358 réponses à ce sujet

[The Divine Avenger]

GBGriffin wrote...

KaeserZen wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

No, it isn't wrong to hope, but I want people to be cautious, and I want them brace themselves that they might not support the IT, when it has become the *only* solution for some. Those people will take it the hardest, I think, and possibly lash out even more with furthering the campaign or whatever this is.

I definitely agree with you. While the Indoctrination theory is not the only way out for BioWare, it is most certainly the most elegant and tangible one.

I would be happy with anything they made as long as it does not support the current ending and its logic. The Indoctrination Theory kind of makes me think that it was intended.

I'd say it would be simply the "easiest". The fans have pretty much have done all of the hard work by writing it for them

I made this poor little graph for my own thread (with my limited artistic talent) to show the implications of why I hope the current IT (as I understand it) isn't implemented.


Now, people have posted other solutions to get around the end result of Synthesis/Control, but if BioWare takes the IT as is...basically, those 2 choices wouldn't lead to anything, or couldn't conceivably lead to something as significant as the third. Now, if all 3 choices got a chance at relatively equal (even different) content, then sure. But there are some who feel Shepard should only pick Destroy, or else Shep (and, by extension, the player) needs to learn a little lesson and start over again to make the "right" choice...even though some people believe (and have argued reasonably well) that Destroy isn't the option their Shepard would pick.

My Shep is a paragon but I've waited 3 f***ing games to hand the reapers there a** damb right I'd pick destroy

[wtbusername]

Inception.

[GBGriffin]

Drake-Shepard wrote...

you are assuming the INDOC is part of the ending. This could of happened just as easily at the start of the game....you beat indoc and carry on with me3.

Not every event needs multiple 'correct' choices.

There doesnt have to even be a  decision at the end. You can jus fight through a last defence and activate the weapon. This maybe where the problem arouse (if you take the end literally)...dev's thought fans want random illogical choice and added a starchild.

The 'your decisions matter' bit can be in regards to if the crucible actually makes it into the catalyst and the aftermathe.

An indoc and new ending that makes more sense can exist in unison. Basically the drawing you made... after 'continue to play through dlc'..you wrote '(multiple endings?) exactly...here...draw 16 arrows coming out. Thats your choice. Choice is not limited by indoc theory. Infact its not even affected.

Again i only want this if it was planned all along. otherwise it is a slap in peoples face who (correctly?)took the ending at face value

I made that graph for my thread in which I argued that *if* the IT is correct, then this would be the implication. I personally do not believe it is correct, but made the graph for the sake of the argument that it was.

My feeling is that if they do go this route, why even have starchild give Shep a choice if two answers result in game over -> reload? Not everyone agrees with this, but tbh, there are so many variations of the IT that I based this off of what was being argued against my posts at the time.

The thing is, even if I drew those 16 arrows...you'd be funneled into making that one choice to get them, and when people actually disagree with making that choice...then either don't make it a choice, or give them something to do other than reload. I don't like picturing people picking Destroy just to advance the story; they should choose it if it suits what they want.

I feel they could implement the IT without shafting 2/3 (assuming equal distribution, obviously) of the playerbase. personally, I would pick Destroy, and I would always pick Destroy. I just don't want people to miss out on content because they picked one of the other two.

[HellishFiend]

I agree with this topic. Once I watched that video yesterday, I was surprised I didnt see it myself, and pleased that bioware decided to go this route. We are viewing the Mass Effect world through Shepard's eyes now more than ever.

[GBGriffin]

The Divine Avenger wrote...


My Shep is a paragon but I've waited 3 f***ing games to hand the reapers there a** damb right I'd pick destroy

Same here. But not everyone thinks like we do, and if we say our choice is right and their's is wrong and they don't deserve content as a result...how does that win the movement anything beyond only pleasing *some* of the players, instead of all (which, imo could be done with just expanding the current endings and adding new ones).

[Cpl_Facehugger]

KaeserZen wrote...

Even with all the official responses from BioWare hinting at no change in the endings, I can't help but think the Indoctrination theory is right and is indeed what BioWare intented.

That's a nice thought, but I don't think so. Bioware has never done ridiculously subtle cues like that. Don't get me wrong, I think the indoc theory is incredibly elegant and interesting, but I also know there's no way in hell it's what BW intended.

If that was their plan, they would have made it massively more clear. Like having Shepard wake up and continue ten more minutes of gameplay.

If the Indoc theory was true, Bioware would've given us an extra ten minutes of gameplay to wrap everything up, since indoc theory only "works" as a storytelling device if it's not reliant on DLC.

Because, in every BioWare-produced game I have played, there was an exceptionnally well crafted plot twist or betrayal with a massive impact on the play experience (SPOILERS FROM OTHER GAMES RIGHT BELOW) :
- Knights of the Old Republic : The Player is actually Darth Revan
- Knights of the Old Republic 2 (even though BioWare wasn't the developper) : Darth Traya is using you
- Jade Empire : Your master has actually bred you to be manipulated into serving his dark goals
- SW:TOR : Sith Warrior story (Your master betrays you, even though that was to be expected) / Trooper story (Your squad are double agents) / Jedi Knight story (The kidnapped superweapon scientist is actually a Sith Lord trying to activate it)

Because, I did not see such a massive, story-central plot-twist in Mass Effect 3, and that I would expect it for the Grand Finale and from BioWare.

in KoTOR 1 the foreshadowing is much more obvious - Heck, they all but beat you over the head with it when you talk to the jedi council. In Jade Empire the twist is also heavily foreshadowed by dialog.

ME3's twist (lolcatalyst destroys relays/lolstarchild) isn't.

Because, this just cannot be the way it ends.

Denial is the first stage of grief.

[MnMH]

Even if indoctrination theory is correct, it doesn't change the fact that the ending is poor.

[HellishFiend]

GBGriffin wrote...

The Divine Avenger wrote...


My Shep is a paragon but I've waited 3 f***ing games to hand the reapers there a** damb right I'd pick destroy

Same here. But not everyone thinks like we do, and if we say our choice is right and their's is wrong and they don't deserve content as a result...how does that win the movement anything beyond only pleasing *some* of the players, instead of all (which, imo could be done with just expanding the current endings and adding new ones).

That's an easy one, because there is simply a limit to what you can and cant do within the bounds of the story. If you, as the player, had wanted to align yourself with Saren in Mass Effect 1, would you expect there to be divergent plot lines and content to support that? Of course not. 

[Ghost of a Messiah]

KaeserZen wrote...

Ashilana wrote...

Would be great... but if they planned it all along they wouldn't have sicked their attack dogs (gaming review sites) on their own fans. Sorry, we are out of luck.

That is actually a good point I didn't think about. If Indoc was right, then the gaming sites wouldn't be part of the "conspiracy".

The gaming sites did exactly what they're paid to do. It means nothing.

[sadako]

Oooh, straws!

[Drake-Shepard]

GBGriffin wrote...

Drake-Shepard wrote...

you are assuming the INDOC is part of the ending. This could of happened just as easily at the start of the game....you beat indoc and carry on with me3.

Not every event needs multiple 'correct' choices.

There doesnt have to even be a  decision at the end. You can jus fight through a last defence and activate the weapon. This maybe where the problem arouse (if you take the end literally)...dev's thought fans want random illogical choice and added a starchild.

The 'your decisions matter' bit can be in regards to if the crucible actually makes it into the catalyst and the aftermathe.

An indoc and new ending that makes more sense can exist in unison. Basically the drawing you made... after 'continue to play through dlc'..you wrote '(multiple endings?) exactly...here...draw 16 arrows coming out. Thats your choice. Choice is not limited by indoc theory. Infact its not even affected.

Again i only want this if it was planned all along. otherwise it is a slap in peoples face who (correctly?)took the ending at face value

I made that graph for my thread in which I argued that *if* the IT is correct, then this would be the implication. I personally do not believe it is correct, but made the graph for the sake of the argument that it was.

My feeling is that if they do go this route, why even have starchild give Shep a choice if two answers result in game over -> reload? Not everyone agrees with this, but tbh, there are so many variations of the IT that I based this off of what was being argued against my posts at the time.

The thing is, even if I drew those 16 arrows...you'd be funneled into making that one choice to get them, and when people actually disagree with making that choice...then either don't make it a choice, or give them something to do other than reload. I don't like picturing people picking Destroy just to advance the story; they should choose it if it suits what they want.

I feel they could implement the IT without shafting 2/3 (assuming equal distribution, obviously) of the playerbase. personally, I would pick Destroy, and I would always pick Destroy. I just don't want people to miss out on content because they picked one of the other two.

Sorry i meant your assuming indoc theory has to effect the final decisions of the game. Not if its true or not. And that it could happen at the start of the game and not effect the rest.

Not every choice needs muliple correct answers that let you continue.

The problem with choice in this game is people are saying it doesnt efect the ending enough at the end.
Yet if a wrong choice allows you to die/indoctrinated then this apparently isnt choice?

real life example: got poisoned. theres antitode. i take it i live. i don;t take it i die. Am i being funneled to take the antitode to continue the game/life? All choice doesn't have to follow a formulae.

Hence your graph drawing could still have 16 multiple endings...i explained it above in more detail

Modifié par Drake-Shepard, 22 mars 2012 - 06:00 .

[davidt0504]

It would be the best story twist to date and would trump all other bioware plot twists and I would only expect as much from the FINALE of the series they've put by far the most work into.

For God's sake, this is their magnum opus. Either indoc is true or EA truely and fully ruined the franchise or Bioware fell to the dark side and wasted the chance to make the greatest and most fully realized interactive story in the history of stories and one of the best stories period.

[sadako]

GBGriffin wrote...


I'd say it would be simply the "easiest". The fans have pretty much have done all of the hard work by writing it for them

I made this poor little graph for my own thread (with my limited artistic talent) to show the implications of why I hope the current IT (as I understand it) isn't implemented.


Now, people have posted other solutions to get around the end result of Synthesis/Control, but if BioWare takes the IT as is...basically, those 2 choices wouldn't lead to anything, or couldn't conceivably lead to something as significant as the third. Now, if all 3 choices got a chance at relatively equal (even different) content, then sure. But there are some who feel Shepard should only pick Destroy, or else Shep (and, by extension, the player) needs to learn a little lesson and start over again to make the "right" choice...even though some people believe (and have argued reasonably well) that Destroy isn't the option their Shepard would pick.

I'd say it might be actually workable.

[GBGriffin]

HellishFiend wrote...


That's an easy one, because there is simply a limit to what you can and cant do within the bounds of the story. If you, as the player, had wanted to align yourself with Saren in Mass Effect 1, would you expect there to be divergent plot lines and content to support that? Of course not. 

Why not? if choices matter, and I choose that, why shouldn't I expect more content on the same level as someone who picked a different choice from the same dialogue tree as me?

Again, I support Destroy. I always will. But to make 2/3 choices completely irrelevant just proves my point: the choice wouldn't matter. It wouldn't mean anything to people who wanted to continue to play. As it stands, you would be forced to picked Destroy, whether or not you agree with it, in order to experience the DLC.

That isn't why I'm holding the line. I'm holding the line for the player's right to choose and experience the same amount of content as me. Have the game continue and just end tragically or something for the people who pick the other 2...don't just end the game for them right then and there.

[shephard987]

http://www.gamefaqs.....html?poll=4666

LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD

HOLD THE LINE

[thesnake777]

OP I seriously doubt that what happened. but if it is i will shut up and admit it was well done. either way i'm waiting on that DLC.

[Heathen Pride]

No.

[ShepardTheHopeful]

kanonchan wrote...

I still wish it were true... Indoctrination would be the perfect plot twist! And most people are willing to believe it anyway.

False. I am strongly against the theory I think it's a bad explination and just a lazy route out. IF shepard was indoctrinated (Which he wasn't) I want to know when, where, how, why, and by what. And I'd still only accept it if it was bioware's redo button to give us the real ending. Not an ending itself. The only damn one trick pony older than the "it was a dream" ending is the "fade to black" ending

[szkasypcze]

skippy1776 wrote...

One of the main reasons why I am kind of accepting the whole Indoc theory is because it helps the stop the pain of thinking that Casey Hudson and is writing team legitimately thought/thinks that the current endings are a perfect fit for the years of a mass effect that they so well have written. It hurts to look at all of the quotes from the Bioware team and hear about all these awesome choices that I was hoping be able to make at the end just to have it all go crashing down. 95% of the game was darn arguably one of the few great games I have played, but the ending if taken at face value, honestly makes me wish I have never played the Mass Effect series.

I fell the same man. The pain, you say of?? I get it even worse. It;slike they are selling ME to get more income, selling the players. I feel like I was raped.

[Ghost of a Messiah]

Everyone who see IT thinks choosing Synthesis or control punishes the player... But what if you simple change sides... It would give the player a new perspective on being aligned with the reapers... Even having to kill your squad-mates or convince them that the reapers are right...

Think about the way KOTOR ended if you chose the dark side... I ended that game with only Bastilla in one playthrough.

[JasonDaPsycho]

Meh. Bioware's response to this outrage has been extremely antagonizing rather than providing hints, teases or snippets of a supplement of the endings. I'll believe it when I see it.

[GBGriffin]

sadako wrote...


I'd say it might be actually workable.

Thanks for making me feel bad at how ****ty my graph is designed

Again, I've noticed a ton of variations on the IT. I based my chart off of what I observed and what was argued to/against me. Unless I'm misreading your chart, though, you actually don't have any choices for people who want to pick Synthesis or Control...which is what I'm arguing for. I do not think they will just remove those endings; I simply don't. I know people *want* them to remove the godchild, but I'm pretty sure (speculating) they'll keep it as is, not limit it to "Destroy or Reject the Catalyst"...which, unless I'm misreading (which is possible) are the only two choices you actually present at the godchild bit.

People should be able to choose all 3, not just Destroy, for a chance to experience post-game content.

Modifié par GBGriffin, 22 mars 2012 - 06:04 .

[Tovanus]

The notion that "indoctrination" limits choice because it presents ONE situation in the game where Shepherd can make a bad choice is foolish. If that choice leads to an ending that takes into account ALL your choices throughout the series, or an ending that simply leads to other choices with thoughtful consequences, it presents a better ending (even if Bioware never intended to use it to begin with).

The idea of a "choice" being a test of Shepherd - a test he can fail - is a good one. It limits nothing, and whether you are Paragon or Renegade, it's frankly a bit out of character for him to go with control or synthesize. Shepherd's of all stripes have given way too many speeches across each game about destroying the Reapers being the ONLY choice that will protect the galaxy from them once and for all. Walking into either synthesize or destroy - leaving aside plotholes - does feel a little bit like Shepherd just kind of gives up on his own personality.

Modifié par Tovanus, 22 mars 2012 - 06:19 .

[KDD-0063]

And, is the story revealed?

[Renessa]

I don't believe anymore that they are writing gods, but if they have two brain cells left between them, they should take the indoctrination theory and run with it, whether it was planned or not.