216 réponses à ce sujet

[pharsti]

rachellouise wrote...

'it was all a dream' is far from the best ending, and one generally avoided. I hope they clear some things up..but I would prefer something else to that

This, i understand many would prefer that to what we have, but its obvious the IT was not planned, and if they do somehow use it (doubt that, a lot) then all thatll do is leave me with a worse ending than what i have.

[liggy002]

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.

Dragoon, that's what I meant, you are right.  I didn't mean "no" in the sense that you were wrong.

[jla0644]

Best ending ever if it's true? No thanks, I'd rather have the endings as they are, as horrible as they are, than have the indoctrination theory be true.

[liggy002]

jla0644 wrote...

Best ending ever if it's true? No thanks, I'd rather have the endings as they are, as horrible as they are, than have the indoctrination theory be true.

Why?

[RevanchistStenn]

It's too bad that the indoctrination theory isn't supported by the lore.

And that it's obviously not what they were thinking anyway.

But it's nice for people to believe in false things, I guess. If it makes you feel better.

[liggy002]

Shepard just fell to Earth after the citadel exploded and survived the explosion. Who is believing in false things now?

[Mcfly616]

liggy002 wrote...

Shepard just fell to Earth after the citadel exploded and survived the explosion. Who is believing in false things now?

This. Exactly this....lol people are funny

[balance5050]

RevanchistStenn wrote...

It's too bad that the indoctrination theory isn't supported by the lore.

And that it's obviously not what they were thinking anyway.

But it's nice for people to believe in false things, I guess. If it makes you feel better.

Pfffft! How about you read up on it son? The Final Hours app states that they were working on it. How is indoctrination not supported by the lore? You be a bad troll.

[aimlessgun]

The indoc theory has horrible implications. If Red is the "correct" choice, Bioware has taken control of Shep's thoughts away from the player in a final betrayal of the choice premise integral to the ME series. For red to 'break indoctrination' you must assume that Shepard thinks in very limited preset ways, and that each choice corresponds to a certain way of thinking in Shep's mind, when in fact this is not the case at all...unless Bioware now controls our Shep's thoughts. I mourn the death of roleplaying. 

Modifié par aimlessgun, 01 avril 2012 - 03:35 .

[Madkipz]

If indoctrination theory is true. Then we went trough retake mass effect with weeks of ****ty bioware responses for the proper ending. <,<

Just... No.

[AtlasMickey]

lol

If you're indoc, you're not pro- anything.

[Mcfly616]

People just hate on indoctrination are just mad about the possibility of being fooled....I'll gladly pay for w.e end they have in store....if its what they had planned

[ChuckieJ]

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. And if they used that inconsistency as a crutch to get the player to "indoctrinate" themself, that's not respectable either.

Bioware has done twists before but this one pulls you closer to being in Shep's shoes than you've ever been before. You are confused because Shepard is confused. I don't know if you can say completely unexpected as the origin of the Reapers has always been a mystery and the StarChild claims to be giving the great Shepard who "made it this far" the explanation. Turns out, it's all a big con.

You even walk slowly towards your choice. It worked perfectly for me. As I was walking toward Control, I realized that this control might not be permanent. I then realized I really had no reason to trust this StarChild. So I turned around and went to Destroy (Shep's original goal!). As long as I was doubting whether Control would be permanent, I might as well doubt whether the Geth will really die.

The last 15 mins (assuming indoctrination is true, and I grow more sure by the day) are a great mix of writing, gameplay design and artists coming together to bring us into the indoctrination process.

[aimlessgun]

Mcfly616 wrote...

People just hate on indoctrination are just mad about the possibility of being fooled....I'll gladly pay for w.e end they have in store....if its what they had planned

This is the issue: everyone was fooled. Basically nobody thought "hey I'm being indoctrinated, let's resist indoctrination!". People had various thought processes about which decision they made, and each decision does not correspond to a certain thought process. 

For example, maybe I didn't trust Star Child, and clearly shooting at the crucible (destroy option) is ridiculous and it's what the reapers want. So I don't choose it, because I want to resist reaper influence. But according to IT, it doesn't matter that you made your choice with the mindset of resisting reaper influence...you're indoctrinated anyways!

Or in another example, maybe I think Synthesis is the best option, but I don't want to disintegrate my body, so I take Destroy for the chance at living, even though I think Synthesis is best for the galaxy. Logically just by agreeing that Synthesis is best, I should be indoctrinated, but nope! IT says that I break indoctrination anyways, even if I agree with the reapers. 

Add to the fact that most people didnt even want to choose any of the endings at all. 

[ChuckieJ]

Madkipz wrote...

If indoctrination theory is true. Then we went trough retake mass effect with weeks of ****ty bioware responses for the proper ending. <,<

Just... No.

How is it our fault or Bioware's fault that you got to then end of the game and thought Bioware messed up and started a whole movement around it? I say that because I was actually upset with the ending (not Retake level, but I'm going to play something else for a week level) but once I saw the 20 minute indoctrination video I was hooked again and applauding what Bioware pulled off (what the OP said about indoctrinating the player).

[aimlessgun]

ChuckieJ wrote...
You even walk slowly towards your choice. It worked perfectly for me. As I was walking toward Control, I realized that this control might not be permanent. I then realized I really had no reason to trust this StarChild. So I turned around and went to Destroy (Shep's original goal!). As long as I was doubting whether Control would be permanent, I might as well doubt whether the Geth will really die.

So if you didn't trust Star Child, why do you take his word that shooting your own superweapon will make it work?

Say I'm Star Child. You don't trust me. I say to you, basically:
"Hey Shepard, if you shoot your superweapon here, that will totally make it work and kill all the reapers. Really I promise! Shooting hi-tech equipment usually makes it function in my experience."

And you believed that?

Modifié par aimlessgun, 01 avril 2012 - 03:52 .

[Arivle]

Though indoctrination theory is the only one which can logically explain the current ending non-sense, I greatly distaste it. Why? Because sudden switch to "dreaming" without warning is always fooling the consumer/viewer/spectator, (you name it) by a "dirty" trick. It's not great, it's *cheap*. Indoctrination theory explains the ending not because of some artistically great and unexpected plot-twist but simply because it brings "Matrix-fooling" into play and thus can explain indeed _anything_. Even if Shepard would suddenly become a Mickey Mouse, or was actually indeed just a fat future Earth player living in a virtual world entertainment system. That's _not_ how great stories are written.

The sad things is... Nothing can save ME3 anymore. Except just a plain ending replace. Via "patch", not DLC.

Modifié par Arivle, 01 avril 2012 - 04:02 .

[CuseGirl]

aimlessgun wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People just hate on indoctrination are just mad about the possibility of being fooled....I'll gladly pay for w.e end they have in store....if its what they had planned

This is the issue: everyone was fooled. Basically nobody thought "hey I'm being indoctrinated, let's resist indoctrination!". People had various thought processes about which decision they made, and each decision does not correspond to a certain thought process. 

For example, maybe I didn't trust Star Child, and clearly shooting at the crucible (destroy option) is ridiculous and it's what the reapers want. So I don't choose it, because I want to resist reaper influence. But according to IT, it doesn't matter that you made your choice with the mindset of resisting reaper influence...you're indoctrinated anyways!

Or in another example, maybe I think Synthesis is the best option, but I don't want to disintegrate my body, so I take Destroy for the chance at living, even though I think Synthesis is best for the galaxy. Logically just by agreeing that Synthesis is best, I should be indoctrinated, but nope! IT says that I break indoctrination anyways, even if I agree with the reapers. 

Add to the fact that most people didnt even want to choose any of the endings at all. 

THANK YOU!!! Anybody out here who claims they knew without ANY doubt they were fighting indoctrination once they woke up in the red lit hall of the Citadel is a liar. You took that scene at face value and then after you didn't get the ending you wanted, you had to shoehorn a bunch of little threads of story into a theory. If Bioware intended for us to fight indoctrination at the end, they would have explicitly said so in the game. And then they would have claimed it publicly. But they haven't. So I'm not buying it and giving Bioware an out on this terrible ending.

[felipejiraya]

I can understand when people say they don't like the IT, but prefer the actual endings to it is bat**** crazy to me.

[ChuckieJ]

aimlessgun wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

People just hate on indoctrination are just mad about the possibility of being fooled....I'll gladly pay for w.e end they have in store....if its what they had planned

This is the issue: everyone was fooled. Basically nobody thought "hey I'm being indoctrinated, let's resist indoctrination!". People had various thought processes about which decision they made, and each decision does not correspond to a certain thought process. 

For example, maybe I didn't trust Star Child, and clearly shooting at the crucible (destroy option) is ridiculous and it's what the reapers want. So I don't choose it, because I want to resist reaper influence. But according to IT, it doesn't matter that you made your choice with the mindset of resisting reaper influence...you're indoctrinated anyways!

Or in another example, maybe I think Synthesis is the best option, but I don't want to disintegrate my body, so I take Destroy for the chance at living, even though I think Synthesis is best for the galaxy. Logically just by agreeing that Synthesis is best, I should be indoctrinated, but nope! IT says that I break indoctrination anyways, even if I agree with the reapers. 

Add to the fact that most people didnt even want to choose any of the endings at all. 

I agree with you here both that we might not have wanted any of the options and that you might have chosen what you did for a wierd reason. I don't understand why you think the Reapers wanted you to Destroy, though. It's presented as the first option (with a downside of losing the Geth), then you are presented with two choices that are explained to be better.

Anyway, now that we have a pretty good idea we can think about how this thought process might go in a perfect world (even if this player we imagine doesn't know)

1) Control - TIM's goal. Starchild claims Shepard can do it but he's not done anything to earn our trust except appearing ethereal. Further we don't know for sure that the effect is permanent. The Reapers might regain control after months or years. TIM got indoctrinatied by trying this and we might as well.
2) Synthesis - turning everyone in the galaxy into cyborgs. I don't understand how anyone can believe this is actually neutral. Forcing that on anyone is incredibly unfair, even if it turns out OK. The only examples we have in the game of synthesis are husks, banshees and other Reaper soldiers. Synthesis was Saren's stated goal. He was indoctrinated.
3) Destroy - original goal of you and your fleet. The StarChild claims you will kill the Geth as well. I decided it was worth the risk. But really we're back to the fact we have no reason to trust him. Turns out if you choose this, you wake up in the rubble of likely London, having never gone to the Citadel.

[aimlessgun]

felipejiraya wrote...

I can understand when people say they don't like the IT, but prefer the actual endings to it is bat**** crazy to me.

Well if the endings are just horribly written, there's a chance (a tiny chance I admit) of a total retcon removing star child entirely. 

[RevanchistStenn]

balance5050 wrote...

RevanchistStenn wrote...

It's too bad that the indoctrination theory isn't supported by the lore.

And that it's obviously not what they were thinking anyway.

But it's nice for people to believe in false things, I guess. If it makes you feel better.

Pfffft! How about you read up on it son? The Final Hours app states that they were working on it. How is indoctrination not supported by the lore? You be a bad troll.

Guess you didn't read the books, huh? An unwilling indoctrination subject, even when directly implanted takes much longer to convert.

[FS3D]

CuseGirl wrote...

THANK YOU!!! Anybody out here who claims they knew without ANY doubt they were fighting indoctrination once they woke up in the red lit hall of the Citadel is a liar.[SNIP!]

I know I certainly had no suspicion of indoctrination until I looked into it online...

That's how badly executed the endings were.

[aimlessgun]

ChuckieJ wrote...
I agree with you here both that we might not have wanted any of the options and that you might have chosen what you did for a wierd reason. 

...

Anyway, now that we have a pretty good idea we can think about how this thought process might go in a perfect world (even if this player we imagine doesn't know)

...

Fair point that if they wanted to 'indoctrinate the player' then this scheme might work for the 'average' player, even if it doesn't make sense for some people. 

I don't understand why you think the Reapers wanted you to Destroy, though. It's presented as the first option (with a downside of losing the Geth), then you are presented with two choices that are explained to be better.  

Just the hypothetical perspective of someone who doesn't trust the Star Child at all, and ignores what he says- looking past the Star Child at what is truly presented to you on the platform.

You see some sort of explodable thing, you see a beam of light, and you see some glowy lever looking dealies. If Star Child isn't there, you go for the glowy levers right? Because nothing else makes sense as a control input for a giant piece of technology. But Star Child shows up to trick you and confuse you, and he shows you a vision of TIM using the levers, clearly steering you away from them. And he shows you a vision of Anderson shooting the explody thing, clearly steering you to Destroy. 

Modifié par aimlessgun, 01 avril 2012 - 04:13 .

[ChuckieJ]

CuseGirl wrote...

THANK YOU!!! Anybody out here who claims they knew without ANY doubt they were fighting indoctrination once they woke up in the red lit hall of the Citadel is a liar. You took that scene at face value

AGREE

Yep I did! It was bizarre but I did.

CuseGirl wrote...

and then after you didn't get the ending you wanted, you had to shoehorn a bunch of little threads of story into a theory. If Bioware intended for us to fight indoctrination at the end, they would have explicitly said so in the game. And then they would have claimed it publicly. But they haven't. So I'm not buying it and giving Bioware an out on this terrible ending.

DISAGREE

By not explaining in the game, they brought us into the process (as the OP is claiming). It's not a twist if you explain it! There were clues and maybe a half of a percent of people figured it out in the first playthrough. Who knows.

The clues are actually pretty powerful they were just subtly hidden. It's pretty hard to discount just the boy who no one sees, and the oily shadows the Rachni queen talked about in ME1. Those alone are strong evidence even if they were left to the player (or the community) to figure out.

But no Bioware would not come out publicly and say it (yet). There are still people that haven't finished. The face bug is still out there. Etc. A month seems like a long time but really their PAX panel is the perfect time to explain, not in some blog post or tweet.