367 réponses à ce sujet

[wheelierdan]

if your entire theory depends on dlc that bioware has said, there will be no post ending dlc, the theory fails. show me any proof that they've changed their mind on post ending dlc.

There is one exception, in response to the retake/ fan feedback they are doing some ending material, not to change the ending but just explain it. but this was not planned and done post game release. That doesn't count.

show me any proof that theres a pre existing plan for POST END dlc.

[KevShep]

Dreogan wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Dreogan wrote...



On the contrary, if they completely overhaul the ending or even go with indoctrination they risk an outcry from the people that simply didn't like indoctrination, liked the original endings, or consider this an "assault" on Bioware's artistic integrity. These same people may not react like a bear poked by a stick if they only clarify the existant ending.

I think all of the above are BS, but it doesn't change the fact that these people exist. And they do form a large enough group for Bioware to be concerned about them. Majority isn't important, only that enough people would get angry for Bioware to care.

I seem to be much more aware of the problems of the ending than you might give me credit; I've watched this unfold since the very beginning. I am aware of plot holes. But I'm also aware of an author's power over their work; plot holes can be plugged easily. Violations of the writer-reader contract are much harder to repair, but both a salvage attempt OR indoctrination will run into issues with this. This singular issue is what you should be concerned about, as a reader will forgive a few plot holes (even huge ones) if the suspension of disbelief is not broken.

I respect you but I disagree. The simple truth is that people ether want it changed completely or use the indoc theory. The people that like the ending"s" are a small few. That is what this hold the line thing is!

As I have said the plot holes are too many to salvage without ending up with a different ending altogether just trying to explain it. Its the ending (even explained) is not going to work and here is why...please read the hole articale-http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/2/

A reader will forgive a few plot holes (even big ones) unless he/she is a die hard fan!

There is not issue with the indoc theory it means that the Devs can do absolutely anything with the story.

 There's no way Bioware can do this without making a very large number of people angry, so the most likely scenario would be the fastest and least expensive option to them available.

(again, judging by expense, speed, tweets, hudson/the Doctor's posts). It takes a leap of faith of a completely different magnitude to assume they will jump on a fan-contributed theory to essentially redact what is actually in the game, then build a new ending from scratch on top of that.

Short version: Nobody's getting what they want.

That large number of people are holding the line right now and managed to make the news all over the world are going to do the opposit thing you mentioned. The Fastest solution is the fastest solution to not making things any better. Fastest is not the best option. Fast was how they came up with the current ending in the first place. 

 The fans is the whole reason bioware is in this mess. They deserve the hate. The only way out is to completely change it or use indoc.

[J717]

The Indoctrination Theory is not the friggin' ending.

People need to get that through their heads. If the IT is to be believed, it means we haven't actually seen the ending(s) yet - which means Shepard can continue fighting, and BioWare can actually implement an ending wherein we get closure, answers and is something a million times better than the garbage we got.

Kyle Nightbreeze:
No I don't, but what I do have is info gathered from playing all three games, and the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold. I doubt that being revived from the dead would cause the Indoc to still be there.

Um, no. He was completely blasted by Object Rho's energy in Arrival - and that was immediately before the events of ME3.

I'll say it again; all Indoc. Theory would do is wipe out everything after the beam and Marauder Shields...which is pretty much what everyone wants, regardless of if you support IT or not.

Finally...THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS NOT THE ENDING. PERIOD.

Modifié par J717, 25 mars 2012 - 02:40 .

[ref]

I'll say it again, the IT would be god awful if it wouldn't be supported by follow up DLC, and that's the whole reason why it makes so much sense when you think of it like that.

We'll just have to wait and see what BioWare has in store.

Modifié par Refara, 25 mars 2012 - 02:41 .

[Ricvenart]

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

I hear you on that one. This is starting to get a little creepy. It is a game.

Says the person who wants to make a "Resistance" against a popular topic of discussion on the forums and those that leave thier preference on the given topic stickied on the forums (you done that?).
Does the IT itself provide an ending? Did we all agree on what would happen next? I don't "believe" it or feel a need to "fight" for it, I just prefer it, it at least allows more to happen after it, not to mention it fits with so much of the game, more so then what is there, even if those things are just artifacts of scrapped ideas, they are still there and allows you to easier like it if you wish too.
You are the one here trying to fracture the agreement we want change, on the off chance the new ending given isn't what you want. Might want to think about that before you go round spouting insults like creepy and it only being a game. Nice way to generalize too.
What was I thinking asking for a better ending...after all it's just a game.

That being said I doubt they will use it, due to how much extra it would need unless it was planned all along. So either you will be happy or hate the preplanned ending anyway.

Modifié par Ricvenart, 25 mars 2012 - 02:45 .

[IronSabbath88]

Couldn't agree more Ricvenart.

It's one thing to attack BioWare for new endings and that whole resistance, but to start trying to resist the fellow fans who just want to think what they want? Now you're getting out of hand, imo.

[Kylie Nightbreeze]

wheelierdan wrote...

if your entire theory depends on dlc that bioware has said, there will be no post ending dlc, the theory fails. show me any proof that they've changed their mind on post ending dlc.

There is one exception, in response to the retake/ fan feedback they are doing some ending material, not to change the ending but just explain it. but this was not planned and done post game release. That doesn't count.

show me any proof that theres a pre existing plan for POST END dlc.

Umm they did say that at one point but you might want to read this:
http://blog.bioware....012/03/21/4108/

[Dreogan]

J717 wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not the friggin' ending.

People need to get that through their heads. If the IT is to be believed, it means we haven't actually seen the ending(s) yet - which means Shepard can continue fighting, and BioWare can actually implement an ending wherein we get closure, answers and is something a million times better than the garbage we got.

No I don't, but what I do have is info gathered from playing all three games, and the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold. I doubt that being revived from the dead would cause the Indoc to still be there.

Um, no. He was completely blasted by Object Rho's energy in Arrival - and that was immediately before the events of ME3.

I'll say it again; all Indoc. Theory would do is wipe out everything after the beam and Marauder Shields...which is pretty much what everyone wants, regardless of if you support IT or not.

Finally...THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS NOT THE ENDING. PERIOD.

False hope for ending DLC. Pics or it didn't happen, etc etc.

Modifié par Dreogan, 25 mars 2012 - 02:46 .

[Apollo-XL5]

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

But the Indoc theory creates even more holes than it solves, so it is no better.

Couls you please give us a list of ALL the plot holes that the IDT has, becuase i garantee you that it is a very short list compared to the megalist pf plot holes that the original endings have.

Do you just hate the idea that the hero of the story is just human like the rest of us and can be corrupted the same way.  Isnt it better for the story to have charracter that is just as fallible as everyone else, i believe that is more interesting than a hero that is never swayed by anguish or corruption.  I mean boring would Batman would be if he was absolutly perfect(just lookl at the scott snyder run of new52 batman comics to see how fall batman has fallen.  His climb back up to his best will be as brilliant a read as his fall).

I have given you examples 5 to be exact: 1. If it is a slow indoctronization from game one ending of ME1 is broken right there. Vigil wouldn't have even talked to Shepard. 2. Shepard died in the begining of ME2 so yet again slow indoc not possible unless cyborgs come preloaded with the indoctronized brian. 3. Shepard spent no more than two and a half hours of their time on the deralict Reaper, and even less time infornt of the Reaper embryo. 4. In ME3 if there was an indoc going on when he/she was in the Geth Colective the red lines would be going to the back of his/her head. 5. The little boy was real because at 5'2" (yes I am that short at age 30) tall I can climb in an air duct of that size, and if there was an opening off to the kids right or left he could be gone by thime Shepard looked back.

Would you like more?

Wow five is that a lot.  THe way i see it, the indoctrination would not have started till object rho at the end of mass effect 2.  Plus the kid was probably real, right at the beginning, but you see him running into that building, that the reaper then blows up, and sorry but it doesnt matter how much sun tan lotion you use there is no way in hell that anyone would survive in there, even in the airduct, since  fireball would go through any space open to it.  PLus anderson was next to shepard and wolud of heard the kid too.  And what about the people at the avc site.  YOu telling me that they wouldnt help a scared kid escape.  Also the dreams what about them, especailly the last o ne which showed that if shepard kept following the boy it would end in disaster.  I can bring in even more evidence if you like.

Would you like to know more?

[Qutayba]

I happen to like the Indoc theory because it redeems the writers (but still damns the suits) at BioWare. I recognize that it is kind of a conspiracy theory, and I know that it might not turn out the way I think it will.

That being said, while some people have suggested that Indoc might be the way for BioWare to go if they hadn't already planned it, ultimately it will be their decision. Yes, the fans got their attention about the ending, but we're not going to get to impose a particular vision of the ending on them. They have our critiques and will decide what to do.

Let's assume (perhaps foolishly) that they understand our problems with the ending, give them a chance.

[Kylie Nightbreeze]

Ricvenart wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

I hear you on that one. This is starting to get a little creepy. It is a game.

Says the person who wants to make a "Resistance" against a popular topic of discussion on the forums and those that leave thier preference on the given topic stickied on the forums (you done that?).
Does the IT itself provide an ending? Did we all agree on what would happen next? I don't "believe" it or feel a need to "fight" for it, I just prefer it, it at least allows more to happen after it, not to mention it fits with so much of the game, more so then what is there, even if those things are just artifacts of scrapped ideas, they are still there and allows you to easier like it if you wish too.
You are the one here trying to fracture the agreement we want change, on the off chance the new ending given isn't what you want. Might want to think about that before you go round spouting insults like creepy and it only being a game. Nice way to generalize too.
What was I thinking asking for a better ending...after all it's just a game.

That being said I doubt they will use it, due to how much extra it would need unless it was planned all along. So either you will be happy or hate the preplanned ending anyway.

Okay let me say this: I am resistant to the idea because it is crazy. People are talking about like it is pregiven fact that this is how the story is, and backing it up with nonsense. They complain about the last ten minutes of the game and then use it to justify their solution to the problem.

[Dreogan]

KevShep wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Dreogan wrote...



On the contrary, if they completely overhaul the ending or even go with indoctrination they risk an outcry from the people that simply didn't like indoctrination, liked the original endings, or consider this an "assault" on Bioware's artistic integrity. These same people may not react like a bear poked by a stick if they only clarify the existant ending.

I think all of the above are BS, but it doesn't change the fact that these people exist. And they do form a large enough group for Bioware to be concerned about them. Majority isn't important, only that enough people would get angry for Bioware to care.

I seem to be much more aware of the problems of the ending than you might give me credit; I've watched this unfold since the very beginning. I am aware of plot holes. But I'm also aware of an author's power over their work; plot holes can be plugged easily. Violations of the writer-reader contract are much harder to repair, but both a salvage attempt OR indoctrination will run into issues with this. This singular issue is what you should be concerned about, as a reader will forgive a few plot holes (even huge ones) if the suspension of disbelief is not broken.

I respect you but I disagree. The simple truth is that people ether want it changed completely or use the indoc theory. The people that like the ending"s" are a small few. That is what this hold the line thing is!

As I have said the plot holes are too many to salvage without ending up with a different ending altogether just trying to explain it. Its the ending (even explained) is not going to work and here is why...please read the hole articale-http://www.gamefront.com/mass-effect-3-ending-hatred-5-reasons-the-fans-are-right/2/

A reader will forgive a few plot holes (even big ones) unless he/she is a die hard fan!

There is not issue with the indoc theory it means that the Devs can do absolutely anything with the story.

 There's no way Bioware can do this without making a very large number of people angry, so the most likely scenario would be the fastest and least expensive option to them available.

(again, judging by expense, speed, tweets, hudson/the Doctor's posts). It takes a leap of faith of a completely different magnitude to assume they will jump on a fan-contributed theory to essentially redact what is actually in the game, then build a new ending from scratch on top of that.

Short version: Nobody's getting what they want.

That large number of people are holding the line right now and managed to make the news all over the world are going to do the opposit thing you mentioned. The Fastest solution is the fastest solution to not making things any better. Fastest is not the best option. Fast was how they came up with the current ending in the first place. 

 The fans is the whole reason bioware is in this mess. They deserve the hate. The only way out is to completely change it or use indoc.

Or... to throw the angry people a bone and let people get mad. They're going to get mad either way, as we've so conclusively shown.

(By the way, I was one of the early hold the liners!)

[wheelierdan]

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

if your entire theory depends on dlc that bioware has said, there will be no post ending dlc, the theory fails. show me any proof that they've changed their mind on post ending dlc.

There is one exception, in response to the retake/ fan feedback they are doing some ending material, not to change the ending but just explain it. but this was not planned and done post game release. That doesn't count.

show me any proof that theres a pre existing plan for POST END dlc.

Umm they did say that at one point but you might want to read this:
http://blog.bioware....012/03/21/4108/

i mentioned that due to backlash they are going to explain ending not add to them, they dont even call it dlc just content initiative.  theyve also said on twitter, in response to someone who hdnt yet beat the game but wanted to know if they should wait if the ending would change, that it would clarify the current ending.

[brusher225]

I don't think the indoc theory creates any plot holes at all. It's based on a dream, or halutionation. Many times dreams don't make sense.

But I think the reason most people are for the indoc theory is because it seems to be the only way to explain the plot holes we are left with without it. It would also be a way for them to keep the current ending in place while giving the real ending in a DLC. It would also be a lot less trouble to have a real ending that begins from there instead of completely slicing out the current ending and replacing it which obviously can't be done.

[Hunter_Wolf]

Dreogan wrote...

J717 wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not the friggin' ending.

People need to get that through their heads. If the IT is to be believed, it means we haven't actually seen the ending(s) yet - which means Shepard can continue fighting, and BioWare can actually implement an ending wherein we get closure, answers and is something a million times better than the garbage we got.

No I don't, but what I do have is info gathered from playing all three games, and the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold. I doubt that being revived from the dead would cause the Indoc to still be there.

Um, no. He was completely blasted by Object Rho's energy in Arrival - and that was immediately before the events of ME3.

I'll say it again; all Indoc. Theory would do is wipe out everything after the beam and Marauder Shields...which is pretty much what everyone wants, regardless of if you support IT or not.

Finally...THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS NOT THE ENDING. PERIOD.

False hope for ending DLC. Pics or it didn't happen, etc etc.

That's a poor rebuttal and you know it, you're relying on the absence of evidence to win an argument that is a waste of time.

[Dreogan]

To be honest, my deepest desire about the ending is to see Bioware come up with something completely different. Something that invalidates both the catalyst and indoctrination.

[Kylie Nightbreeze]

J717 wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not the friggin' ending.

People need to get that through their heads. If the IT is to be believed, it means we haven't actually seen the ending(s) yet - which means Shepard can continue fighting, and BioWare can actually implement an ending wherein we get closure, answers and is something a million times better than the garbage we got.

Kyle Nightbreeze:
No I don't, but what I do have is info gathered from playing all three games, and the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold. I doubt that being revived from the dead would cause the Indoc to still be there.

Um, no. He was completely blasted by Object Rho's energy in Arrival - and that was immediately before the events of ME3.

I'll say it again; all Indoc. Theory would do is wipe out everything after the beam and Marauder Shields...which is pretty much what everyone wants, regardless of if you support IT or not.

Finally...THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS NOT THE ENDING. PERIOD.

Glad you said that last part, but if object Rho Indoct Shep then why was Harbinger mad at him/her? It makes no sense. Try again. The Indoc their is just in bad taste and a quick fix to a problem those very rarely work.

[Dreogan]

Hunter_Wolf wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

J717 wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not the friggin' ending.

People need to get that through their heads. If the IT is to be believed, it means we haven't actually seen the ending(s) yet - which means Shepard can continue fighting, and BioWare can actually implement an ending wherein we get closure, answers and is something a million times better than the garbage we got.

No I don't, but what I do have is info gathered from playing all three games, and the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold. I doubt that being revived from the dead would cause the Indoc to still be there.

Um, no. He was completely blasted by Object Rho's energy in Arrival - and that was immediately before the events of ME3.

I'll say it again; all Indoc. Theory would do is wipe out everything after the beam and Marauder Shields...which is pretty much what everyone wants, regardless of if you support IT or not.

Finally...THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS NOT THE ENDING. PERIOD.

False hope for ending DLC. Pics or it didn't happen, etc etc.

That's a poor rebuttal and you know it, you're relying on the absence of evidence to win an argument that is a waste of time.

Nope, I'm demanding you show your concrete evidence that Bioware is releasing ending DLC related to indoctrination. Otherwise, your view is unfounded.

Gold-star bonus: don't ask me to disprove. That's known as 'unfair burden" and logically impossible. It is, however, invalid to make an assertion without evidence-- which so many people assume will come from indoctrination.

Modifié par Dreogan, 25 mars 2012 - 02:54 .

[J717]

Dreogan wrote...

J717 wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not the friggin' ending.

People need to get that through their heads. If the IT is to be believed, it means we haven't actually seen the ending(s) yet - which means Shepard can continue fighting, and BioWare can actually implement an ending wherein we get closure, answers and is something a million times better than the garbage we got.

No I don't, but what I do have is info gathered from playing all three games, and the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold. I doubt that being revived from the dead would cause the Indoc to still be there.

Um, no. He was completely blasted by Object Rho's energy in Arrival - and that was immediately before the events of ME3.

I'll say it again; all Indoc. Theory would do is wipe out everything after the beam and Marauder Shields...which is pretty much what everyone wants, regardless of if you support IT or not.

Finally...THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS NOT THE ENDING. PERIOD.

False hope for ending DLC. Pics or it didn't happen, etc etc.

It's called a theory; I didn't say it was something that's true or could be proven without a shadow of a doubt. I merely explained that some people in this thread, including the OP, seem to be ignorant to the idea of reading comprehension. The Indoctrination Theory would NOT be the ending. You wake up, and then BioWare continues the rest of the game with something none of us have actually seen yet.

Indoctrination Theory is just that, a theory (again, reading comprehension really helps here, folks - it's called a "theory" for a reason...it isn't fact) - but it's one that wipes out everything after the Beam, and would give BioWare the "cleanest" way to change everything after that without completely dismantling what already happened during the rest of the game. No one needs pics - if it is to be believed or supported, all one has to do is perceive the hints and clues throughout the game in that way. 

Personally, I see both arguments that IT is both grapsing at straws and is entirely believable - a lot of things just fit right for BioWare to run with it as an outlet to make a new or revised ending.

I honestly thought after Shepard got up from the beam blast and the radio said no one had made it to the Conduit (and the deliberate showing of Harbinger just bouncing the scene) that it was just a dream; everything seemed "off," and while I thought nothing of Indoctrination Theory at that point, I was entirely convinced it was a dream, especially when things got weirder and made no sense at all once you got inside and then after you met Starchild...needless to say, I was pissed beyond belief when I didn't just "Wake up" from that dream.

Modifié par J717, 25 mars 2012 - 02:54 .

[Apollo-XL5]

I still dont get why you that that having the hero who has fought the reapers for three games suddenly being mind***ked by them only to break from it to beat them is crazy. IT is actually brilliant and will make for brilliant drama, that ME is known for, plus the indoctrination fallss in line with what the reapers do for crying out loud.

[KevShep]

Dreogan wrote...


Or... to throw the angry people a bone and let people get mad. They're going to get mad either way, as we've so conclusively shown.

(By the way, I was one of the early hold the liners!)

 There beating around a bush by giving us posts by the CEO and Casey H. and it is only getting people more angery because they say one thing that then they say the opposite in the same post and we are left wondering "which is it?."

Hold the Line!

[Hunter_Wolf]

[quote]Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...
[/quote]
Okay let me say this: I am resistant to the idea because it is crazy. People are talking about like it is pregiven fact that this is how the story is, and backing it up with nonsense. They complain about the last ten minutes of the game and then use it to justify their solution to the problem.[/quote]

Eh, the people who say this is actually happening take it a little too far. I support the theory fully but I'm still not sure myself that that's what's going on. I see a hell of a lot of imagery here and there but that's up for interpretation. 

Even I'm skeptical because I don't see this happening so articulately in such a fashion. Because if they were this smart, and lets be honest that this would be pretty smart, the true ending would of been in the game. Ideally no dev should stand for dividing a smash hit title into parts just to keep people enticed but the reality is they're trying to make money. This is work for them, fun was just a small bonus.

[ZiegenkonigIII]

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

Ricvenart wrote...

Kylie Nightbreeze wrote...

I hear you on that one. This is starting to get a little creepy. It is a game.

Says the person who wants to make a "Resistance" against a popular topic of discussion on the forums and those that leave thier preference on the given topic stickied on the forums (you done that?).
Does the IT itself provide an ending? Did we all agree on what would happen next? I don't "believe" it or feel a need to "fight" for it, I just prefer it, it at least allows more to happen after it, not to mention it fits with so much of the game, more so then what is there, even if those things are just artifacts of scrapped ideas, they are still there and allows you to easier like it if you wish too.
You are the one here trying to fracture the agreement we want change, on the off chance the new ending given isn't what you want. Might want to think about that before you go round spouting insults like creepy and it only being a game. Nice way to generalize too.
What was I thinking asking for a better ending...after all it's just a game.

That being said I doubt they will use it, due to how much extra it would need unless it was planned all along. So either you will be happy or hate the preplanned ending anyway.

Okay let me say this: I am resistant to the idea because it is crazy. People are talking about like it is pregiven fact that this is how the story is, and backing it up with nonsense. They complain about the last ten minutes of the game and then use it to justify their solution to the problem.

I think you need to review the reasons why you want to resist against the Indoc people and what the implications would be on the Retake movement as a whole.

You have to keep in mind, a large number of Retakers are Indoc, and there isn't anything particularly wrong with their view.  Yes there are extremists, just like there are extremists in Retake.  The ones you are talking about would be extremists, and luckily they rarely take up a majority of the group.

Also keep in mind that we still have awhile to go to prove we are worthy of having the ending changed.  Starting a crack in our ranks isn't going to be helping anyone.

[KevShep]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

I still dont get why you that that having the hero who has fought the reapers for three games suddenly being mind***ked by them only to break from it to beat them is crazy. IT is actually brilliant and will make for brilliant drama, that ME is known for, plus the indoctrination fallss in line with what the reapers do for crying out loud.

Not to mention that Shepard has yet to face the problem of indoctrination. I was thinking in ME1 that at some point my Shep was going to have to face it head on. What better place to do that then now?

Modifié par KevShep, 25 mars 2012 - 02:58 .

[Dreogan]

J717 wrote...

Dreogan wrote...

J717 wrote...

The Indoctrination Theory is not the friggin' ending.

People need to get that through their heads. If the IT is to be believed, it means we haven't actually seen the ending(s) yet - which means Shepard can continue fighting, and BioWare can actually implement an ending wherein we get closure, answers and is something a million times better than the garbage we got.

No I don't, but what I do have is info gathered from playing all three games, and the fact that Shep died in the beging of ME2 kills the slow Indoc theory cold. I doubt that being revived from the dead would cause the Indoc to still be there.

Um, no. He was completely blasted by Object Rho's energy in Arrival - and that was immediately before the events of ME3.

I'll say it again; all Indoc. Theory would do is wipe out everything after the beam and Marauder Shields...which is pretty much what everyone wants, regardless of if you support IT or not.

Finally...THE INDOCTRINATION THEORY IS NOT THE ENDING. PERIOD.

False hope for ending DLC. Pics or it didn't happen, etc etc.

It's called a theory; I didn't say it was something that's true or could be proven without a shadow of a doubt. I merely explained that some people in this thread, including the OP, seem to be ignorant to the idea of reading comprehension. The Indoctrination Theory would NOT be the ending. You wake up, and then BioWare continues the rest of the game with something none of us have actually seen yet.

Indoctrination Theory is just that, a theory (again, reading comprehension really helps here, folks - it's called a "theory" for a reason...it isn't fact) - but it's one that wipes out everything after the Beam, and would give BioWare the "cleanest" way to change everything after that without completely dismantling what already happened during the rest of the game. No one needs pics - if it is to be believed or supported, all one has to do is perceive the hints and clues throughout the game in that way. 

Personally, I see both arguments that IT is both grapsing at straws and is entirely believable - a lot of things just fit right for BioWare to run with it as an outlet to make a new or revised ending.

I honestly thought after Shepard got up from the beam blast and the radio said no one had made it to the Conduit (and the deliberate showing of Harbinger just bouncing the scene) that it was just a dream; everything seemed "off," and while I thought nothing of Indoctrination Theory at that point, I was entirely convinced it was a dream, especially when things got weirder and made no sense at all once you got inside and then after you met Starchild...needless to say, I was pissed beyond belief when I didn't just "Wake up" from that dream.

I do agree indoctrination is a theory, but I simply find too many people giving this theory too much weight. It is possible, but people would be crushed if Bioware decides to go its own way. We 've already discussed indoctrination being one of many ways Bioware can "fix" the ending, and I simply don't agree it is the "cleanest" way for them to do this. For all we know, they might have an ace in the hole we would never see coming-- they are the author, after all.

Modifié par Dreogan, 25 mars 2012 - 02:58 .