261 réponses à ce sujet

[Dreogan]

jarrettwold wrote...

Bigger question is, do they keep the relays destruction in? If that's in, I think people still end up pissed off.

I have to defend Bioware for the decision to blow up the relays, since that does make sense through the context of the trilogy. However, they could solve many of the complaints with a text-based blurb along the lines that "three days later, the relays stopped working."

[ABCoLD]

Do I think the indoctrination theory is what happened? No.

Do I think it would have been a better story device than what they had? Yes.

[TheLastAwakening]

I'm not, I'm on the bandwagon that something is wrong with the ending. Indoc theory just happens to point out some of the similarities I think are problematic; space magic.

[Nageth]

Dreogan wrote...

jarrettwold wrote...

Bigger question is, do they keep the relays destruction in? If that's in, I think people still end up pissed off.

I have to defend Bioware for the decision to blow up the relays, since that does make sense through the context of the trilogy. However, they could solve many of the complaints with a text-based blurb along the lines that "three days later, the relays stopped working."

Or at the very least a smaller explosion as to not give people any room to think it blew up the system.

[Kanner]

I want nothing to do with Indoc theory.

The point is to get a GOOD ending. Any ending that includes the current ending is more or less by definition NOT good.

I don't care how well a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists have managed to sync up their idea with the events in the game, since it's the events in the game that have gotten everyone so upset.

[Phearmonger]

FlyingCow371 wrote...

It's an interesting theory. Bioware definitely didn't plan it. If they did, it would've been resolved in game and, if fleshed out a bit and followed by an actual solid ending, would've been one of the best twists in recent video games...probably the best since kotor.

But again, if it was the intent then they released a completely unfinished game, and even with the state of the current ending I think better of bioware than that.

We'll probably get something else for whatever content they are planning. It seems like they really want those relays to be destroyed, so that'll probably happen regardless.

Text dump epilogue is fine. Baldur's gate II:ToB did that pretty well. DA:O too. They can do something worthwhile with that. They just need to add in a "screw you, reaper kid" choice, a way to disable the reapers without genocide vs. geth (red), making everybody a reaper (green, they were always trying to build organic/synthetic hybrids...and you just did it for them), or becoming corrupted (blue). Other things that would be nice, if possible, include: not making the entire fleet crash into earth and kill everybody on the planet you were trying to save (from relay explosion making ships, like normandy, crash). And more resolution with crew, but text dump epilogue can handle that and the fates of other races/planets.

So Bioware couldn't have planned it because if they did they left the game unfinished and that is so unlike Bioware, but just below you believe that they are going to add something to wrap the story up, thus stating that they did in fact leave the game unfinished. So why do you think Bioware couldn't have planned it again?

[thesnake777]

I dont thing the indoctrination theory is what really happened at all i think what we saw is what we got.
however if bioware wants to run with that im all for it.

[Dreogan]

Phearmonger wrote...

FlyingCow371 wrote...

It's an interesting theory. Bioware definitely didn't plan it. If they did, it would've been resolved in game and, if fleshed out a bit and followed by an actual solid ending, would've been one of the best twists in recent video games...probably the best since kotor.

But again, if it was the intent then they released a completely unfinished game, and even with the state of the current ending I think better of bioware than that.

We'll probably get something else for whatever content they are planning. It seems like they really want those relays to be destroyed, so that'll probably happen regardless.

Text dump epilogue is fine. Baldur's gate II:ToB did that pretty well. DA:O too. They can do something worthwhile with that. They just need to add in a "screw you, reaper kid" choice, a way to disable the reapers without genocide vs. geth (red), making everybody a reaper (green, they were always trying to build organic/synthetic hybrids...and you just did it for them), or becoming corrupted (blue). Other things that would be nice, if possible, include: not making the entire fleet crash into earth and kill everybody on the planet you were trying to save (from relay explosion making ships, like normandy, crash). And more resolution with crew, but text dump epilogue can handle that and the fates of other races/planets.

So Bioware couldn't have planned it because if they did they left the game unfinished and that is so unlike Bioware, but just below you believe that they are going to add something to wrap the story up, thus stating that they did in fact leave the game unfinished. So why do you think Bioware couldn't have planned it again?

At least read the thread.

[SamFlagg]

jarrettwold wrote...

Bigger question is, do they keep the relays destruction in? If that's in, I think people still end up pissed off.

The best solution is to have some options where the relays do get destroyed and some don't.

If ME4 is in the future they're going to have to for the most part pick a "canonical ending" anyway. (Synthesis of all life in the universe is equally if not more problematic than destroying the relays from a future game perspective)

Therefore destruction of the relays shouldn't happen in all endings.  (and destruction should really be handled with something other than explosions just to fix the "The Arrival" problem)

[Grasich]

I have no problems with the theory, it lets people sleep better at night after that abomination of an ending, so it's fine in my book. Was it planned? I would be downright shocked if it was, but I don't really see why that matters anyway.

Personally I'm just trying to hammer the ending I have linked in my sig into my brain until I delude myself into thinking that's how the game ended.

Until I succeed at that, I'll just be holding this line over here.

[XJ347]

I dont like it as an ending upon itself, but I think it is possible.

As an ending on its own it is HORRIBLE! That means you lost and the Reapons won. Why play the game again if you know They win in the end?

As a mind twist to set up the REAL ending, its AMAZING. This allows Bioware to keep their old endings but then add the REAL endings after once you awaken from the indoctrination, assuming you picked destroy... This gives the option to defeat the Reapers without you know, killing the WHOLE universe to do it as it currently is.

Modifié par XJ347, 23 mars 2012 - 03:31 .

[Nathan_41]

ABCoLD wrote...

Do I think the indoctrination theory is what happened? No.

Do I think it would have been a better story device than what they had? Yes.

This.

I don't believe that the indoctrination theory is canon, but I think its the only real option Bioware has now if they want to expand on the ending of ME3 without just adding a few conversations here and there to clarify the logic behind what is still a terrible end sequence.

[manjikengo]

Considering the "indoctrination" of shepard was an ending they were toying with but "cut due to not figuring out how to get the mechanics to work" is proof enough to me that it's true they just executed it VERY poorly.

Jesus christ, the endings we got were done late November, early december. **** was rushed.

[D1ck1e]

XJ347 wrote...

I dont like it as an ending upon itself, but I think it is possible.

As an ending on its own it is HORRIBLE! That means you lost and the Reapons won. Why play the game again if you know They win in the end?

As a mind twist to set up the REAL ending, its AMAZING. This allows Bioware to keep their old endings but then add the REAL endings after once you awaken from the indoctrination, assuming you picked destroy... This gives the option to defeat the Reapers without you know, killing the WHOLE universe to do it as it currently is.

This. It's not an ending, it's a twist, and it would have proven a good one considering how many people took the ending at face value. I've seen much worst, and not just in games.

Could be wrong, but it's the most plausible door already there. If I'm wrong in my perception of what seemed like an out of body experience for Shepard, well I'll sadly have to admit it was very badly written.

[cavs25]

There is a misconception around here.
People believe that just because you agree with the indoc theory you are defending Bioware..
Truth is I agree, and I still think it wasn't done on purpose. Its just an example of the fans making gold from dirt. Is not perfect bc it wasn't intended. We just try to make it fit as much as possible. Also if it was intended Bioware needs to get punched in the face for not putting an ending in the game.

[longtimecoming00]

In order for it to be true, then it means the development team must have mapped out the entire storyline progression for all three games back before the original Mass Effect was even in development. Bioware may be good, but they're not that good.

[Dreogan]

cavs25 wrote...

There is a misconception around here.
People believe that just because you agree with the indoc theory you are defending Bioware..
Truth is I agree, and I still think it wasn't done on purpose. Its just an example of the fans making gold from dirt. Is not perfect bc it wasn't intended. We just try to make it fit as much as possible. Also if it was intended Bioware needs to get punched in the face for not putting an ending in the game.

This is sensible. My vitriol is directed to the IT "devotees" who place Bioware on a pedestal for their "deep, insightful, angsty-arthouse" ending. Which it absolutely is not.

The sensible people that enjoy the IT understand they are rejecting the ending, which is just another way of rejecting Bioware's storytelling. These people still have one foot on terra firma.

Modifié par Dreogan, 23 mars 2012 - 04:35 .

[Intomydimension]

sistersafetypin wrote...

I'm not. In my opinion an article I read recently said it best, "When people are hoping for the ending to all have been a dream... Yeah, you have a problem"

curious that the theory has more sense than saying that everything is real and is written bull****.



believe that the end is so, I see you have more problems than believing that everything is a dream, then some evidence of being impossible to override. is like telling yourself you have no idea of the lore and saga



sorry but I see more problems, require a company to change completely the end, rather than ask him to clarify that there is another theory that makes sense and that can clarify the end? and not seen any other and there can be no other, if there is one with more sense and I would know, if you invent something else than the indoctrination to supposedly make sense, it would have to alter the end, not worthless



I need real evidence that the end is so ****ty. not from the mouth of the people, I'm not a 100% believer in the theory, I'm also skeptical, like most here, but now I see more evidence, more sense, in theory, to ensure that writers of bioware are monkeys. I find that even many who do not say for being skeptical, but out of pure hate, anger more than anything else

[Repossessor]

The ME3 Final Hours doc informs us that in November they dropped gameplay at the end where "Shepard would fall under full reaper control". IMHO This was always the strongest evidence for indoc-theory, regardless if they used it or not. At the very least, it proves that the devs where going with indoctrination in the game right up to a mere few months before the game was released, whether or not it was actually used. It just grates me that people so confidentially say that no form of indoc was planned by Bioware, it seems so highly unfair and biased, when there is clear proof they had done so (again, whether or not it was cut; just making a point here).

Sure, they cut it out, but if they were really going for indoc right up to November 2011 -- I seriously doubt they had the time (let alone the cost and effort) to go back through the game and remove any and all hints toward this; i.e, the uncertain thing with the kid and most of the 'evidence' that indoc-theory uses. IMO that's why indoc-theory seems to gel so well, the vestige hints all sum up to a mostly coherent whole that stays true to the lore.

But forget about all that.

Am I the only one that subscribes to indoc-theory where it isn't a 'dream' or 'hallucination'? I'd rather see it as the final boss of the game was the ultimate test of Shepard's will; the final boss of the game was to see if you could beat the indoctrination by the Reapers, and the endings we got are the real endings. Now, that doesn't excuse that the endings were poorly put together (not what happens, but what we're shown). If they would show us more, I wouldn't mind what happened in the endings as much.

There is a middle ground between 'what we got' and 'indoc-theory' that not a lot of people seem to want to take, but it is viable IMO.

[manjikengo]

Repossessor wrote...

The ME3 Final Hours doc informs us that in November they dropped gameplay at the end where "Shepard would fall under full reaper control". IMHO This was always the strongest evidence for indoc-theory, regardless if they used it or not. At the very least, it proves that the devs where going with indoctrination in the game right up to a mere few months before the game was released, whether or not it was actually used. It just grates me that people so confidentially say that no form of indoc was planned by Bioware, it seems so highly unfair and biased, when there is clear proof they had done so (again, whether or not it was cut; just making a point here).

Sure, they cut it out, but if they were really going for indoc right up to November 2011 -- I seriously doubt they had the time (let alone the cost and effort) to go back through the game and remove any and all hints toward this; i.e, the uncertain thing with the kid and most of the 'evidence' that indoc-theory uses. IMO that's why indoc-theory seems to gel so well, the vestige hints all sum up to a mostly coherent whole that stays true to the lore.


.

THIS x 1000000000000000000

[Nageth]

manjikengo wrote...

Repossessor wrote...

The ME3 Final Hours doc informs us that in November they dropped gameplay at the end where "Shepard would fall under full reaper control". IMHO This was always the strongest evidence for indoc-theory, regardless if they used it or not. At the very least, it proves that the devs where going with indoctrination in the game right up to a mere few months before the game was released, whether or not it was actually used. It just grates me that people so confidentially say that no form of indoc was planned by Bioware, it seems so highly unfair and biased, when there is clear proof they had done so (again, whether or not it was cut; just making a point here).

Sure, they cut it out, but if they were really going for indoc right up to November 2011 -- I seriously doubt they had the time (let alone the cost and effort) to go back through the game and remove any and all hints toward this; i.e, the uncertain thing with the kid and most of the 'evidence' that indoc-theory uses. IMO that's why indoc-theory seems to gel so well, the vestige hints all sum up to a mostly coherent whole that stays true to the lore.


.

THIS x 1000000000000000000

I think indoc theory as far as the dream is just making stuff up. No doubt that indoctrination is happening to some degree (the kid, TIM's magic BO, etc...). The problem is that indoc theory = a large chunk of the end of the game is a dream. The problem is with the dream, not the idea of indoctrination (which has had no evidence of being dreamlike).

[Dreogan]

Repossessor wrote...

The ME3 Final Hours doc informs us that in November they dropped gameplay at the end where "Shepard would fall under full reaper control". IMHO This was always the strongest evidence for indoc-theory, regardless if they used it or not. At the very least, it proves that the devs where going with indoctrination in the game right up to a mere few months before the game was released, whether or not it was actually used. It just grates me that people so confidentially say that no form of indoc was planned by Bioware, it seems so highly unfair and biased, when there is clear proof they had done so (again, whether or not it was cut; just making a point here).

Sure, they cut it out, but if they were really going for indoc right up to November 2011 -- I seriously doubt they had the time (let alone the cost and effort) to go back through the game and remove any and all hints toward this; i.e, the uncertain thing with the kid and most of the 'evidence' that indoc-theory uses. IMO that's why indoc-theory seems to gel so well, the vestige hints all sum up to a mostly coherent whole that stays true to the lore.

But forget about all that.

Am I the only one that subscribes to indoc-theory where it isn't a 'dream' or 'hallucination'? I'd rather see it as the final boss of the game was the ultimate test of Shepard's will; the final boss of the game was to see if you could beat the indoctrination by the Reapers, and the endings we got are the real endings. Now, that doesn't excuse that the endings were poorly put together (not what happens, but what we're shown). If they would show us more, I wouldn't mind what happened in the endings as much.

There is a middle ground between 'what we got' and 'indoc-theory' that not a lot of people seem to want to take, but it is viable IMO.

I see what you're saying, but the unfortunate truth is Bioware, with what is actually in the ending, simply failed to "sell" indoctrination even if it were intended. The result is a breach of the writer-reader contract, which results in a shattering of the suspension of disbelief. 

This negates not only the validity of the ending, but the relevance of Indoctrination. As I said a few pages back, it is a catastrophic failure of storytelling-- nothing more.

Modifié par Dreogan, 23 mars 2012 - 04:01 .

[JohnnyG]

Dhraconus wrote...

I'm not on the "bandwagon." I don't believe it is 'true' for a second. There is just no good reason to believe Bioware intended it and lots of reason to believe they didn't.

On the other hand it is 'plausible' as a theory and could be used as a way to expand the ending and fix many of the issues. (but this would be a post hoc explanation and not an original intention)

It wouldn't be my preferred 'fix' but if it comes to be... meh.

/agree

[Urazz]

Chalking the ending off as indoctrination would really just make the ending even more crappy in my opinion. A better thing to do would change the 'Normandy crashing on some random planet with your squadmates' scene to one such as the Normandy crashing on Earth and your squadmates go to the Normandy's wreck and we see Joker getting out alive or not.

Something like that would make a bit more sense and wouldn't require getting voice actors back in or something.