564 réponses à ce sujet

[Leafs43]

Capeo wrote...


Utter BS on the first part.  The starchild does NOT say Shep will die in the Destroy ending.  I will quote the script if you need me too.  What he does say is that Shep WILL DIE FOR SURE in the other two choices.  How the hell you see that as pushing him away from destroy is beyond me.  And stop talking like Mordin.  That's nuttier than IT.

Shpherd will die without his synthetic implants.

His entire head is one large synthetic implant.

[Jaze55]

dreman9999 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Turran wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

In addition to the fact that they neither confirmed, nor denied, that the ending interpretation  is or is not indoctrination. They are happy with the current endings, which, in IT, is indoctrination, and for others the metaphysical explanation the star child gives.

All this confirms is that they are happy with the ending, not what the ending really was.

I agree with this.

Did you see this tweet?

@[/s]socrates92[/b] Both Casey and Ray's statements say we will release additional content to address questions, not necessarily alter anything. 

Did you read the statements?

Geez you need to get a grip on reality. Remember reality? 

I still don't get your point MassEffected555.

It doesn't say anywhere that Indoc Theory is wrong, along with that, it doesn't say anywhere that it is right. Along with all the statements and such.
It says they arn't changing the ending? Indoc isn't about a new ending it is about reading into the current one and waiting for them to possible expand upon it, not alter it. So that almost makes you sound a little silly.

I don't know, I might of missed something, but I can't see anyone saying Indoc Theory is right or wrong, so the theory still stands as a valid theory. 

Apparently you did miss something.  Ray clearly stated these are the real endings.  Thus, no IT.  The most we'll get is "clarification" which will probably be a comic or something or, if we're lucky, some epilogues.

But he did not say that their not more coming to the ending. If the indoctrination theory is right, they are just going to start the rest ofthe story from Shepwaking up fromthe dream. That all that's need to add more tothe story.

Again, you clearly don't know the lore.

If Shep got indoctrinated that rapidly where he hallucinated that entire scene, he is a goner. 

NO other way about it. He would be braindead after. 

That's the lore of the game, and your theory breaks it.

Simple as that. 

Modifié par MassEffected555, 21 mars 2012 - 06:00 .

[booboo645]

Capeo wrote...

{smilie}

They confirmed the endings happen as shown. What is depicted is what happens. All three choices are equally real in the game world. None of them are indoctrination.

Sure.. the dream happens.. as is depicted. But then.. you wake up.. cause it's just dreaming after all. Care to explain how we end up on Earth and take a nice deep breath if we were in space on something which exploded, esp when we were meant to frazzle too... interesting huh?

*speculate*

[DreamTension]

I will give credit to Bioware for the Indoctrination theory even if they didn't originally plan on doing it.
They could come out and say, "yes, we planned this" and I would absolutely believe them.
Just please do it Bioware!

[Vromrig]

Utter BS on the first part. The starchild does NOT say Shep will die in the Destroy ending. I will quote the script if you need me too. What he does say is that Shep WILL DIE FOR SURE in the other two choices. How the hell you see that as pushing him away from destroy is beyond me. And stop talking like Mordin. That's nuttier than IT.

Seen script. Outcome quite clear. All synthetics will die. Emphasis on "new friends", Geth. Drives home point of guilt. Then reminds you of partial synthesis.  Makes clear death will follow due to lack of synthesis.

Other outcomes told to be more hopeful. Concept that Shepard will "live on" in everything. Hope for form of nihilistic immortality.

lol I think I would talk to you for hours if I ever met you IRL and you were able to pull off Moradin or Garrus.

Good stuff. Your Moradin typing is spot on though.

Pleasant to talk to. Good comraderie, builds community cohesion, eases tension. Aim to please.

Rarely sing, though.

Modifié par Vromrig, 21 mars 2012 - 06:01 .

[Fiannawolf]

Bioware should just roll with it since indoc theory makes more sense then what we were given at facevalue. Too many plotholes otherwise.

That way they still keep the ending the dev team likes and gives those of us who want closure the things we need.

Modifié par Fiannawolf, 21 mars 2012 - 06:02 .

[N7L4D]

still very hopeful

[Turran]

dreman9999 wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Indoctrination theory is not in any way debunked by today's statements.

In fact the indoctrination theory requires the endings to stay the same.

Exactly.

Yeah, this is exactly it... 

So really.. People cheering at the 'Indoc Theory being proven wrong', I am sorry to say, you are wrong and the theory is going to still be around until said otherwise. 

[Baelyn]

Capeo wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

In addition to the fact that they neither confirmed, nor denied, that the ending interpretation  is or is not indoctrination. They are happy with the current endings, which, in IT, is indoctrination, and for others the metaphysical explanation the star child gives.

All this confirms is that they are happy with the ending, not what the ending really was.

They confirmed the endings happen as shown.  What is depicted is what happens.  All three choices are equally real in the game world.  None of them are indoctrination.

You are missing the point here. Both sides say what is depicted happens. Its just the IT says the reason these things happen is because of IT. Its called an interpretation.

Also, point to a specific quote that says all 3 choices are what happens in the game world. You cannot. You will point to some Bioware employee saying that they are happy with the ending. Which, in effect, says nothing to your point, because that is all that has been said.

Even the thing you like to point to the most, the Final Hours app, says right on the development notes "lots of speculation for everyone." This very statement says they intended the ending to not just be taken at face value.

Its fine if you do not want to believe in this theory, but do not try to shove it down other's throats, thats not right on either side. (and from what I have seen, the majority of the "throat-shovers" have been people arguing against IT)

[dreman9999]

MassEffected555 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Turran wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

In addition to the fact that they neither confirmed, nor denied, that the ending interpretation  is or is not indoctrination. They are happy with the current endings, which, in IT, is indoctrination, and for others the metaphysical explanation the star child gives.

All this confirms is that they are happy with the ending, not what the ending really was.

I agree with this.

Did you see this tweet?

@[/s]socrates92[/b] Both Casey and Ray's statements say we will release additional content to address questions, not necessarily alter anything. 

Did you read the statements?

Geez you need to get a grip on reality. Remember reality? 

I still don't get your point MassEffected555.

It doesn't say anywhere that Indoc Theory is wrong, along with that, it doesn't say anywhere that it is right. Along with all the statements and such.
It says they arn't changing the ending? Indoc isn't about a new ending it is about reading into the current one and waiting for them to possible expand upon it, not alter it. So that almost makes you sound a little silly.

I don't know, I might of missed something, but I can't see anyone saying Indoc Theory is right or wrong, so the theory still stands as a valid theory. 

Apparently you did miss something.  Ray clearly stated these are the real endings.  Thus, no IT.  The most we'll get is "clarification" which will probably be a comic or something or, if we're lucky, some epilogues.

But he did not say that their not more coming to the ending. If the indoctrination theory is right, they are just going to start the rest ofthe story from Shepwaking up fromthe dream. That all that's need to add more tothe story.

Again, you clearly don't know the lore.

If Shep got indoctrinated that rapidly where he hallucinated that entire scene, he is a goner. 

NO other way about it. He would be braindead after. 

That's the lore of the game, and your theory breaks it.

Simple as that. 

Again, object rho in the  arrival mission.

[Myskal1981]

Vromrig wrote...

Please by all means outline your actual arguments and proof. Listen i get it, you like mordin. I like mordin too. If you are going to outline your arguments properly please please type normal. If you have some persona thing going and it means you have to do it by pm to do it normally then do it my pm.

Explain how the statement by catalyst contradict. Explain these npc dialogue mistakes. etc etc.

Unsure how position is unclear.

Catalyst says Shepard will die if choosing option most harmful to Reapers. Shepard in fact only lives if choosing this option. NPC looking in direction of Shepard states that Shepard is not alive, despite showdown with Marauder Shields. Anderson fails to visibly react to being shot in gut. Death suspicious. Not hard evidence, but curious.

Choices not detrimental to Reapers align with goals given to previous Indoctrination victims. Catalyst argument that Reapers are in fact saviors contradictory to Reaper testimony and previous actions. Promises of destruction, annihilation. Arrogance and near hatred, not goal to defend from synthetics.

Also contradictory. Synthetics shown more compassionate than organics throughout series.  Further, Reapers enlist aid of synthetics for destruction of organics.  Contradiction too blatant to ignore.

The kid does not say Shepard will die when choosing destroy.
Actual conversation is like this:
Kid: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want.
Kid: Including the Geth.
Kid: Even you are partly synthetic.

Of course you can interpret it as Shepard will die, but it is clearly stated throughout the game that Shepard is mainly organic, sustained by synthetic parts.

[Ukjack44]

**** this **** I shall lay down some truth
There are 3 main group of fans
A) Leave the ending as I thought it was good
Change the ending NOWWWW!
C) Leave the ending how it was but give us that add on you cheeky BioWare you!

They didnt want the ending to be renegade or paragon like mass effect 2. Paragon, Renegades, Paragades, you would of received the same ending because your actions only mattered in the sense of how you wanted to finish the fight. Control, join or destroy. I don't care if you believe in Indoctrination or not the fact of the matter is the ending didn't feel real. A company such as BioWare doesn't write a script then give up at the end like that leaving massive plot holes. Those "Plot holes" are designed in such a way to make you think hang on something is going off here. But no instead of being like ooooo there is a mystery I must solve we all got lazy and went WTF BioWare GIVE US AN ENDING.

They did give us an ending wether or not they will finish it or be lazy themselves and let us make up the ending in out heads I don't know. All I know is if you follow the game and look at every detail Indoctrination just kicks you in the face.

Edit: People are arguing for the sake of arguing but the fact of the matter is if you chose Control or Sythesise without realising what was really going off then you yourself are indoctrinated. The ending is only bittersweet if you have no idea what is really happening.

Modifié par Ukjack44, 21 mars 2012 - 06:07 .

[Vromrig]

Again, you clearly don't know the lore.

If Shep got indoctrinated that rapidly where he hallucinated that entire scene, he is a goner.

NO other way about it. He would be braindead after.

That's the lore of the game, and your theory breaks it.

Simple as that.

Continue to ignore arguments. Unfair to people giving you time of day. No one has argued that Shepard becomes fully indoctrinated. Malicious misrepresentation.

The kid does not say Shepard will die when choosing destroy.
Actual conversation is like this:
Kid: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want.
Kid: Including the Geth.
Kid: Even you are partly synthetic.

Of course you can interpret it as Shepard will die, but it is clearly stated throughout the game that Shepard is mainly organic, sustained by synthetic parts.  

Becoming point of semantics.  Further, Shepard cannot exist without sustenance.  If sustained by Synthetics, absence of synthetics will result in death.  Simple logic.

Modifié par Vromrig, 21 mars 2012 - 06:04 .

[CrisisOne]

dreman9999 wrote...

CrisisOne wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

CrisisOne wrote...

I still don't see the point in indoctrinating Shepard, when the reapers had the galaxy practically under their control, had the citadel, and Shepard's assembled fleets now in one place ready to be picked off. And even if the fleets actually manage to take out most of them the reapers would just call in more to come in through the relay behind them. To me indoctrinating at this point seems like a waste of time.

The crucible...The rason why they want to control Shep is to stop the crusible and find all info about it so they can make sure the info does not get into future races hands.

But they wouldn't need Shepard for that would they?, It would make more sense to capture the engineers who worked and built the thing rather then focusing on one soilder, If I was a reaper my main target would be the escort ships of the crucible and the crucible itself.

But it would be best to have an infiltrator as effective as Shepard. Also, they don't have a way to get to an engineer any way. How would they if for the entire game the engineers have been away from reaper tech? They don't just magicly indoctrinate someone.

That's true,  just trying to see this from a reaper perspective. I'm not against Indoc theory it was just this kind of question that bugged me about it. I know shepard's actions have definitly grabbed the reapers attention but you would think that shepard would be a "want" and not a "need", he's friends have proven almost just as capable like garrus, and hell liara's the shadow broker, she'd definitly a prime target as well.

[van Zero]

MassEffected555 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Turran wrote...

MassEffected555 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Baelyn wrote...

In addition to the fact that they neither confirmed, nor denied, that the ending interpretation  is or is not indoctrination. They are happy with the current endings, which, in IT, is indoctrination, and for others the metaphysical explanation the star child gives.

All this confirms is that they are happy with the ending, not what the ending really was.

I agree with this.

Did you see this tweet?

@[/s]socrates92[/b] Both Casey and Ray's statements say we will release additional content to address questions, not necessarily alter anything. 

Did you read the statements?

Geez you need to get a grip on reality. Remember reality? 

I still don't get your point MassEffected555.

It doesn't say anywhere that Indoc Theory is wrong, along with that, it doesn't say anywhere that it is right. Along with all the statements and such.
It says they arn't changing the ending? Indoc isn't about a new ending it is about reading into the current one and waiting for them to possible expand upon it, not alter it. So that almost makes you sound a little silly.

I don't know, I might of missed something, but I can't see anyone saying Indoc Theory is right or wrong, so the theory still stands as a valid theory. 

Apparently you did miss something.  Ray clearly stated these are the real endings.  Thus, no IT.  The most we'll get is "clarification" which will probably be a comic or something or, if we're lucky, some epilogues.

But he did not say that their not more coming to the ending. If the indoctrination theory is right, they are just going to start the rest ofthe story from Shepwaking up fromthe dream. That all that's need to add more tothe story.

Again, you clearly don't know the lore.

If Shep got indoctrinated that rapidly where he hallucinated that entire scene, he is a goner. 

NO other way about it. He would be braindead after. 

That's the lore of the game, and your theory breaks it.

Simple as that. 

The indoctrination began lot earlier before the harbinger beam, did you even watch the video? Please do that.

[dreman9999]

Myskal1981 wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

Please by all means outline your actual arguments and proof. Listen i get it, you like mordin. I like mordin too. If you are going to outline your arguments properly please please type normal. If you have some persona thing going and it means you have to do it by pm to do it normally then do it my pm.

Explain how the statement by catalyst contradict. Explain these npc dialogue mistakes. etc etc.

Unsure how position is unclear.

Catalyst says Shepard will die if choosing option most harmful to Reapers. Shepard in fact only lives if choosing this option. NPC looking in direction of Shepard states that Shepard is not alive, despite showdown with Marauder Shields. Anderson fails to visibly react to being shot in gut. Death suspicious. Not hard evidence, but curious.

Choices not detrimental to Reapers align with goals given to previous Indoctrination victims. Catalyst argument that Reapers are in fact saviors contradictory to Reaper testimony and previous actions. Promises of destruction, annihilation. Arrogance and near hatred, not goal to defend from synthetics.

Also contradictory. Synthetics shown more compassionate than organics throughout series.  Further, Reapers enlist aid of synthetics for destruction of organics.  Contradiction too blatant to ignore.

The kid does not say Shepard will die when choosing destroy.
Actual conversation is like this:
Kid: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want.
Kid: Including the Geth.
Kid: Even you are partly synthetic.

Of course you can interpret it as Shepard will die, but it is clearly stated throughout the game that Shepard is mainly organic, sustained by synthetic parts.

But Shepardis only alive because of his synthetic parts. If it's gone...He dies.

[Capeo]

RavenEyry wrote...

Capeo started out debating rather sensibly but is now putting words in Ray's mouth. I need to read the article again because I seemed to miss the bit where he said "The endings are exactly as you see them with no funny business whatsoever"

As co-founder and GM of BioWare, I’m very proud of the ME3 team; I personally believe Mass Effect 3 is the best work we’ve yet created. So, it’s incredibly painful to receive feedback from our core fans that the game’s endings were not up to their expectations. 

That clearly states the endings are exactly what they wanted and intended.  Which I think would be obvious as no studio would ever release an incomplete game.  It also should be obvious since the damn game outright tells you you defeated the Reapers.

Mass Effect 3 concludes a trilogy with so much player control and ownership of the story that it was hard for us to predict the range of emotions players would feel when they finished playing through it.  
The journey you undertake in Mass Effect provokes an intense range of highly personal emotions in the player; even so, the passionate reaction of some of our most loyal players to the current endings in Mass Effect 3 is something that has genuinely surprised us.  

Concludes the trilogy.  Finshed playing through it.  That's finality.  You can't be surprised by the reaction to something you didn't intend.

Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey. You’ll hear more on this in April.  We’re working hard to maintain the right balance between the artistic integrity of the original story while addressing the fan feedback we’ve received. 

Artistic integrity of the ORIGINAL STORY.  The intended story which they are not going retcom but instead provide some "clarity" and "closure".

On one hand, some of our loyal fans are passionately expressing their displeasure about how their game concluded; we care about this feedback, and we’re planning to directly address it. However, most folks appear to agree that the game as a whole is exceptional, with more than 75 critics giving it a perfect review score and a review average in the mid-90s. 

Concluded.  Meaning finished.  As in what we intended.  He also wouldn't be defending the endings by appealing to review scores if the game hadn't actually ended.

[Vromrig]

But Shepardis only alive because of his synthetic parts. If it's gone...He dies.

Emphasis placed on Shepard and Geth, newfound friends, when highlighting negatives of destruction choice. Important point to note.

[CavScout]

Capeo wrote...

Vromrig wrote...

Please by all means outline your actual arguments and proof. Listen i get it, you like mordin. I like mordin too. If you are going to outline your arguments properly please please type normal. If you have some persona thing going and it means you have to do it by pm to do it normally then do it my pm.

Explain how the statement by catalyst contradict. Explain these npc dialogue mistakes. etc etc.

Unsure how position is unclear.

Catalyst says Shepard will die if choosing option most harmful to Reapers. Shepard in fact only lives if choosing this option. NPC looking in direction of Shepard states that Shepard is not alive, despite showdown with Marauder Shields. Anderson fails to visibly react to being shot in gut. Death suspicious. Not hard evidence, but curious.

Choices not detrimental to Reapers align with goals given to previous Indoctrination victims. Catalyst argument that Reapers are in fact saviors contradictory to Reaper testimony and previous actions. Promises of destruction, annihilation. Arrogance and near hatred, not goal to defend from synthetics.

Also contradictory. Synthetics shown more compassionate than organics throughout series.  Further, Reapers enlist aid of synthetics for destruction of organics.  Contradiction too blatant to ignore.

Utter BS on the first part.  The starchild does NOT say Shep will die in the Destroy ending.  I will quote the script if you need me too.  What he does say is that Shep WILL DIE FOR SURE in the other two choices.  How the hell you see that as pushing him away from destroy is beyond me.  And stop talking like Mordin.  That's nuttier than IT.

More importantly, the "Shep beats Indoctrination" ending is the only ending offered if you have low EMS. So the less effective your fleet is to handle the reapers the more willing they are to let you automatically beat indoctrination.

But the Indoctrination Theory is an unfalsifiable theory so they'll tell you the meaning of the destroy option changes as need to support the Indoctrination Theory.

[morganix]

First off, I'd just like to say that this is the first response that didn't completely brush off the fans and actually addressed the fact that the ending might have been disappointing. I'm glad to see Bioware take the issue seriously and actually listen to and respond appropriately and with humility.

As for the ending. I really do hope they run with the indoctrination theory. I like the direction it takes and it makes a lot more sense to me.

[Jaze55]

Vromrig wrote...

Again, you clearly don't know the lore.

If Shep got indoctrinated that rapidly where he hallucinated that entire scene, he is a goner.

NO other way about it. He would be braindead after.

That's the lore of the game, and your theory breaks it.

Simple as that.

Continue to ignore arguments. Unfair to people giving you time of day. No one has argued that Shepard becomes fully indoctrinated. Malicious misrepresentation.

The kid does not say Shepard will die when choosing destroy.
Actual conversation is like this:
Kid: You can wipe out all synthetic life if you want.
Kid: Including the Geth.
Kid: Even you are partly synthetic.

Of course you can interpret it as Shepard will die, but it is clearly stated throughout the game that Shepard is mainly organic, sustained by synthetic parts.  

Becoming point of semantics.  Further, Shepard cannot exist without sustenance.  If sustained by Synthetics, absence of synthetics will result in death.  Simple logic.

I am having a hard time responding to you lol. I keep trying to type back in your style but I don't want to butcher it.

The games and books(i didnt read the books but I have been told by people that have) say you can't break indoc. There is no attempt. They just indoctrinate you.

So what I am saying is Shepard can not be attempted to be indoctrinated, according to the lore and mechanics of the ME universe. So he would have BEEN indoctrinated if he hallucinated all that garbage(it was garbage) at the end.

So when your theory ends, all that we can be left with, again, according to ALL the ME lore and mechancs, we are left with a brain dead shepard.


I assume you have played all the games. You should know everything I said above it true. Never in the history of the game has ANYONE denied or beaten Indoctrination, for more then a minute or 2, besidesd Shiala and that was only because of the Thorium plant which linked the colonies minds together. You can check for yourself if you google Shiala and read the Wiki, or just play ME2 again. Get to Illium, go to where you buy the star charts from the Asari and Shiali will tell you this herself if you saved her in ME1. 


Edit for the bottom part of the quote - More sloppy writing on BW's part. They do NOT specifically say Shepard will die from the destroy ending, but they DO strongly IMPLY it. And since at the start of ME2 they show a nice CGI of Shepards spine being repaired with tech. So if not dead, paralyzed. GOOD JOB BW GOOD JOB. 

Modifié par MassEffected555, 21 mars 2012 - 06:13 .

[CavScout]

Vromrig wrote...

Seen script. Outcome quite clear. All synthetics will die. Emphasis on "new friends", Geth. Drives home point of guilt. Then reminds you of partial synthesis.  Makes clear death will follow due to lack of synthesis.

Shep is not a synthetic.

The AI/VI doesn't say Shep will die and more importantly, depending on choices Shep doesn't die.

[Capeo]

Leafs43 wrote...

Capeo wrote...


Utter BS on the first part.  The starchild does NOT say Shep will die in the Destroy ending.  I will quote the script if you need me too.  What he does say is that Shep WILL DIE FOR SURE in the other two choices.  How the hell you see that as pushing him away from destroy is beyond me.  And stop talking like Mordin.  That's nuttier than IT.

Shpherd will die without his synthetic implants.

His entire head is one large synthetic implant.

WTF are you talking about?  No it's not.  He has implants, that's it.  He's not a cyborg.  When he's revived it clearly shows his FLESH being revived, not replaced with cyborg parts.  Billions of people in the ME universe have implants.

When the star child mentions he's partly synthetic he's talking about how he shares something in common with the Geth.  No that he'd die.  

[I Soya I]

Capeo wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Capeo wrote...


Utter BS on the first part.  The starchild does NOT say Shep will die in the Destroy ending.  I will quote the script if you need me too.  What he does say is that Shep WILL DIE FOR SURE in the other two choices.  How the hell you see that as pushing him away from destroy is beyond me.  And stop talking like Mordin.  That's nuttier than IT.

Shpherd will die without his synthetic implants.

His entire head is one large synthetic implant.

WTF are you talking about?  No it's not.  He has implants, that's it.  He's not a cyborg.  When he's revived it clearly shows his FLESH being revived, not replaced with cyborg parts.  Billions of people in the ME universe have implants.

When the star child mentions he's partly synthetic he's talking about how he shares something in common with the Geth.  No that he'd die.  

Billions of people have biotic implants. Not brought back from the dead implants -.- and yes, half your face is synthetic. That's why it glows orange.

[booboo645]

MassEffected555 wrote...


I assume you have played all the games. You should know everything I said above it true. Never in the history of the game has ANYONE denied or beaten Indoctrination, for more then a minute or 2, besidesd Shiala and that was only because of the Thorium plant which linked the colonies minds together. You can check for yourself if you google Shiala and read the Wiki, or just play ME2 again. Get to Illium, go to where you buy the star charts from the Asari and Shiali will tell you this herself if you saved her in ME1. 

Indoctrination was carried through some sort of pulse thing right...? So assuming that you are progressing at a pace, similar to say Saren or TIM. Assume you kill reapers... = no pulse from reaper tech to further make it worse? That or yeah.. everything ends the same. But makes more sense when the scenes play out. You're Shepard remember.. Liara is constantly hinting at how strong you are... we beat everything else... I'm hopeful.