564 réponses à ce sujet

[D58]

They should have just gone with it even if they didnt come up with the idea and save face,but i guess they actualy dont look at the forums as much as they claim to have passed up an amazing idea like indoc theory

[dreman9999]

lynch108 wrote...

Yeah, still a believer in indoctrination theory. They decided to make the announcement at PAX and they're sticking to it. They're holding their own line. All this is delaying tactics to appease fans until announcement. I'm going to be stubborn about this. I just can't buy that their writers fumbled on the one yard line.

I'm betting they had a plan to do this all along but had to say something to calm the angry because it was getting too heated.
It is a delay tactic because they don't want to tell the fans what theyare really doing outright.

[N7Raider]

tobito113 wrote...

nupfi wrote...

Nevermind. Just go with the indoc. theory. It would be the key to turn sh!t endings into brilliant ones.

Fixed for you ;P

ugh no fixed for you, idiot.  

[Capeo]

LolaLei wrote...

I liked the idea of the indoctrination theory as a way to salvage the current endings BUT I suspect the only reason there is any suggestion of indoctrination in the first place is all down to the fact that originally they were going to have Shepard become indoctrinated in the game but they cut it due to it messing with the game mechanics (as they stated in the final hours of ME3 app.)

... Looks like they just hashed together a bunch of concept scenes in the rush to get the game out in time and didn't bother to clean it up properly.

No, on the first case.  They just moved that scene to have TIM take control of you.  The problem they were having is allowing you to move and talk at the same time while fighting for control OF YOUR BODY.  You were still never indoctrinated nor was Anderson when TIM was using his powers to hold you in place and shoot Anderson.

On your second point?  I couldn't agree more.  They cobbled the ending together and intentionally left out things they even recorded dialog for which just boggles my mind.  They thought it was taking too long.  Like the final moments of everything you worked for over three games could "too long".

[2484Stryker]

I never believed they planned this. But they could adapt the indoc theory to fix the ending though...which, judging by their track record with ME3, is exactly what they will do.

[Capeo]

D58 wrote...

They should have just gone with it even if they didnt come up with the idea and save face,but i guess they actualy dont look at the forums as much as they claim to have passed up an amazing idea like indoc theory

It's a crappy idea that flies in the face of lore and makes no sense.  It's crappy fanfic and far from "amazing".

[ijobes1]

I think Indoctrination is a mistake, Shep Indoctrinated would not see the catalyst activate or the cutscene in London, if he was Indoctrinated whatever choice he made, the game would end at that point as that would mean either they kill him if he chooses the 'kill all Synthetics option' as he can't be controlled, and the other two mean they have suceded and they have full control and turned Shep into a husk or whatever they want really. If what we saw took place in his mind they wouldn't proceed to show him a cutscene of joker in the Normandy as they get no benefit from this, in fact it would only help confirming to him/her he/she is in a dream state and would work against their intention for control because he/she would fight to wake up.

[thebigbad1013]

lynch108 wrote...

Yeah, still a believer in indoctrination theory. They decided to make the announcement at PAX and they're sticking to it. They're holding their own line. All this is delaying tactics to appease fans until announcement. I'm going to be stubborn about this. I just can't buy that their writers fumbled on the one yard line.

+1

IF Indoc theory was the plan all along and they planned the big reveal for April, and if they truly were surprised by the strong reaction from the fans, then it makes sense for Muzyka to post something like this now, doing some damage control, urging people to play the game for themselves and recommend it to others if they liked the majority of the game. It's still a possibility.

[dreman9999]

D58 wrote...

They should have just gone with it even if they didnt come up with the idea and save face,but i guess they actualy dont look at the forums as much as they claim to have passed up an amazing idea like indoc theory

Nothing say that they did not plan it. Much of the theory comes from element in the games that they put into it. It's not a coincidence that The rachni queen talks of oily shadows when they taled about way the went to war and then seeing oily shadows in your dreams. Or the starchild trying to convince you to pick the synthesis choice which is exaclty like the Argument Seran used. There too much things going on by chance.

[TomY90]

I liked any theory that made it that ending not real (i know its a contradiction because of being a game but who cares).

because of this blog I expect they will be doing the following

add some more dialogue that was either cut in development or bring back some of the actors/actresses for some more dialogue for after the ending.

show why Joker went through the Charon Relay (i think thats the sol relay called), Joker picking your squad up (so that it fixes that plot hole).

adding more dialogue with StarChild so that you can investigate the options etc. (so that it actually feels less like a dream)

show you consequences take effect (i.e. afterwards how society has changed for better for worse and what your squad, Shepard and your LI got up to afterwards)

I would rathe rthey started again from scratch considering certain plot holes will be hard to fix like the how shepard survives the explosion and re enterings earths atmosphere and landing on concrete in london.

Modifié par TomY90, 21 mars 2012 - 04:27 .

[BigBubbaBacon]

 I take a middle ground. I think that at one point Indoctrination was on the table (as made clear in that behind the scenes app), but was cut out of the final product because they couldn't make it work properly.

I think the issue though, stems from maybe that all of the information supporting the indoctrination attempt wasn't cut from the game and the team tried to disguise it as other things. What the fans are seeing as in indoctrination attempt are really left over bits and pieces from a piece of the game that was cut out.

[Exolyps]

I still believe in the indoctrination theory. And one of my biggest reasons is the grass that appears after you're hit by the beam. Also add the grunting sounds. And oh, Shepards blood on the left side after Anderson dies.

There is just to many signs there to not believe they had something in mind.

EDIT: We also have these tweets that says things like "if you guys just knew what we have in store for you".

That is not something you pull without a good reason to it.

And Ray's Response doesn't change anything. If they want to wait with releasing things then they won't deny or comfirm anything until that time.

Modifié par Exolyps, 21 mars 2012 - 04:29 .

[CrasVox]

there is no way the intent of the endings as they stand is indoctrination. because that reality is a grim one. that means bioware intentionally lied about the endings, far worse than could be imagined, and that they intentionally sold us an incomplete game.

The backlash would destroy the studio.

My guess is that with Indoctrination being an earlier concept for the ending, cues were put in at various points to help build a foundation for the reveal, up on the Citidel. When the plan was scrapped, BW was short on cash and time to remove those cues, so that is why if you look close enough, you can still build the case for it.

[dreman9999]

ijobes1 wrote...

I think Indoctrination is a mistake, Shep Indoctrinated would not see the catalyst activate or the cutscene in London, if he was Indoctrinated whatever choice he made, the game would end at that point as that would mean either they kill him if he chooses the 'kill all Synthetics option' as he can't be controlled, and the other two mean they have suceded and they have full control and turned Shep into a husk or whatever they want really. If what we saw took place in his mind they wouldn't proceed to show him a cutscene of joker in the Normandy as they get no benefit from this, in fact it would only help confirming to him/her he/she is in a dream state and would work against their intention for control because he/she would fight to wake up.

Ignore the cutscene with joker..It's a trick. It's meant to confuse you. It's meant to be like a dream and dream nomally make no sense. By the time it is show, It's too late for Shep to do anything about it, He is already fully controled.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 mars 2012 - 04:29 .

[D58]

Capeo wrote...

D58 wrote...

They should have just gone with it even if they didnt come up with the idea and save face,but i guess they actualy dont look at the forums as much as they claim to have passed up an amazing idea like indoc theory

It's a crappy idea that flies in the face of lore and makes no sense.  It's crappy fanfic and far from "amazing".

Yeah because starchild and space magic makes complete sense right?

[Thatguyky]

Agreed, the theory was not their original plan, but if they are truly basing things on player feedback, we can fight for it, and make it real!

[Myskal1981]

Capeo wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

People need to differentiate between what was intended when released and what will happen in the future.

Did Bioware intend to write an indoc ending, intend the players to find the clues, create a PR backlash as a great PR stunt? --> No, I don't think so. The official statements, Bioware's behaviour in general speak against it.

Will Bioware provide a new Ending? --> Probable as the fan reaction is so negative.
Will the new ending include indoctrination? --> Probable as it can work nicely with the current endings.

Not probable at all.  They are not going to invalidate all the reviews and their "artistic integrity" by retconning two of the choices you make in the ending they intended.  They will "clarify" them which I would expect would be the addition of some epilogues.

Agreed. An epilogue explaining the current endings is equally probable, if not even more.
Just wanted to point out that indoc was never intended as a great story telling twist by Bioware.
Right now they are just reacting to what is happening. If they planned this they would be steering it and that steering would have never led to this fan backlash and refunds.

[Capeo]

bigbad1013 wrote...

lynch108 wrote...

Yeah, still a believer in indoctrination theory. They decided to make the announcement at PAX and they're sticking to it. They're holding their own line. All this is delaying tactics to appease fans until announcement. I'm going to be stubborn about this. I just can't buy that their writers fumbled on the one yard line.

+1

IF Indoc theory was the plan all along and they planned the big reveal for April, and if they truly were surprised by the strong reaction from the fans, then it makes sense for Muzyka to post something like this now, doing some damage control, urging people to play the game for themselves and recommend it to others if they liked the majority of the game. It's still a possibility.

No it is not!  Wow, you folks are something else.  They are not going to retcon a game that everyone has played and has been reviewed.  Can you not read?  He is defending the endings as is over and over again.  The most we're going to get is a motion comic or maybe epilogues.

[Demon Velsper]

I said it before, indoctrination theory was simply confidence born of ignorance.

[dreman9999]

CrasVox wrote...

there is no way the intent of the endings as they stand is indoctrination. because that reality is a grim one. that means bioware intentionally lied about the endings, far worse than could be imagined, and that they intentionally sold us an incomplete game.

The backlash would destroy the studio.

My guess is that with Indoctrination being an earlier concept for the ending, cues were put in at various points to help build a foundation for the reveal, up on the Citidel. When the plan was scrapped, BW was short on cash and time to remove those cues, so that is why if you look close enough, you can still build the case for it.

No it would not. It would lead to some anger and a huge sigh of releif. People will be upset but the fact that there is a better ending then we got will make them forgive all.

[Walrusninja]

Can't say I'm surprised they weren't actually intelligent enough to think that far ahead. The ending remains nonsense. They lied over and over. I'm done

Modifié par Walrusninja, 21 mars 2012 - 04:33 .

[dreman9999]

Demon Velsper wrote...

I said it before, indoctrination theory was simply confidence born of ignorance.

Plese point to a hole in the theory....I like to see one.

[Capeo]

Myskal1981 wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

People need to differentiate between what was intended when released and what will happen in the future.

Did Bioware intend to write an indoc ending, intend the players to find the clues, create a PR backlash as a great PR stunt? --> No, I don't think so. The official statements, Bioware's behaviour in general speak against it.

Will Bioware provide a new Ending? --> Probable as the fan reaction is so negative.
Will the new ending include indoctrination? --> Probable as it can work nicely with the current endings.

Not probable at all.  They are not going to invalidate all the reviews and their "artistic integrity" by retconning two of the choices you make in the ending they intended.  They will "clarify" them which I would expect would be the addition of some epilogues.

Agreed. An epilogue explaining the current endings is equally probable, if not even more.
Just wanted to point out that indoc was never intended as a great story telling twist by Bioware.
Right now they are just reacting to what is happening. If they planned this they would be steering it and that steering would have never led to this fan backlash and refunds.

Exactly.  They would outright be saying "stop panicing there's more to the story" but they are not and they won't because that would a horrifically stupid business move.  The game is done.  It is what it is.  They are not going to change the ending fundamentally at this point and they never intended to.

[BigBubbaBacon]

Demon Velsper wrote...

I said it before, indoctrination theory was simply confidence born of ignorance.

No, we know for a fact (because of the behind the scenes app) that Shepard being indoctrinated *was* on the table at one point, but that they couldn't make it work from a gameplay standpoint.

Like I said in my previous post, I think they built the whole game thinking "indoctrination" but when they realized it wasn't going to work they had to scrap it. What the indoc. supports are seeing are actually just left over bits and pieces from a scrapped idea.

[Melancholic]

I still believe in the indoctrination theory, because it fits too perfectly, because it would be beautiful, and because I want to. The only alternative I can see is much of the theory's evidence being remnants of the actual indoctrination thing they were (officially!) working on as late as November. Should've edited the references out if they never planned to act upon them, though.

For now, I will continue believing they planned to release the real ending after the fact, but they miscalculated the player response and are forced to make statements like this in an effort to calm us down.

Yeah, I'm stubborn.

Modifié par Melancholic, 21 mars 2012 - 04:33 .