current endings. There's no need for indoctrination theory if they just work to make the present endings make sense and expand on them with a wider range of choices.

Fine with me! As long as we get a sense of closure and answers to some questions, I'll be happy. Most importantly, I want more info on Starchild and its inexplicable reliance on Sovereign.

Given all the points in favour of indoctrination, I'm starting to think that Bioware planned on using it but than decided otherwise due to time constraints. As they had to rush, maybe they forgot to edit some elements (such as the trees and shrubs and Shepard wound after shooting Anderson etc).

[theflyingzamboni]

GBGriffin wrote...

I guess, if anything, what I'd like to get across is this:

You have your opinion and I have mine, and at this present time, both are valid because both are pure speculation.

As for them applying it...I honestly don't know how I'd feel about it. I think it'd be convenient for them because the fans basically wrote it out for them and it would appease a lot of people, but what about those who currently like the ending? For indoctrination theory to work, imo, it needs post-game DLC where Shep "wakes up"...but, at present, that's only even barely hinted at through the Destroy ending. If it stays as is, players would be forced to pick Destroy to wake up...otherwise, what, they become indoctrinated and it's game over?

TL;DR: It'd be easy for them to implement it, but it wouldn't be perfect. I'd personally just like to see them stick with the ending as is and expand on it, give more options or a chance to argue the logic, and those choices coudld springboard into a wider range of endings, from letting the Reapers win to walking away into the sunset.

It would be optional, so those who like the endings as is would simply not download the alternative. Which means even MORE variation in how people's games end, which I think is awesome.

If you don't choose destroy, they could replace the ending sequences with ones letting you know that Shepard was indoctrinated. Maybe if your EMS is high enough, someone has to kill the indoctrinated Shepard and the Reapers can still be defeated. Like how Joker talks to TIM at the end of ME2 if Shepard dies. If it's too low, the Reapers win. If you pick Destroy, you wake up and get the extended ending. It's not perfect, but I personally think it'squite good, and I would enjoy it.

As for having it be real, but giving Shepard more options to argue the logic, I'd be okay with that too. That would be satisfactory as well. Why I would prefer Indoctrination is there is trippiness to the ending that I cannot unsee, for one. Mainly, though, it's that I think the Reapers make better antagonists when they are at the pinnacle, and this ending would still canonize the Starchild as creator of the Reapers, as well as his bizarre motivations. Much cooler to my mind if the Starchild is a deception by Harbinger, and his reasons a lie. But if they did it like this and provided better resolutions, I wouldn't think it was fantastic, but I'd be satisfied.