508 réponses à ce sujet

[SLana]

“That’s the thing about getting old, Shepard. The platitudes get just as old. Pretty soon, blind hope is all we’ll have left…and I hate being blind.”
— Garrus Vakarian

Awookie wrote...
The fact that the kid recurrs frequently in nightmares, and is the human form of the catalyst = somethings up.

Remember Legion? "You process our memories by using your own. How many creators have you witnessed unmasked?" I know IT says that Harbinger or who else uses this form to make Shepard feel guilt, the boy makes a lot of noise to be detected but disappears quietly, and so one, but there's no need in using this appearance in the end until it wants Shepard to know the kid was fake or "creators case".

Modifié par SLana, 02 avril 2012 - 10:32 .

[VampireSoap]

CmdrSkinner wrote...

Fair play OP, I take back the whole "I can't take you seriously" comment. That was not a just & reasonable comment. However, I don't consider my conclusion unfairly biased, because;

1) I acknowledged that "bad writing = bad ending", as I said perfectly valid & reasonable assumption, furthermore I agreed with its likelihood as a possible explanation.
2) I acknowledged the shortcomings of the IT theory (there are certain aspects of it even I find far-fectched), but I do agree with the general idea.
3) I acknowledged IT is merely speculation, and will remain that way until BW make a statement, same goes for the bad writing interpretation. Until then were both playing the waiting game...

Perhaps if you had acknowledged why some had reached the IT conclusion I'd have considered your post a more balanced arguement? To me, your chosen thread title, those quotes, you didn't provide a counter arguement against IT that gave me that impression. Sorry if it was the wrong one, but if it is I'd suggest addressing those points. What I should of said was "I can't take your arguement seriously because you fail to examine the opposing arguement".

As for the ending, honestly I felt something was odd, and definately not (one of many different) satisfying conclusion I was expecting, but yeah I doubt I would have thought of IT on my larry. BW literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory! Quite an achievement to completely ruin the rest of the game & its previous intallments in 10 mins and leave so many plot holes, is it not as unlikely the producers of such quality content could drop the ball that bad? Still, after reading the discussions on here & playing the game again, IT seemed to fit rather well ("lots of speculation from everyone!"), I'm weary of falling into that trap however, hence I don't accept it as "absolute proof" like some are. I take your point about it being a poor buisness decision, but would a publisher think of it that way? An opportunity to make more money? Perhaps this reaction to the ending was not anticipated? Again, remains to be seen...

I'm curious, what did you think of the game & the ending? Would you pay for ending DLC? 

Very good. I really enjoy having such a rational conversation with you :happy:

As for what I think of the game & the ending, I think the game is pretty good, I would give 90 out of 100. But the ending is...just bad, it doesn't tell you what happens to your squadmates & LIs. Hell, it doesn't even give you a pat on the back! (:lol:this one is just a joke) It is as though none of the decisions you've made matter in the end. Also, would I pay for ending DLC? That really depends...you see, if in the future, they really make an ending DLC, I think I'll wait for a few days after the release because....I can never be sure if that new ending DLC is just as bad...

Modifié par VampireSoap, 02 avril 2012 - 10:36 .

[kalle90]

VampireSoap wrote...
highly hypothetically, if I claim that I had sex with your mother 20 years ago, and then it was you.

Loool. Highly, sure.

Anyway I fail to see the point. Bioware is keeping quiet only dropping vague info. So there really aren't external sources to use and internal (in-game) is spoilerific and obviously doesn't go anywhere. You will only be satisfied with 100% scientific result. A bunch of contradictive observations against the "official" ending doesn't even make you flinch, "they fall into the error margin" or something.

And as Catalyst proves, no proof or followable logic is needed when making a game. A million plotholes doesn't have to make it unreal. It's not real, our world, where 1+1=2. For all we know Bioware could pick a third option that is neither the current or IT - perhaps it was all a made up story, intoxication theory, Shepard is simply sleeping... IT theory simply would fit and explain many things happening during the game.

What you are wanting to do is like exploring space when spaceships, probes, satellites or anything wasn't invented yet: "Do you have proof that there's water on Mars? Why do you assume there's water on Mars?"

[Wynne]

VampireSoap wrote...

Wake up, people! Bad writing is just bad writing. There is no way game writers will hide the plots so sophisticated that it takes speculations in this depth to piece the story together. I kept laughing while I was watching the indoctrination theory video clip. I thought the guy was just being funny, but now so many people actually believe it. No wonder so many people right now still believe in magical beings in the sky....The pathway to truth is through reason and logic. When there is a situation presented to us, we don't make an assumption and then assume that assumption is right and make up all the details from there, we look at the data, the facts and then decide whether there is truth in this claim.

It's just my personal point of view, I'm sorry if it sounds offensive to some people. It is never my intention to provoke anyone.

Hon, all accusations of denial aside--they may be true in some cases--there's a very good reason why people believe Indoc theory. Because "magical beings in the sky" are the ending we got. 

The alternative to Indoc theory being true is believing that Bioware had a sudden, massive creative aneurysm at the absolute most critical moment of a really awesome game--nay, series. That somehow, rather than being spread out as is normal, 90% of the mistakes in the series were collected at the very end. How? How does that even happen? Especially to Bioware. 

The end of a game sticks out like a sore thumb. That's not the kind of glaring mistake that a huge team of people tends to make all together over the course of years, not unless they drastically overthink things and crack under extreme pressure to make everything perfect (which is admittedly quite plausible.)

I think there are two possibilities here: 

• Indoc theory is correct. Incredibly unlikely in most people's eyes, but it would be an amazing and brilliant twist if pulled off and it could redeem what we saw as weird, terrible mistakes--they would instead become an insidious sort of genius.
• Indoc theory is nonsense and they really had some sort of massive Deus Ex 1--as I said, creative aneurysm. They cracked under the pressure and time constraints. Completely understandable and, I guess, much more Occam's Razor-y.

If 1 is the case, then awesome. If 2 is the case, then... *sigh* then Mass Effect canon is likely broken forever with no hope of an ending which both Bioware and the player can agree on. So what can we turn to? Fanfiction. And besides the Intoxication theory, Indoc fanfic would be one of the only things that can make the ending we saw into anything coherent or clever or morally sound or in character. 

Let me put it this way: if you had two choices, believing that someone you love is a traitor to your country and to you, or believing that it was some kind of double-agent deal where they were actually protecting you and doing the right thing, wouldn't you prefer to believe the latter if you had deep knowledge of who that person is based on years of friendship? For those of us who've loved Bioware games for so many years, Indoc would be so vastly preferable to the stomach-churning idea that this is how they want the series to end. So we keep hoping. 

We're entitled to that hope, especially if it's realistically held. Sure, I fully accept that this could be what it looks like, a difficult-to-fathom mistake--but until I know, Indoctrination is more in line with what I know from Bioware, what I expect from them. The twists in KOTOR, Jade Empire, Baldur's Gate... that is Bioware. The ending we saw was emphatically not them, and not Shepard. It wasn't breaking out of the mold, it was trashing the entire art studio.

Indoc, when compared to the ending we saw being literal at least, is the only thing that makes any sense either in or out of character. That's why I support it. Because even if it's not true, it's better than accepting what we had. That, I will not, cannot do.

Modifié par Wynne, 02 avril 2012 - 10:42 .

[Jade Elf]

You're all wrong. Shep is obviously still stuck in the Geth VR space. Explains it all, really.

[SLana]

Jade Elf wrote...

You're all wrong. Shep is obviously still stuck in the Geth VR space. Explains it all, really.

So RBG is really just lack of Shepard's imagination? 

[Wynne]

You jest, Jade Elf, but that would still be better than a literal interpretation. So would the idea that the Crucible was testing Shepard's resolve and we haven't even seen it fire yet. Anything is still better than a literal view.

[TarielMaeda]

Everyone is wrong. Shepard got knocked out by the desk in the beginning of the game and the whole thing was all a dream.

[Wynne]

Still also better. Same with the "dying dream" idea. Keep 'em coming.

[kalle90]

Jade Elf wrote...

You're all wrong. Shep is obviously still stuck in the Geth VR space. Explains it all, really.

Hmm where else could have it all gone wrong?
-Right at the start. Shepard never existed. It was all a dream or fiction.
-When Shepard finds Cipher, Beacons or Conduit
-When Shepard is "killed" at the battle against Sovereign
-When Collectors blow SR1 up
-Intoxication
-When Shepard uses Omega Relay (no knowing what space magic it is)
-When Shepard enters Overlord matrix
-When Object Rho knocks Shepard out
-Anytime Shepard had a dream in ME3 (not listing others because of spoilers)

[Merwanor]

Until I get a better explenation than the Indoc Theory, I will hold it as the best explenation.
As long as the truth of the endings is not clear as the sky, I can't really believe it though. For now the Indoc Theory stands as the best explenation to something so nonsensical and so filled with plot holes, something so badly writen or writen with the purpose to push us in this direction.

If the IT is proven wrong, then by all means do so, I welcome it. I might not be happy that it is proven wrong, but I will have to accept it as the explenation Bioware intended. But also since ME is fiction, I am also at the liberty to just dismiss the truth and make up my own ending or stick to the indoc theory if I find that the people behind it makes it more logical than the intended ending.

And I have to say that if the Indoc Theory is false, then kudos to those who came up with it, it was much more believable and entertaining than the ending Bioware intended it to be.

edit: changed some of the words to make my point more clear, and removed some lines that was badly writen.

Modifié par Merwanor, 02 avril 2012 - 11:32 .

[VampireSoap]

Wynne wrote...

Hon, all accusations of denial aside--they may be true in some cases--there's a very good reason why people believe Indoc theory. Because "magical beings in the sky" are the ending we got. 

The alternative to Indoc theory being true is believing that Bioware had a sudden, massive creative aneurysm at the absolute most critical moment of a really awesome game--nay, series. That somehow, rather than being spread out as is normal, 90% of the mistakes in the series were collected at the very end. How? How does that even happen? Especially to Bioware. 

The end of a game sticks out like a sore thumb. That's not the kind of glaring mistake that a huge team of people tends to make all together over the course of years, not unless they drastically overthink things and crack under extreme pressure to make everything perfect (which is admittedly quite plausible.)

I think there are two possibilities here: 

• Indoc theory is correct. Incredibly unlikely in most people's eyes, but it would be an amazing and brilliant twist if pulled off and it could redeem what we saw as weird, terrible mistakes--they would instead become an insidious sort of genius.
• Indoc theory is nonsense and they really had some sort of massive Deus Ex 1--as I said, creative aneurysm. They cracked under the pressure and time constraints. Completely understandable and, I guess, much more Occam's Razor-y.

If 1 is the case, then awesome. If 2 is the case, then... *sigh* then Mass Effect canon is likely broken forever with no hope of an ending which both Bioware and the player can agree on. So what can we turn to? Fanfiction. And besides the Intoxication theory, Indoc fanfic would be one of the only things that can make the ending we saw into anything coherent or clever or morally sound or in character. 

Let me put it this way: if you had two choices, believing that someone you love is a traitor to your country and to you, or believing that it was some kind of double-agent deal where they were actually protecting you and doing the right thing, wouldn't you prefer to believe the latter if you had deep knowledge of who that person is based on years of friendship? For those of us who've loved Bioware games for so many years, Indoc would be so vastly preferable to the stomach-churning idea that this is how they want the series to end. So we keep hoping. 

We're entitled to that hope, especially if it's realistically held. Sure, I fully accept that this could be what it looks like, a difficult-to-fathom mistake--but until I know, Indoctrination is more in line with what I know from Bioware, what I expect from them. The twists in KOTOR, Jade Empire, Baldur's Gate... that is Bioware. The ending we saw was emphatically not them, and not Shepard. It wasn't breaking out of the mold, it was trashing the entire art studio.

Indoc, when compared to the ending we saw being literal at least, is the only thing that makes any sense either in or out of character. That's why I support it. Because even if it's not true, it's better than accepting what we had. That, I will not, cannot do.

First of all, I have never met Wynne personally and have no idea why he or she called me "Hon"

Secondly, to answer your question, (if you had two choices, believing that someone you love is a traitor...) well, logic dictates that I am incapable of making that choice until I know what REALLY happened. Also, you may be entitled to hope, but you are NOT entitled to use hope as your basis against rational thinking and facts. It is what it is, no matter how sad it may look.

[VampireSoap]

Merwanor wrote...

Until I get a better explenation than the Indoc Theory, I will believe it. It is like how most scientific people think really, at least most of those I know. I believe the most believable explanation for something until it is disproved.
As long as the truth of the endings is not clear as the sky, I can't really believe it. For now the Indoc Theory stands as the best explenation to something so nonsensical and so filled with plot holes, something so badly writen or writen with the purpose to push us in this direction.

If it is proven wrong, then by all means do so, I welcome it. I might not be happy that it is proven wrong, but I will have to accept it. But also since ME is fiction, I am also at the liberty to just dismiss the truth and make up my own ending or stick to the indoc theory if I find that the people behind it makes it more logical than the intended ending.

And I have to say that if the Indoc Theory is false, then kudos to those who came up with it, it was much more believable and entertaining than the ending Bioware intended it to be.

No, no. It is quite the opposite. Scientists are known to be skeptical. They will NOT believe in anything untill it is PROVEN. And no offense, I am a science student myself, I wonder how many scientists you actually know. None of my professors behave the same way you described. Normal people are the ones who are more likely to believe in things that HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN. That's why religions exist.

[ThomasakaDes_]

BurnOutBrighter wrote...

Because it's the only waypoint of that awful, broken ending.

We'd prefer that the ending was a dream that didn't actually happen, instead of the ending that was real and did actually happen. That's how bad it is.

If indoctrination wasn`t the case, then I wouldn`t mind much.
The ending isn`t horrible imo.
And I`m not trolling!

[Gnaeus.Silvanus]

OMG! How come so many people actually believe in the Indoctrination Theory? I mean,..

Well, you can't blamed us OP. We love Mass Effect and anything that resolves the ending and putting things right is welcomed.

Modifié par Gnaeus.Silvanus, 02 avril 2012 - 11:17 .

[Merwanor]

VampireSoap wrote...

Merwanor wrote...

Until I get a better explenation than the Indoc Theory, I will believe it. It is like how most scientific people think really, at least most of those I know. I believe the most believable explanation for something until it is disproved.
As long as the truth of the endings is not clear as the sky, I can't really believe it. For now the Indoc Theory stands as the best explenation to something so nonsensical and so filled with plot holes, something so badly writen or writen with the purpose to push us in this direction.

If it is proven wrong, then by all means do so, I welcome it. I might not be happy that it is proven wrong, but I will have to accept it. But also since ME is fiction, I am also at the liberty to just dismiss the truth and make up my own ending or stick to the indoc theory if I find that the people behind it makes it more logical than the intended ending.

And I have to say that if the Indoc Theory is false, then kudos to those who came up with it, it was much more believable and entertaining than the ending Bioware intended it to be.

No, no. It is quite the opposite. Scientists are known to be skeptical. They will NOT believe in anything untill it is PROVEN. And no offense, I am a science student myself, I wonder how many scientists you actually know. None of my professors behave the same way you described. Normal people are the ones who are more likely to believe in things that HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN. That's why religions exist.

Sorry, I might have writen this post poorly, I am not a good writer and english is not my first languge, and it is the middle of the night here . But what you said was kind of what I was trying to get across. I am skeptical, that is why I can't really believe in the indoc theory. That is why I can't believe anything without complete backing by proof. But we can hold it as the explenation that likley to be true.

Evolution is not completly proven is it? since there is the whole thing with the missing link and all that, It is still concidered a theory that most scientific people perceive as truth. But it is the theory that has the most backing as to be the truth. And yes I don't know many scientists, but I do go on a few lectures at the university I am studying that deals with this subject.

[EHondaMashButton]

APOLOGIES  FOR WALL OF TEXT


[quote]Arkitekt wrote...

[quote]EHondaMashButton wrote...

I'm not seeing the anti-IT people offer any actual arguments against it.[/quote]

Some glasses will help you. Really. I mean WTF. 
[/quote]

Thanks for that well defended argument against IT.  You didn't just prove my point at all. 
[quote] All I see is people saying IT cherry picks XYZ and ignores ABC. What exactly does IT ignore?[/quote]
[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
The basic fact that you have a finished product in your hands. The basic fact that IT *needs* extra content that would only reach half (or way less) of the clients who are just wtf righ now.
[/quote]


******WARNING SPOILERS*******
After you beat the game, there's a cutscene suggesting Shepard's story isn't over, and a popup for DLC telling you the story's not over.  And the devs/PR people were all over twitter talking about how theres more to come, big reveletions in store, etc. before the IT video was even made. 

Extra content?  Are you referring to the Arrival?  Cause I never had that one.  The kid surviving the building explosion, the weird nightmares, the weird anderson/illusive man sequence where he somehow controls anderson and controls you to shoot anderson, the catalyst being the kid, and the fact that he goes from talking about the reapers as things that work for him to saying "We" this and "We" that, and the fact that I remember Control didn't work for TiM or the Protheans separatists and Synthesis didn't work for Saren, was enough to make me question his solution.  And that's without any IT video or DLC.

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
The basic fact that all the clues you gather for indoctrination theory are just overreaching.
Shepard is wounded in the same spot as Anderson? INDOCTRINATION HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE?
Shepard eyes become huskified when he goes to Control? INDOCTRINATION HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE?

And so on and so on. It's pathetic.
[/quote]
Finished or not has no bearing on the developer's intention.  EA decided this game was coming out on March 6.   Bioware is EA. EA is Bioware. The ending they had at the end of Dec is the ending they were shipping.

What you're doing is not providing evidence against IT, you're dismissing the notion that there are parts of the ending that are more than coincidence.  You're lumping shaky anecdotes for IT with solid questions that deserve explanation.  And worse, you're putting words in peoples mouths. 

I never said said his eyes become huskified.  I said he gets TiM eyes. Its deliberate. And its a bit weird no?   And I asked for your explanation.  You still haven't given one as far as I can tell.  All you do is repeat it back to us.  So I guess its just a big coincidence, and some dude in the art dept
decided it would be cool to create extra work for himself while they were rushing this ending, to create a transition from blue electricity filling
brown eyes to perfectly clear TiM eyes that you only notice if you're looking closely.  I never said it was IT. I asked you what it was, if not IT.   Coincidence doesn't cut it.
[quote]People keep saying oh, it means we got no ending. Or tearing down a false argument that Shep was indoctrinated the entire game. Nobody is saying that. We're saying shep has free will going into the finale, his/her will is weakened, and at least 1 of the choices is giving in to indoctrination.[/quote]
[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
You missed the point. Since Shep can be indoctrinated, who's to say when this happened? Why not accept the other ton of possibilties for *which there are also "evidence" for them?*
[/quote]

This is not even an argument. Not knowing when it happened doesn't invalidate it.  They beat you over the head with the idea that indoctrination is an insideous process.  Nobody who has been indoctrinated was aware of it until somebody else snapped them out of it.  Every other possibility I've seen requires multiple individual explanations pieced together or dismissing everything as coincidence/laziness.  Which is fine for some things, but not for everything.

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
Massive leap my backside! BioWare is nowhere near the perfect gods of writing you make them out to be. ME plots have holes the size of Chewbacca since the first installment. Nobody cared too much (except for Smudboy) since the games felt right anyway. ME3 ending didn't because they tried too hard to come up with something amazingly original (since 95% of the rest of ME is pretty much a mish mash of homages of a loooot of sci fi).
[/quote]

Perfect gods of writing? Where did I writh that or even imply it? This is like having a discussion through telephone tag.  You're jumping all over the place.  Bioware's writing is NOT bad.  Cliche/sappy maybe, but it isn't bad.

Mmmkay so they use cliche's all throughout 95% of the game, and steal the ending of Deus Ex.  Yet its an illogical leap that they'd steal concepts from the Matrix/Inception/Manchurian Candidate.  In a game where half of the baddies MO is indoctrination, and your very first encounter with them is through an indoctrinated Spectre.  The guy you replaced.  And presumably the guy you worked for in the last game and fight against this game.  Yes, it is completely unforseen that they might go after Shepard himself.  He/She isn't a valuable asset at all.<_<
[quote]I can't think of any plot holes elsewhere in the game. But the game is definitely rushed. Being rushed and IT aren't mutually exclusive. It can be an ambitious ending that ran out of time. [/quote]
[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
They *did* try to make indoctrination and didn't work out so they scrapped it. But you say there are no plot holes elsewhere? O RLY? So please enlighten me how the hell is Ashley Lieutenant Commander at the start of ME3. What is the "S1" doing in her armor plate? Why is the Illusive Man trying so hard to defeat Shepard purposes when he needs the Crucible being done anyway? And these just of the top of my head. ME3 script is filled with holes. I didn't mind however, most of it just felt right.
[/quote]

I said "I can't think of any plot holes elsewhere," not "there are no plotholes elsewhere."  The squad plotlines have been reasonably well vetted thus far.

Remember the surveillance tapes? Kai Leng asks for permission to go after Shepard and TiM doesn't let him.  He thinks he can get shepard to come around.  Plus TiM experimented on his own brain and clearly became indoctrinated at some point by the finale.  Plus his forces are all indoctrinasted "volunteers"  and he's never had that great a grip on what every cerberus cell was doing in the first place.  Arguing his rationale or the actions of cerberus will only lead to circular arguments.
Ash's ensignias are clearly key to the plot of ME3.  For all we know she got a promotion to Lt. commander and joined the S program where she started as a 1.  Might as well ask how the hell Jack got a job as a teacher with her prison record and psych profile.  Its irrelevant to the meat of the story. 

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
All that this entails is that there wasn't enough time to create said closure, so they went with the "cheapest" solution, i.e., "lots of speculation!" However, the end product is what it is, and millions of people have played it already. They have their own finale and for them, that's the finale they believe is canon. To go around now and say "TROLLFACE!" is just beyond dumb and illogical.
[/quote]

The finale can be canon as is and still be IT or some other non-literal interpretation.  "Deep Breath" and "The Stargazer" already tell you the ending isn't 100% what it seems and there's more to come.  Or at possibly, "there is no canon, and there are alternate endings to this story."  Thats the whole point of "lots of speculation". 

Its not TROLLFACE, no ending!   Its "we're not done yet."  Ya'll got caught up in the PR people telling you this was a resolution, while the writers were writing a cliffhanger ending with an escape clause.

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
It would have been good, not bad. There was the slight danger of repeating one of the most remembered bosses, one which would directly mess up with your control of the character and make you do the exact opposite. But other than that, yes it would have been awesome. They scrapped it and went towards a different direction.

The one we got. The canon.

[quote]Its also not illogical to presume that some bits of IT were left in/reinterpreted, where removing it would make things even worse. The endings we got are a rush job. That doesn't invalidate IT.[/quote]

Of course it does. The way they weaved the last minutes concluding the story without any of IT is enough proof.[/quote]

Apparently it doesn't because here we are.  If you write a story with subtle clues, then never do the big reveal, those clues become just weird, tidbits.  If you lopped of the endings of  Vanilla Sky, The Sixth Sense, or Repo Men,  we'd be arguing the same points.  Some say it was nonsensical rubbish.  Others would say its leading somewhere but got cut off somewhere along the way.

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
Other explanations abound. Nothing to do with indoctrination. After ME2, BioWare was heavily criticized for Shepard not being "humanized" and able to express his emotions. Shep was a blank state. So, they made Shep more human. They gave shep dreams. Dreams are not necessarily indoctrination. Most likely (90%) they are just the effects of fatigue and wear.
[/quote]

Other explanations abound, none of which you list.      That's fine but content of the dream itself has significance.  Its a carefully crafted scene that EVERY player will see.  They could've done a slow-mo of you reliving the moment the kid died.  The scene changes.  That alone means something.  I haven't heard your explanation.
[quote]Deep breath should NOT happen. You're were in space. Thats a point blank detonation. That choice is supposed to kill you anyway. This either never happened or the starchild lied to you. Either way, the guy in charge of cinematography is smart enough to know that massive explosion in space =/= deep breath withouht good explanation.[/quote]
[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
Because Chuck-Norris-type characters never survive big explosions.... lol
[/quote]

Last time they did something like this, it was at the beginning of tyhe game, and there was a half hour of explanation on how they brought you back.  This time half your suit is already burned off, you were just told the weapon was specifically  engineered to destroy your kind, and it leaves the question of whether you're still in space, and if not, how you survived re-entry. 

There's surviving big explosions and theres surviving explosions visible from space.  All jokes aside, nobody is this bad a writer. I could write a more sensical sequence of events than that.

[quote]Its going to take a helluva re-write to explain some of these character's leaving you and teleporting back, when they're just 40 yards from the site.[/quote]

Yes. Well, the algorithm that chooses the three occupants of the Normandy is complex, but depends heavily on your past choices. However, they clearly forgot to add the last choice of whoever goes with you.

[quote]Javik - the embodiment of vengeance, who's plan is to kill himself anyway
Liara- who brought you back from the dead once already
Garrus- shepard and stopping the reapers are literally all he has in life
Tali- who just promised to be at your side always like 5 minutes ago
Joker- who keeps coming back for multiple suicide missions[/quote]

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
Fleeing from a huge RGB ball is not treason, it's basic survival instinct.[/quote]

You're very good at skipping 5 steps ahead and rebutting a point nobody made.  Its not about the RGB at that point, you're lying on the ground somewhere.  Why would a perfectly healthy squadmate (evidenced by stepping off the normandy without a scratch), leave the area when harbinger clearly flies off, leaving the beam unprotected?    If they assumed you dead, and this is the key to the survival of the galaxy, they go to the beam.  Not back to the Normandy.  Not getting outdone by a 60 year old man.  Javik ain't leavin.  Liara at least scoops up your dead body so she can creepily reanimate you again.  The writers who've molded these characters would be like hey, Joker is no coward, this ending is BS.

[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
They could do a ton of things. For instance, they could have not frakked up the ending. The fact that they did frak up is not evidence that the ending is not what we've seen however, which is the ridiculous reasoning you are making here! Bad endings are always bad, even if they are only meant to troll you. If that was their intention, they *still* shouldn't have frakked up so badly like they did. That is, the endings we got are *still* bad. But wasn't that impossible? Aren't BioWare infallible or some such shenanigan?
[/quote]

Okay we're finally getting somewhere.  You've actually stated your argument, I think.  That the ending just sucks.  Thats fine. bioware isn't perfect.  They're capable of writing a terrible ending.  But they would NOT write an ending that completely unravels the relationships and character traits of the characters they've established.  At least not the plot-armor important ones (sorry Jacobmancers). 

[quote]A montage of clips recycled from the game with a slow background audio track would be less work than the crash, stargazer, and deep breath scenes.[/quote]
[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
Dunno what a montage of recycled clips could do.[/quote]

For one, your ending is accepted on face value.  Cut away before the relays explode, no teasers to undermine the validity of what was just presented.  Montage for some closure.  Its a much simpler resolution. [quote]Im not claiming it all points to IT, but Bioware are not bad writers. There are waaaaay easier ways to do this ending. They went out of their way to choose this course of events. Some of these things clearly mean SOMETHING. Not everything about this ending is literal. They wanted speculation. IT can't explain it all, but neither can a literal interpretation. [/quote]
[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
A literal interpretation is clearly easy to follow. And it doesn't contradict the game we got. Which is what really counts here.[/quote]

A literal interpretation doesn't allow for LOTS OF SPECULATION, which is what they wanted.  On some level, its purposefully unclear by design.  Whether or not you accept that is on you.
[quote]And do it without answering with "that means we didn't get an ending". IT or no IT we already didn't get an ending. Releasing the energy of mass relays (what the kid says) destroys solar systems if they blow up (what the Arrival says) and at minimum the energy/radiation makes planets uninhabitable (what the codex says). [/quote]
[quote]Arkitekt wrote...
Bullpoop. We *did* get an ending, just one we didn't like. Wake up, you're indoctrinated!
[/quote]

I'll clarify. Whether or not you take the events of the finale at face value, the game just "ended."  We didn't get a "resolution." 

Modifié par EHondaMashButton, 02 avril 2012 - 11:35 .

[EHondaMashButton]

Rasofe wrote...

EHondaMashButton wrote...

TiM


You


Please explain.

Ever since Shepard was ressurected his eyes were actually cybernetic. If he's Renegade and doesn't get the surgery, it shows. My renegade unsurgeoned shepard had red eyes in this scene, not blue.
TIM always had cybernetic eyes. They're not necessarily a sign of indoctrination.

Cybernetic eyes are solid red/blue with 3 dots.  And like others have said, TiM got those eyes after exposure.

[VampireSoap]

Merwanor wrote...

Sorry, I might have writen this post poorly, I am not a good writer and english is not my first languge, and it is the middle of the night here . But what you said was kind of what I was trying to get across. I am skeptical, that is why I can't really believe in the indoc theory. That is why I can't believe anything without complete backing by proof. But we can hold it as the explenation that likley to be true.

Evolution is not completly proven is it? since there is the whole thing with the missing link and all that, It is still concidered a theory that most scientific people perceive as truth. But it is the theory that has the most backing as to be the truth. And yes I don't know many scientists, but I do go on a few lectures at the university I am studying that deals with this subject.

Yeah, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you in the first place. Please accept my apologies :happy:

And first of all, the indoc theory has NOT been proven yet. No Bioware official has ever confirmed it, and the theory has never cited any reliable sources.

As for your confusion about the Evolution Theory, please check out talkorigins.org. Also, you can find more information on UC Berkeley's (probably along with all other respected universities) public websites. We have found so much evidence to support this theory, hundreds of thousands of experiments have been conducted since Charles Darwin published his book On the Origins of Species in 1800s, and they all lead to the same conclusion that Evolution is a fact.

But I really don't want to get too much into that, on topic, I just want to say that there is a fundamental difference between the indoctrination "theory" and a scientific theory like the Evolution.

[Ravenmyste]

tim doesn't have cybernetic eyes.. there the very first stages of his indoctrination . read the comic or look around the website a thread that talks about his eyes wasn't blue that was the light of the earth and the colors of the earth shining back his eyes are darkgreen with very light hue of blue{ look at saren eyes they are deep glowing blue

[Nauks]

VampireSoap wrote...

Wake up, people! Bad writing is just bad writing. There is no way game writers will hide the plots so sophisticated that it takes speculations in this depth to piece the story together.

The whole point is that we as the player are not supposed to figure it out until after the fact.
Making it overly obvious would have defeated its purpouse.

[VampireSoap]

EHondaMashButton, hi. Not that I don't care about the points that you are trying to make, but may I make the humble request that you should shorten your replies? The sheer amount of information makes me speechless because I don't even know how to begin.:happy:

[ThomasakaDes_]

Let me ask you IT non-belivers this:
Would you rather that ME would end now, or would you rather there be made a new game?

With the IT, there could be made a completely new game as well as the dlc they`re making.

I for one, wouldn`t mind buying ME4.

[Cadence of the Planes]

VampireSoap wrote...

Wake up, people! Bad writing is just bad writing. There is no way game writers will hide the plots so sophisticated that it takes speculations in this depth to piece the story together. I kept laughing while I was watching the indoctrination theory video clip. I thought the guy was just being funny, but now so many people actually believe it. No wonder so many people right now still believe in magical beings in the sky....The pathway to truth is through reason and logic. When there is a situation presented to us, we don't make an assumption and then assume that assumption is right and make up all the details from there, we look at the data, the facts and then decide whether there is truth in this claim.

It's just my personal point of view, I'm sorry if it sounds offensive to some people. It is never my intention to provoke anyone.

Are you so shocked and repulsed that your point of view isn't shared by everyone?

[Merwanor]

VampireSoap wrote...

Merwanor wrote...

Sorry, I might have writen this post poorly, I am not a good writer and english is not my first languge, and it is the middle of the night here . But what you said was kind of what I was trying to get across. I am skeptical, that is why I can't really believe in the indoc theory. That is why I can't believe anything without complete backing by proof. But we can hold it as the explenation that likley to be true.

Evolution is not completly proven is it? since there is the whole thing with the missing link and all that, It is still concidered a theory that most scientific people perceive as truth. But it is the theory that has the most backing as to be the truth. And yes I don't know many scientists, but I do go on a few lectures at the university I am studying that deals with this subject.

Yeah, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you in the first place. Please accept my apologies :happy:

And first of all, the indoc theory has NOT been proven yet. No Bioware official has ever confirmed it, and the theory has never cited any reliable sources.

As for your confusion about the Evolution Theory, please check out talkorigins.org. Also, you can find more information on UC Berkeley's (probably along with all other respected universities) public websites. We have found so much evidence to support this theory, hundreds of thousands of experiments have been conducted since Charles Darwin published his book On the Origins of Species in 1800s, and they all lead to the same conclusion that Evolution is a fact.

But I really don't want to get too much into that, on topic, I just want to say that there is a fundamental difference between the indoctrination "theory" and a scientific theory like the Evolution.

No need to appologise and of course there is large differences between those theories, come on, the indoc theory is just about an ending for a game. It is like comparing the size of earth to the size of the sun when it comes to complexity.

And I do not believe the Indoc Theory as I am skeptical about it, since it has no real proof, mostly just interpretations of what little sources there are to take information from. But that being said, I find it to explain the endings in a way that may seem believable, as the endings are so open to interpretation and makes no real sense to me now. And the only way all of this can be resolved is that Bioware comes forth and actually tell us something about their intended meaning for these endings.

Modifié par Merwanor, 02 avril 2012 - 11:58 .