216 réponses à ce sujet

[ElementL09]

The Makr wrote...

I am a Pro-Ender because I believe the Indoc Theory.  I think it would be the greatest ending in video game history if they planned it that way and people thiught they were playing out the string, when really the player has darn near been indoctrinated, or at least experiencing it as closely as sheperd does.  It gets you literally into shepherd's most internal battle - fighting for control of his own mind.  How cool is that.  Part of the reason I'm not bitter is I got the best possible ending and I didn't read cheats to get it.  Now Bioware better make some more DLC (which I always buy from them anyway) and let me pull myself up out of the rubble and finish my business with the Reapers for real.  If that doesn't havppen then I won't get closure.

Also, as a working adult who acutally makes money $10 dlc supporting my fav developers all time is nothing to me.  Glad to support Bioware and will continue to do so.  Those who have a different opinion or cannot afford DLC I can empathize with that for sure though.

As an adult who actually makes money, $10 dlc for ending content toward an incomplete game is ridiculous. Kudos to you for supporting Bioware, I can respect that.

[RogueBot]

I disagree. The main reason it works is because it's such an unexpected departure in storytelling style compared to the rest of the trilogy. Most of Mass Effect is a relatively straightforward space opera with clear resolutions to story arcs (such as the Geth/Quarian conflict, the genophage, etc.). Then all of a sudden, in the last 15 minutes of the game, they switch to an intentionally ambiguous style of storytelling with far more questions than answers, which is completely unexpected due to the last 100+ hours of playing.

That kind of inconsistency is just bad writing. Sorry. And if they used that inconsistency as a crutch to get the player to "indoctrinate" themself, that's not respectable either.

Modifié par RogueBot, 01 avril 2012 - 12:51 .

[RogueBot]

iVitriol wrote...

RogueBot wrote...

I disagree. The main reason it works is because it's such an unexpected departure in storytelling style compared to the rest of the trilogy. Most of Mass Effect is a relatively straightforward space opera with clear resolutions to story arcs (such as the Geth/Quarian conflict, the genophage, etc.). Then all of a sudden, in the last 15 minutes of the game, they switch to an intentionally ambiguous style of storytelling with far more questions than answers, which is completely unexpected due to the last 100+ hours of playing.

That kind of inconsistency is just bad writing. Sorry.

Or entirely planned...

Are you saying that it being "planned" makes it better? Using inconsistency as a crutch to get the player to "indoctrinate" themself doesn't make it better, IMO.

The best twist endings in fiction fit the tone of the story. For example, Inception. The question of reality is a major theme throughout the film, with the protagonist's wife even killing herself due to her inability to live in reality. It all has a very surreal feel to it. By the end of the film, you're left wondering whether or not the main character himself is even living in the real world. It works.

Unlike Inception, the question of Shepard's "reality" isn't a theme at all, and neither is indoctrination (although it is an element of the Mass Effect universe). Taking something that's only an element, and not a theme, and combine it with storytelling inconsistency to give us an ambiguous ending isn't respectable storytelling, IMO.

Modifié par RogueBot, 01 avril 2012 - 12:57 .

[RogueBot]

iVitriol wrote...

RogueBot wrote...

iVitriol wrote...

RogueBot wrote...

I disagree. The main reason it works is because it's such an unexpected departure in storytelling style compared to the rest of the trilogy. Most of Mass Effect is a relatively straightforward space opera with clear resolutions to story arcs (such as the Geth/Quarian conflict, the genophage, etc.). Then all of a sudden, in the last 15 minutes of the game, they switch to an intentionally ambiguous style of storytelling with far more questions than answers, which is completely unexpected due to the last 100+ hours of playing.

That kind of inconsistency is just bad writing. Sorry.

Or entirely planned...

Are you saying that it being "planned" makes it better? Using inconsistency as a crutch to get the player to "indoctrinate" themself doesn't make it better, IMO.

The best twist endings in fiction fit the tone of the story. For example, Inception. The question of reality is a major theme throughout the film, with the protagonist's wife even killing herself due to her inability to live in reality. It all has a very surreal feel to it. By the end of the film, you're left wondering whether or not the main character himself is even living in the real world. It works.

Unlike Inception, the question of Shepard's "reality" isn't a theme at all, and neither is indoctrination (although it is an element of the Mass Effect universe). Taking something that's only an element, and not a theme, and combine it with storytelling inconsistency to give us an ambiguous ending isn't respectable storytelling, IMO.

Sure, it's rushed and poor writing. My question is why are you defending it?
Are you just so enthralled by others' pain that you do it for sh*ts and giggles?

Uh... what? I'm not defending anything. What exactly do you think I'm defending? I'm sure as hell not defending the ending, whether the IT applies or not.

[RogueBot]

iVitriol wrote...

RogueBot wrote...

iVitriol wrote...

RogueBot wrote...

iVitriol wrote...

RogueBot wrote...

I disagree. The main reason it works is because it's such an unexpected departure in storytelling style compared to the rest of the trilogy. Most of Mass Effect is a relatively straightforward space opera with clear resolutions to story arcs (such as the Geth/Quarian conflict, the genophage, etc.). Then all of a sudden, in the last 15 minutes of the game, they switch to an intentionally ambiguous style of storytelling with far more questions than answers, which is completely unexpected due to the last 100+ hours of playing.

That kind of inconsistency is just bad writing. Sorry.

Or entirely planned...

Are you saying that it being "planned" makes it better? Using inconsistency as a crutch to get the player to "indoctrinate" themself doesn't make it better, IMO.

The best twist endings in fiction fit the tone of the story. For example, Inception. The question of reality is a major theme throughout the film, with the protagonist's wife even killing herself due to her inability to live in reality. It all has a very surreal feel to it. By the end of the film, you're left wondering whether or not the main character himself is even living in the real world. It works.

Unlike Inception, the question of Shepard's "reality" isn't a theme at all, and neither is indoctrination (although it is an element of the Mass Effect universe). Taking something that's only an element, and not a theme, and combine it with storytelling inconsistency to give us an ambiguous ending isn't respectable storytelling, IMO.

Sure, it's rushed and poor writing. My question is why are you defending it?
Are you just so enthralled by others' pain that you do it for sh*ts and giggles?

Uh... what? I'm not defending anything. What exactly do you think I'm defending? I'm sure as hell not defending the ending, whether the IT applies or not.

PARADOX!

Haha... okay, the KU/Ohio St. game is on now, I think I should go.

[Sefriol]

I have a better idea. Maybe ME3 was just a game Shepard played back on Earth?
..... Wait, no. FU IT.

[Penitent]

The Makr wrote...

If indoc theory is correct, then it's the best ending of all time....

Except it's not. IT is just a bunch of malarkey fabricated by deperate fans with a penchant for wild speculation.

For example, I read one piece which claims Shepard's pistol having infinite ammo (after awakening following the beam strike), is proof of IT. This is a common occurrence during pivital points in a game's story though, and it's in no way unique to ME3.

I make fun of it here:
http://social.biowar.../index/10680358

Another claims that Shepard holding his side as Anderson did after being shot, after sitting down next to him, suggests that "the wound was actually inflicted on (his) own psyche."

Shepard is holding his own side before he ever shoots Anderson though.

(Enlarge images to see detail better.)

End of walking scene with Shepard not holding side:


Transition into dialogue scene opens with Shepard immediately holding side:


Another view of Shepard holding his side (pre-shooting):


Both of the above are from before Shepard shoots Anderson.

Ending of TIM dialogue scene with Shepard again holding side:


He alternates between holding it, and not holding it, over the course of the scene. There doesn't appear to be any real correlation between the two.

There's simply too much baseless speculation with IT proponents, and too little sense and facts. I could easily pose similar arguments based upon illusory postulations.

Case in point: Anderson being shot.

The apparent point of impact, of which Anderson holding his own side is the only indicator, is inconsistent with the trajectory of the weapon.

Right as discharge takes place: 


Following discharge:


I could take this molehill, of how Anderson not depicting any impact wound, the lack of blood in relation to that impact, the faulty trajectory of the weapon, etc., and make a mountain out of it in support of "IT." I wouldn't be "proving" anything however. All I would really be doing is selectively culling scenes which depict nothing more than frivolous graphic oversights, and divorcing them from their larger context, which is the story that's currently unfolding.

The infinitely more likely truth is that these things were simply never meant to be scrutinized to the extent being done by "IT" proponents. There is no indicator of any deeper hidden meaning here. These, peculiarities of the game, are merely ancillary to the primary focus, which is the drama explicitly unfolding in the dialogue. By reversing the order of their importance, "IT" proponents are not only failing to see the forest for the trees, but are wandering off into a realm of unadulterated ambiguity; in which events, divorced from the overt motives being conveyed by the dialogue, can mean whatever you want them to mean.

As such, IT proponents are not only insulting every sensible person who played this game, but are an affront to reason itself. I want a genuine remedy for this game's bad ending, not convolution (IT) heaped upon vagary (the current ending).

[Eshaye]

It's not because Shepard is in fact indoctrinated and interpreting what is going on with the catalyst with her/his mind only that his/her choice doesn't matter and that the ending don't actually take place, whatever you pick.

I think the plan was that it does even though what we see and experience is through Shep's mind state. It's like eating grubs in some dark cave in reality while in your mind you're eating strawberries in a meadow. You're still eating.

[Dragoonlordz]

Indoc theory is not an ending. It is a way for those who are not happy with the current ending to reset what already saw to leave open to new endings, and does not cover what happens after meaning an actual ending.

[liggy002]

The Makr wrote...

I am a Pro-Ender because I believe the Indoc Theory.  I think it would be the greatest ending in video game history if they planned it that way and people thiught they were playing out the string, when really the player has darn near been indoctrinated, or at least experiencing it as closely as sheperd does.  It gets you literally into shepherd's most internal battle - fighting for control of his own mind.  How cool is that.  Part of the reason I'm not bitter is I got the best possible ending and I didn't read cheats to get it.  Now Bioware better make some more DLC (which I always buy from them anyway) and let me pull myself up out of the rubble and finish my business with the Reapers for real.  If that doesn't havppen then I won't get closure.

Also, as a working adult who acutally makes money $10 dlc supporting my fav developers all time is nothing to me.  Glad to support Bioware and will continue to do so.  Those who have a different opinion or cannot afford DLC I can empathize with that for sure though.

Agreed, that would be amazing story telling.  The only thing is I am afraid that it might not be true and that ending is what they intended as a standalone release.

[liggy002]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Indoc theory is not an ending. It is a way for those who are not happy with the current ending to reset what already saw to leave open to new endings, and does not cover what happens after meaning an actual ending.

No, it doesn't cover what happened but an expansion DLC released by Bioware would.

[Dragoonlordz]

liggy002 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Indoc theory is not an ending. It is a way for those who are not happy with the current ending to reset what already saw to leave open to new endings, and does not cover what happens after meaning an actual ending.

No, it doesn't cover what happened but an expansion DLC released by Bioware would.

What do you mean no? I am right, if you have to wait for whatever Bioware would come up with regarding an expansion in addition to indoc then I am still right. Indoc is not an ending, in that situation whatever extra content outside of the theory is the ending. The theory itself only makes it possible to create a new ending but it is not an ending itself.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 avril 2012 - 02:37 .

[Dendio1]

The infinitely more likely truth is that these things were simply never meant to be scrutinized

Sigh....except that it was all meant to be analyzed and discussed. Bioware specifically waited up until now to give people more time to finish the endings and discuss the game as a whole. They tweeted as much and they also tweeted that paying attention to details is paramount.

They knew what they were getting into. The heavy bleeding out of nowhere, the magic table out of nowhere. Yea give us a month of speculations.. the final hour memo..

They are tightlipped until pax. All we get from them is that they have big plans and to hold on to our saves

Modifié par Dendio1, 01 avril 2012 - 02:39 .

[PhotonMaze]

Bhatair wrote...

It's not a good ending, hell it's not an ending at all. I'm saying that as someone that likes the theory, it's entertaining and makes a lot of inconsistencies bearable.
It has less closure and resolves less than what we actually got. In that scenario the reaper war is still going on and nothing has been solved. Pretty ****** poor ending to the trilogy if you ask me. If they try to sell 'real' ending DLC to us later I'm done. I'm not going to buy what should have been part of the game to start with. Let's not kid ourselves here, either. This is EA we're talking about, they're going to charge for it.

If the indoctrination theory is true, it's clearly not going to be the end of the story when shepard wakes up. No one thinks that. It is an incredible twist which gives them the opportunity to add an amazing ending which the fans can be happy with. It will most likely lead to closure and a satisfying ending. That's the beauty of the indoctrination theory - bioware can get fan feedback about what we want in an ending before they actually create the real ending.

If they charge for it, why wouldn't you buy it? How can you dtermine what's meant to be in the standard game? Just because they left the game on a supposed cliffhanger (If this was intentional), it doesn't mean that the game is incomplete. Instead of releasing a Mass Effect 4 to see what happens we'll get DLC, what's wrong with that?

Assassin's Creed games have ended with nothing but cliffhangers so far. Does that make them incomplete? No, because more content comes afterwards - as we now know it will in Mass Effect's case.

[Helmschmied]

@Penitent:
That still doesn't disprove anything, it doesn't even really necessarily mean that this piece of evidence is wrong. Good point nonetheless.

Edit: As stated before in various other threads, my belief is that BioWare intended to pull a STALKER on us - several bad "fake" endings, which screw you over, and to real endings, thar you had to look for, but the real endings are missing, for whatever reason. Maybe they didn't get finished in time, so they cut them out and went with what they had.

That's my theory, though. At least that's how the ending felt like.

Modifié par Helmschmied, 01 avril 2012 - 02:43 .

[brusher225]

I agree OP. Good post.

[PhotonMaze]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Indoc theory is not an ending. It is a way for those who are not happy with the current ending to reset what already saw to leave open to new endings, and does not cover what happens after meaning an actual ending.

No, it doesn't cover what happened but an expansion DLC released by Bioware would.

What do you mean no? I am right, if you have to wait for whatever Bioware would come up with regarding an expansion in addition to indoc then I am still right. Indoc is not an ending, in that situation whatever extra content outside of the theory is the ending. The theory itself only makes it possible to create a new ending but it is not an ending itself.

The indoctrination theory is still a good cliffhanger if more content is to be released. It depends what you mean by ending because it could be a good ending to the game but a bad ending to the overall series - because it still doesn't answer anything.

I love the indoctrination theory explicitly because it gives bioware the opportunity to do everything the fans want.

[Penitent]

Dendio1 wrote...

The infinitely more likely truth is that these things were simply never meant to be scrutinized

Sigh....except that it was all meant to be analyzed and discussed. Bioware specifically waited up until now to give people more time to finish the endings and discuss the game as a whole. They tweeted as much and they also tweeted that paying attention to details is paramount.

They knew what they were getting into. The heavy bleeding out of nowhere, the magic table out of nowhere. Yea give us a month of speculations..didnt you get the final hour memo?

They are tightlipped until pax. All we get from them is that they have big plans and to hold on to our saves

Congratulations. Your quote is out of context and completely ignores the larger picture of the content from which it was taken. I couldn't have asked for a more superb illustration of the point I made in my previous post. 

Apparently, you guys can't even make a post without vindicating me.

[Penitent]

Helmschmied wrote...

@Penitent:
That still doesn't disprove anything, it doesn't even really necessarily mean that this piece of evidence is wrong. Good point nonetheless.

Edit: As stated before in various other threads, my belief is that BioWare intended to pull a STALKER on us - several bad "fake" endings, which screw you over, and to real endings, thar you had to look for, but the real endings are missing, for whatever reason. Maybe they didn't get finished in time, so they cut them out and went with what they had.

That's my theory, though. At least that's how the ending felt like.

And your proof for this being the case is? More of the egregiously tenuous conjecture I depict above?

[Mcfly616]

Dire Wombat wrote...

No.

Indoctrination theory would have been a brilliant IDEA for an ending, and it's a great fanfic "patch" for what we actually got.

But if IT were what the writers intended (it's not), the ending as it actually exists still wouldn't be brilliant. It still wouldn't include an ACTUAL ending, rolling the credits at the start of the climax. And the twist would be badly written. A good twist ending makes the viewer take a bunch of things they THOUGHT made sense, or things they ignored, and realize that they make more sense/have meaning seen through the lens of the twist.

When the viewer says "Oh, I guess all those plot holes and bad writing actually weren't, because they all happened in a dream"... that's just bad writing.

It's not? Not what they intended?

I wasn't aware Bioware commented on this yet....could you possibly provide your sources? Fill us all in so you don't have to be the only person in the world that knows this information....

[Jadebaby]

comrade gando wrote...

If they planned it all along, then indeed this would be the greatest mindf--k moment in video games I can recall. Very clever when you notice all the subtleties hinting at indoctrination in the last 10 minutes. However you also must consider that by doing this the developers sold an incomplete game for full price, which brings up a lot of hot topics as far as developer/consumer morals.

Technically this isn't true, because as a standalone game the end is still something in itself. Absolutely no one would like it otherwise...

I think it's clever if it's true, very clever, especially because those who like the endings (and have played through ME1-3) will get the greatest sense of what it feels like to be indoctrinated irl.

[Helmschmied]

And your proof for this being the case is? More of the egregiously tenuous conjecture I depict above?

I do not claim to have any. All I'm saying is that ITs claims can be correct as well, since the zoom on Shepards wound isn't really necessary and may be intentional. I'm not saying this is true. We don't have confirmation on that.