367 réponses à ce sujet

[Aiyie]

ZiegenkonigIII wrote...

I think the main problem people have with the Indoc theory is that it would mean Bioware released an incomplete game. Which of course is wrong, but I think this whole mess has gotten past that point.

heh, now I gotta ask.

Which is worse... that they released an incomplete game, or that they thought the ending they did release was good?

[Kylie Nightbreeze]

liggy002 wrote...

If you guys don't like dream endings, then you'd hate Eternal Sonata. The entire game is a dream.

Actually acording to Star Gaze scene it is a historal story being told to a child.

[Pride Demon]

KevShep wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

The problem for me it's not that the indoctrination theory is not the ending, I got that it's just to make better ones...
The problem is that IT was born to mend the fact the endings apparently making game choices eirrelevant, and the solution is... making even the "final choice" irrelevant, by stating that all but one are inherently "wrong"...

The endings may not be perfect, but at least I got to freely pick my technicolour explosion, without having to worry that chosing all but one of them equals failing...

I totally respect the IT and those that support it, but taking it in unmediated unbalances the game "finale": all colours should have a chance so to speak...

The choices you make ( the three at the end ) do matter. If you chose control you will give into indoctrination, same with the synthetic one. The only way you can break from indoctrination is destroy option.

Which basically means the other two are not standard game overs, so they don't matter, might as well take them away...
Had it only been one, I may have accepted it, but all BUT one? It's called deliberate railroading, and as many say (but now apparently forget), that's bad...

[Dreogan]

Jsxdf wrote...

it wouldnt be an incomplete game. it would be a game with an "ending" that you dont like (like now). except the difference is you will get DLC that explains that ending, and make sheps send off not suck.

you have 2 choices

the current ending, which sucks

the current ending, which sucks, but dlc after that makes it not suck and gives you a proper fulfilling end to sheps journey - by using indoctrination theory to explain away me3's ending sucking

which is better?

all indoctrination theory is "oh, shep was dreaming/indoctrinated? bleh well TIME TO KICK SOME REAPER ASS"

False dilemma. Bioware could possibly come out with something that is not the current ending or an indoctrination ending. A fixed current ending is not the current ending.

[KevShep]

EightDeer wrote...

The "Indoctrination Theory" isn't evidence of Bioware's genius. It's just people desperately trying to convince themselves that hundreds of hours of playtime spanning 5 years weren't ultimately a waste of time.

No its a way out for Bioware's stupid mistake that they would release a crappy ending. Its so stupid that a little boy would even be able to figure out that the current ending will completely blow...wait...what?

Modifié par KevShep, 25 mars 2012 - 12:40 .

[Xenite]

Tov01 wrote...

I never liked the indoctrination idea. It just feels wrong t me, and doesn't answer any of the important questions.

If you want a new ending, you might as well just replace it completely, rather than force the player through an extend dream sequence.

Try educating yourself on it first, several well put together videos have been done on it. If people actually spent the time to look for a change they would see the entire story fits into it PERFECTLY.

[KevShep]

Pride Demon wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Pride Demon wrote...

The problem for me it's not that the indoctrination theory is not the ending, I got that it's just to make better ones...
The problem is that IT was born to mend the fact the endings apparently making game choices eirrelevant, and the solution is... making even the "final choice" irrelevant, by stating that all but one are inherently "wrong"...

The endings may not be perfect, but at least I got to freely pick my technicolour explosion, without having to worry that chosing all but one of them equals failing...

I totally respect the IT and those that support it, but taking it in unmediated unbalances the game "finale": all colours should have a chance so to speak...

The choices you make ( the three at the end ) do matter. If you chose control you will give into indoctrination, same with the synthetic one. The only way you can break from indoctrination is destroy option.

Which basically means the other two are not standard game overs, so they don't matter, might as well take them away...
Had it only been one, I may have accepted it, but all BUT one? It's called deliberate railroading, and as many say (but now apparently forget), that's bad...

No...It gets people talking just like clever Bioware wanted people to do all along(they actually do no joke, stated by Casey). The real choices will come at the end.

[KevShep]

Xenite wrote...

Tov01 wrote...

I never liked the indoctrination idea. It just feels wrong t me, and doesn't answer any of the important questions.

If you want a new ending, you might as well just replace it completely, rather than force the player through an extend dream sequence.

Try educating yourself on it first, several well put together videos have been done on it. If people actually spent the time to look for a change they would see the entire story fits into it PERFECTLY.

^this

[Aiyie]

ShepardTheHopeful wrote...

There is a huge collection of anti indoctrination (myself included) because we see logic not magical floating emergency induction ports to grab at to try and justify EA and Bioware. They wrote it that way cause they wanted to not because they left super secret clues for all of us smart people to find out. (If you really thought Bioware thought this hard to give you an ending go play Dragon age 2 or go talk to EA for a matter of 30 seconds see how well that idea went.) Truth is they threw a lot in and expected us to fill the holes the only problem is the holes go so deep no one know where the hell they go so we either pull at the straws. Realize this logic towards the fact the ending was suppose to be smart and analytic while it became pompous and overly philosophical. It doesn't even match Shepard's personality the choice isn't even that hard to make you think a fate of the entire universe would have a little more conversation or thought into it. But sadly it did not and thus here we are.

wall of text makes eyes bleed.

again though, im fairly confident most of the indoc theory proponents no longer believe it was intentional from the get-go as some massive meta-game twist.

now its merely a method to allow Bioware to give us a proper ending without having to scrap the hard work they've already done (and don't believe for one moment they didn't work hard on what we got... they just worked hard in the wrong direction)

[Pkxm]

dreogan, bioware is not going to remove/rewrite/alter the current ending. they have already made tweets saying this. what else could it possibly be? they say they are going to "clarify" and bring "closure". almost sounds like they just plan to try to explain some of those massive plotholes or release dlc that shows what happens to your squadmates. if shep is not dreaming/hallucinating/ and does not wake up after that reaper blast anything they do is probably going to suck. i just dont see it but i admit yeah there could be something..i just cant think of what that could possibly be. indoctrination theory is just so simple and easy fix.

[KevShep]

Jsxdf wrote...

dreogan, bioware is not going to remove/rewrite/alter the current ending. they have already made tweets saying this. what else could it possibly be? they say they are going to "clarify" and bring "closure". almost sounds like they just plan to try to explain some of those massive plotholes or release dlc that shows what happens to your squadmates. if shep is not dreaming/hallucinating/ and does not wake up after that reaper blast anything they do is probably going to suck. i just dont see it but i admit yeah there could be something..i just cant think of what that could possibly be. indoctrination theory is just so simple and easy fix.

Where are these tweets?

[Thornquist]

Darknessfalls23 wrote...

I really doubt they are going to implement it unless it was their plan in the first place...

This. In the end, Bioware have several times stated they will just bring "closure" & "clarity", if they intended the IT all along, then thats what they would do.

However, from what I can tell, there is no indication of them ever planning this. All the responses they have given have proven that.

The reason IT needs to die, is because it gives people false hope. Many who were perfectly happy with clarity & closure are now setting their hopes in a completely revamp of the last 10 minutes. When it dont happen, they will rage again.

All in all, this is Bioware's problem. If I were them I would go out and confirm/dismiss this theory, and end all this confusion and speculation.

Modifié par Thornquist, 25 mars 2012 - 12:48 .

[Dreogan]

Jsxdf wrote...

dreogan, bioware is not going to remove/rewrite/alter the current ending. they have already made tweets saying this. what else could it possibly be? they say they are going to "clarify" and bring "closure". almost sounds like they just plan to try to explain some of those massive plotholes or release dlc that shows what happens to your squadmates. if shep is not dreaming/hallucinating/ and does not wake up after that reaper blast anything they do is probably going to suck. i just dont see it but i admit yeah there could be something..i just cant think of what that could possibly be. indoctrination theory is just so simple and easy fix.

"clarify" and "bring closure" could possibly "fix" the ending. Don't underestimate the author's power over their world.

Don't misunderstand, it would be freaking hard. But it's very possible.

Modifié par Dreogan, 25 mars 2012 - 12:48 .

[Kylie Nightbreeze]

I have seen all of those videos and they are people trying to justify their ideas of what the endings mean. All of their points are stuff that happens in the last 10 minutes of the game. If BioWare wants to use the current ending that is fine, but for gods sake don't buy into this nonsense.

[ZiegenkonigIII]

Aiyie wrote...

ZiegenkonigIII wrote...

I think the main problem people have with the Indoc theory is that it would mean Bioware released an incomplete game. Which of course is wrong, but I think this whole mess has gotten past that point.

heh, now I gotta ask.

Which is worse... that they released an incomplete game, or that they thought the ending they did release was good?

Yeah that's the big question, and why I say that at this point it doesn't really matter.  Either way they really messed up, and "speculating" isn't going to change anything.  The only thing that will change something is getting out there and voicing your opinion.  The last thing we need are resistances inside our resistance.  

Personally, while I don't particularly suppost the Indoc theory (I think it's a desperate attempt to make sense of a non-sensical ending), I really wouldn't mind if it became the official ending come next DLC.  It has a lot of potential and just about anything is better then the current ending.

[Cyan-Glow]

ShepardTheHopeful wrote...

There is a huge collection of anti indoctrination (myself included) because we see logic not magical floating emergency induction ports to grab at to try and justify EA and Bioware. They wrote it that way cause they wanted to not because they left super secret clues for all of us smart people to find out. (If you really thought Bioware thought this hard to give you an ending go play Dragon age 2 or go talk to EA for a matter of 30 seconds see how well that idea went.) Truth is they threw a lot in and expected us to fill the holes the only problem is the holes go so deep no one know where the hell they go so we either pull at the straws. Realize this logic towards the fact the ending was suppose to be smart and analytic while it became pompous and overly philosophical. It doesn't even match Shepard's personality the choice isn't even that hard to make you think a fate of the entire universe would have a little more conversation or thought into it. But sadly it did not and thus here we are.

Well that's just dissmissive of Bio-Ware's history. In every new game they try to incorporate a novel approach or some new mode of stroy-telling. In DA2 it was a story being told through the words of a past companion removed from the action; and he found ways to stretch the truth which were included in gameplay as over-the-top epic battle sequences. Was it effective? Sort of, but it was something they stuck to throughout the game. So themes are consistent.

In ME3 the main themes are hope, desperation and the madness and struggle for control over a massiv new enemy. Literary devices like dreams and questionalble images/hallucinations dominate and haut Shepard from the first 10 minutes, to the last 10, so for people to dismiss IT for being too far-fetched is something i can't understand. The kid is no accident,. the forest, the inclusion of the ultimate hero in Anderson, and the ultimate villain of humanity in TIM as projections of Shepard's subconscious mind  were not chance events. The loop holes and logicl falacies, the lack of control, are all classic elements of dreams. Is it too intelligent for a massive release like this? Perhaps... I know it went over my head hen I first saw it, but the feelings it created fit the IT like a glove.

It's easy to look at it with anger and to want to say, "yes Bio-Ware screwed up, and their writers are not good, but think for a moment that they someho wmanaged to piece the whole rest of the game together. I think they know what they're doing and that when this is said and done we'll be very happy with the ending.

[KevShep]

Thornquist wrote...

The reason IT needs to die, is because it gives people false hope. Many who were perfectly happy with clarity & closure are now setting their hopes in a completely revamp of the last 10 minutes. When it dont happen, they will rage again.

No its only suggestions to Bioware to do this. Its not that we believe that it will happen its that we see a way out for Bioware that is better for all.

[Mbednar]

I really don't think there needs to be a resistance against it.

Because I'm pretty sure there is a 99.9% chance that it isn't going to be implemented.

[draken-heart]

i do not believe it, but i find Shepard being able to survive in space after blowing up the Citadel/Crucible and surviving impact on earth to be a false ray of hope unless Shepard never really left Earth. we all know that Shepard is still human even with all the implants and as such cannot survive in space without a helmet and breather mask.

Modifié par draken-heart, 25 mars 2012 - 12:55 .

[Thornquist]

KevShep wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

The reason IT needs to die, is because it gives people false hope. Many who were perfectly happy with clarity & closure are now setting their hopes in a completely revamp of the last 10 minutes. When it dont happen, they will rage again.

No its only suggestions to Bioware to do this. Its not that we believe that it will happen its that we see a way out for Bioware that is better for all.

Im sorry, but I have been enough in these forums to know that alot of people really do believe that this theory is true.
And in any case, Bioware have already stated that they will NOT change the endings, so discussing the IT, which DOES propose changing ending, is pointless. Discuss it from a fan-fiction point of view, maybe, but not like something Bioware should implement.

[Dreogan]

Cyan-Glow wrote...

ShepardTheHopeful wrote...

There is a huge collection of anti indoctrination (myself included) because we see logic not magical floating emergency induction ports to grab at to try and justify EA and Bioware. They wrote it that way cause they wanted to not because they left super secret clues for all of us smart people to find out. (If you really thought Bioware thought this hard to give you an ending go play Dragon age 2 or go talk to EA for a matter of 30 seconds see how well that idea went.) Truth is they threw a lot in and expected us to fill the holes the only problem is the holes go so deep no one know where the hell they go so we either pull at the straws. Realize this logic towards the fact the ending was suppose to be smart and analytic while it became pompous and overly philosophical. It doesn't even match Shepard's personality the choice isn't even that hard to make you think a fate of the entire universe would have a little more conversation or thought into it. But sadly it did not and thus here we are.

Well that's just dissmissive of Bio-Ware's history. In every new game they try to incorporate a novel approach or some new mode of stroy-telling. In DA2 it was a story being told through the words of a past companion removed from the action; and he found ways to stretch the truth which were included in gameplay as over-the-top epic battle sequences. Was it effective? Sort of, but it was something they stuck to throughout the game. So themes are consistent.

In ME3 the main themes are hope, desperation and the madness and struggle for control over a massiv new enemy. Literary devices like dreams and questionalble images/hallucinations dominate and haut Shepard from the first 10 minutes, to the last 10, so for people to dismiss IT for being too far-fetched is something i can't understand. The kid is no accident,. the forest, the inclusion of the ultimate hero in Anderson, and the ultimate villain of humanity in TIM as projections of Shepard's subconscious mind  were not chance events. The loop holes and logicl falacies, the lack of control, are all classic elements of dreams. Is it too intelligent for a massive release like this? Perhaps... I know it went over my head hen I first saw it, but the feelings it created fit the IT like a glove.

It's easy to look at it with anger and to want to say, "yes Bio-Ware screwed up, and their writers are not good, but think for a moment that they someho wmanaged to piece the whole rest of the game together. I think they know what they're doing and that when this is said and done we'll be very happy with the ending.

Under no circumstances is it acceptable to break the suspension of disbelief in storytelling. When people say Bioware is a crappy storyteller, they mean it-- and they are justified by this ending. Even if indoctrination were true, Bioware dropped the ball on properly leading in to the indoctrinated segment (which breaks the suspension of disbelief and invalidates the ending). These aren't high-class "rules" that can be "broken." The suspension of disbelief is the source of fiction. Cut off the source, invalidate the tale.

Every other example you just listed can just as easily be explained by techniques the storyteller can use: a child as a heart-string and nothing more, TIM/Anderson as archetypes of person that would fit well in the story at that specific time. The characters would still work there, it's the words that make no sense right now. Again, bad storytelling.

[KevShep]

Thornquist wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

The reason IT needs to die, is because it gives people false hope. Many who were perfectly happy with clarity & closure are now setting their hopes in a completely revamp of the last 10 minutes. When it dont happen, they will rage again.

No its only suggestions to Bioware to do this. Its not that we believe that it will happen its that we see a way out for Bioware that is better for all.

Im sorry, but I have been enough in these forums to know that alot of people really do believe that this theory is true.
And in any case, Bioware have already stated that they will NOT change the endings, so discussing the IT, which DOES propose changing ending, is pointless. Discuss it from a fan-fiction point of view, maybe, but not like something Bioware should implement.

They have not said that they are not changing the endings.Ive read the post from the CEO and it is said in a way as to not say ether or on both sides.

[Dreogan]

KevShep wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

The reason IT needs to die, is because it gives people false hope. Many who were perfectly happy with clarity & closure are now setting their hopes in a completely revamp of the last 10 minutes. When it dont happen, they will rage again.

No its only suggestions to Bioware to do this. Its not that we believe that it will happen its that we see a way out for Bioware that is better for all.

Im sorry, but I have been enough in these forums to know that alot of people really do believe that this theory is true.
And in any case, Bioware have already stated that they will NOT change the endings, so discussing the IT, which DOES propose changing ending, is pointless. Discuss it from a fan-fiction point of view, maybe, but not like something Bioware should implement.

They have not said that they are not changing the endings.Ive read the post from the CEO and it is said in a way as to not say ether or on both sides.

http://imgur.com/eMYVd 

"clarify" and "add closure" could potentially fix the endings. It's up to Bioware to make it not suck.

Modifié par Dreogan, 25 mars 2012 - 01:06 .

[KevShep]

Dreogan wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

The reason IT needs to die, is because it gives people false hope. Many who were perfectly happy with clarity & closure are now setting their hopes in a completely revamp of the last 10 minutes. When it dont happen, they will rage again.

No its only suggestions to Bioware to do this. Its not that we believe that it will happen its that we see a way out for Bioware that is better for all.

Im sorry, but I have been enough in these forums to know that alot of people really do believe that this theory is true.
And in any case, Bioware have already stated that they will NOT change the endings, so discussing the IT, which DOES propose changing ending, is pointless. Discuss it from a fan-fiction point of view, maybe, but not like something Bioware should implement.

They have not said that they are not changing the endings.Ive read the post from the CEO and it is said in a way as to not say ether or on both sides.

http://imgur.com/eMYVd 

Oh I see. If anything this still points to indoc theory becasue it would have to stay the same in order to be effective.

[Cant Planet]

Thornquist wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Thornquist wrote...

The reason IT needs to die, is because it gives people false hope. Many who were perfectly happy with clarity & closure are now setting their hopes in a completely revamp of the last 10 minutes. When it dont happen, they will rage again.

No its only suggestions to Bioware to do this. Its not that we believe that it will happen its that we see a way out for Bioware that is better for all.

Im sorry, but I have been enough in these forums to know that alot of people really do believe that this theory is true.
And in any case, Bioware have already stated that they will NOT change the endings, so discussing the IT, which DOES propose changing ending, is pointless. Discuss it from a fan-fiction point of view, maybe, but not like something Bioware should implement.

Again, IT doesn't require any change to the current ending. It simply interprets it as an inner story of Shepard's fight against the effects of Indoctrination, and allows the external story to continue after he wakes up and takes his breath.