309 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadowNinja1129]

FemmeShep wrote...

Not so fast. Prior to the beam, it's already been said that the Crucible had different functions as designed by past creators/cycles. So I still don't get why you are ignoring the Crucible plot, and saying the 3 options are that of IT and not by the design of the weapon.

IMO the Crucible plot takes precedent.

Heh, well, let's put it this way. As it currently stands, the Crucible serves one of two purposes:

If the ending is real: The Crucible is a big fat MacGuffin that only exists to drive the plot of the third game. Its a magical mysterious source of energy that does something that none of the engineers who put it together can figure out. Will we ever know what it really does? No, not really, other than create new "possibilities" so says the Catalyst.

If IDT/hallucination/whatev is true: The Crucible technically hasn't even come into play yet. It could still be just a MacGuffin, or it could be a money pit planted by the Reapers to distract civilizations by making them pour resources into a mysterious incomplete superweapon conveniently left behind by the previous cycle.

Either way: Lots of speculation from everyone!

/sigh

[Ariella]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Ariella wrote...
...Why is this so hard to understand?...

i feel the same way.

Difference between me and you is I have hard facts from the game, from interviews etc, where you have inferences and basically faith. There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out.

[sfam]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Because the haters dont like the idea that bioware pulled the wool over their eyes and basically indoctrinated the players.

Said another way, the indoctrination theory detractors aren't ready to buy the idea that Bioware overtly punked all their customers - that this was the plan.  That they were looking for horrid user reviews across the net from stores like Amazon and review sites like Metacritic, where the game is currently sitting at a 3.8 out of 10 stars.

We just don't believe that a company like EA, which is clearly driven by money, would allow a clear drop in revenue, the likes of which are incalcuable, and certainly not recoverable via a paid DLC. 

[Wolfen919]

Ariella wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

Most people think it's IT, because of Starchild, and how the ending is set up. This idea that three choices are given to you, and they each represent an aspect of Indoctrination.

But those people don't really understand the Crucible plot, and think Starchild is the one that came up with the choices. Overlooking the design of the weapon, and what it does when connecting to the Catalyst. There also seems to be a lack of understanding on how the Crucible works, and again - what happens as a result of your decision is something people point towards as being a reason it's IT. Truth is, people just overlooked the story.

Thank you!

One of my biggest issues with the whole IT is that Shepard's come in contact with how many Reapers, Reaper artifacts, etc by the time ME 3 even begins and shows no signs of any indoctrination, where as say Rana Thanopolis, who also didn't show in 2 did in 3 when the Reapers were pretty much taking up square kilometers the real estate in the Milky Way. So did Shiala, but because of the whole Thorian thing, she also has the voices of all the other affected colonists which drown out the Reapers' voice.

And there's that bit where Cat says that TIM couldn't control the Reapers because they already controlled him, but Shepard could control the reapers because he was NOT indoctrinated.Plus the Prothean VI sensed no indoctrination in Shepard either on Thessia or at Chronos base, so when was Shepard supposed to get hit with the psychic whammy? It makes no sense to be resistant for so long then boom.

So once again, Thanks Femshep for being a voice of reason.

That's not reason. If you truly are against IT, then you MUST explain the rest of the plotholes. Here we are back again, which ending has more plotholes? The real ending or IT ending? If it were me, I would accept only the ending that made sense to me the most, and sure the fan fiction endings are nice, but they aren't what truly happened. IT is as close to a "real" ending as i'll ever get from Bioware.

[ShadowNinja1129]

sfam wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Because the haters dont like the idea that bioware pulled the wool over their eyes and basically indoctrinated the players.

Said another way, the indoctrination theory detractors aren't ready to buy the idea that Bioware overtly punked all their customers - that this was the plan.  That they were looking for horrid user reviews across the net from stores like Amazon and review sites like Metacritic, where the game is currently sitting at a 3.8 out of 10 stars.

We just don't believe that a company like EA, which is clearly driven by money, would allow a clear drop in revenue, the likes of which are incalcuable, and certainly not recoverable via a paid DLC. 

Ehh, from a business standpoint I could see EA getting behind this, because if the real ending is held back to be in (ideally free) DLC, it effectively kills used game sales, or at least promises that folks will buy an online pass to access the exclusive ending content or whatever (meaning EA will continue to make some money even through the used game market).

To play ME3 on PC, you HAVE to be connected to teh interwebz. And you have to connect your console up to teh interwebz at least once to download your ingame content and rewards (especially if you bought collectors). So I could see it business-wise. In this day and age, EA can easily assume a majority of its customers have a steady, constant internet connection. They're not the first to do so (I'm looking at you, StarCraft II).

I don't think they predicted that the endings would produce this much backlash. I think the folks over at BioWare felt it was a thought-provoking, introspective kind of ending, not something that would get people nearly as up-in-arms as they have gotten.

[AtlasMickey]

Because it guts a good story.

[Wolfen919]

Ariella wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Ariella wrote...
...Why is this so hard to understand?...

i feel the same way.

Difference between me and you is I have hard facts from the game, from interviews etc, where you have inferences and basically faith. There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out.

So you deny every point that this video delivers? 
 

Sorry, but in my opinion this video makes more sense than the current ending; by far!


edit: by the way there's an explanation as to why "control" would be available to shepard as seen in the video. 

Modifié par Wolfen919, 04 avril 2012 - 02:57 .

[Tiax Rules All]

Ariella wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Ariella wrote...
...Why is this so hard to understand?...

i feel the same way.

Difference between me and you is I have hard facts from the game, from interviews etc, where you have inferences and basically faith. There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out.

i was writing hard facts on IDT before you finished the game. Im just tired. so very tired now. My thread has all the info the big long IDT thread has. i let it go for 70 pages, lots of responses, then let it die for sakes of having just one page.

every time you deem something "obvious" or "specifically laid out" it actually turns out to be your weakest arguement. You show you don't understand the issue at all at the base level. Control doesnt mean anything EXCEPT you failed. it doesnt mean anything you literally see happening. as nothing is literally taking place like that outside of sheps mind. You click control. You fail to resisit indoctrination.

I know you dont care about facts because IDT is grossly more supported by those "in game fact" that you claim you have. did you watch the video in my sig? did you read the IDT thread? if no on either count. then why should I bother. Its all supported by what we see in game. You just see it incorrectly in my eyes.

[Tiax Rules All]

Wolfen919 wrote...

So you deny every point that this video delivers? 
 

Sorry, but in my opinion this video makes more sense than the current ending; by far!


edit: by the way there's an explanation as to why "control" would be available to shepard as seen in the video. 

im a anti-indocker:

TL;DW

I know im right, why bother with a 20 minute video full of evidence.

[froggeh2]

Ariella wrote...
There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out. 

You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the IT here. Yes the catalyst says TIM couldn't control the reapers because they already controlled him.  However that did not stop TIM from thinking he could control the reapers.

[Lookout1390]

I pray that IT is true...even if Bioware hadn't originally planned to go with it...it's a goddamn DLC-ending goldmine.

[MasterShepardN7]

It's logical, it makes sense/fits with ME lore, it would be quite the twist even now with all of the theories out there, and a lot of people are using it as a sort of replacement for what they deem to be a bad ending or poor writing on BioWare's part. Other than that I guess it's because people that like the endings don't like change or something I don't know because I like the IT and believe it's quite plausible as well.

[Tiax Rules All]

froggeh2 wrote...

Ariella wrote...
There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out. 

You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the IT here. Yes the catalyst says TIM couldn't control the reapers because they already controlled him.  However that did not stop TIM from thinking he could control the reapers.

as she demonstrates her lack of understanding, i feel less inclined to elaborate, therefore she feels she is winning when really we are just giving up on trying to help her out.

[Ariella]

Wolfen919 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

Most people think it's IT, because of Starchild, and how the ending is set up. This idea that three choices are given to you, and they each represent an aspect of Indoctrination.

But those people don't really understand the Crucible plot, and think Starchild is the one that came up with the choices. Overlooking the design of the weapon, and what it does when connecting to the Catalyst. There also seems to be a lack of understanding on how the Crucible works, and again - what happens as a result of your decision is something people point towards as being a reason it's IT. Truth is, people just overlooked the story.

Thank you!

One of my biggest issues with the whole IT is that Shepard's come in contact with how many Reapers, Reaper artifacts, etc by the time ME 3 even begins and shows no signs of any indoctrination, where as say Rana Thanopolis, who also didn't show in 2 did in 3 when the Reapers were pretty much taking up square kilometers the real estate in the Milky Way. So did Shiala, but because of the whole Thorian thing, she also has the voices of all the other affected colonists which drown out the Reapers' voice.

And there's that bit where Cat says that TIM couldn't control the Reapers because they already controlled him, but Shepard could control the reapers because he was NOT indoctrinated.Plus the Prothean VI sensed no indoctrination in Shepard either on Thessia or at Chronos base, so when was Shepard supposed to get hit with the psychic whammy? It makes no sense to be resistant for so long then boom.

So once again, Thanks Femshep for being a voice of reason.

That's not reason. If you truly are against IT, then you MUST explain the rest of the plotholes. Here we are back again, which ending has more plotholes? The real ending or IT ending? If it were me, I would accept only the ending that made sense to me the most, and sure the fan fiction endings are nice, but they aren't what truly happened. IT is as close to a "real" ending as i'll ever get from Bioware.

What "plot holes?" I'll grant that some more context is needed to give the player an idea of Cat's motivations, but there are solid points where there might as well be a banner flying saying "Shepard is not indoctrinated", including the very end where one of the endins would be precluded by indoctrination AKA control.

I already explained the fuzzy wake up earilier in the thread and the gun/husks/maruader bit is supposed to be the last push before getting to the Conduit (that's the name it uses, even in its tag when you click on it to use). The confrontation with TIM, Anderson etc al is all real. The manage to get the ward arms open, and are ready to watch the rest of the show when the Cruible does... nothing. Hackett contacts Shepard, hoping he's on the station (probably figuring to as the plan was for Shep to get there pretty much do or die), and then we have the platform, Shep comes to, talks to the Cat and finds that the Crucible isn't just some giant gun to kill reapers with (which would probably disappoint Garrus) It's something that changes the entire equation of the Catalyst, and now, depending on the efffective military rating Shep has, there are different possibilities than the Cat has had before.

There is no indication in Shepard's character, in the observations of others around Shepard, or any other clue that indoctrination is at work on the Commander, in fact as I pointed out elsewhere, several times Shepard runs into things that can sense indoctrination and he gets nothing from them, including Cat. His motivations at the end are completely his own as guided by the player. 

To quote EDI: The choice and consequences are yours.

[Wolfen919]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

im a anti-indocker:

Oh yea? At the moment I believe I'm anti-Bioware. I feel ya.

Ariella wrote...
What "plot holes?" 

 

Previous page or two, + everything in the dang video. 

Ariella wrote... 
 including the very end where one of the endins would be precluded by indoctrination AKA control. 

  

IT explains that already, I mentioned it in my other post. Please use a different argument. Look at video if you are truly interested in how IT explains the ending.

Modifié par Wolfen919, 04 avril 2012 - 03:09 .

[SovereignX6]

The theory has really good opposing points. I would not get any hopes up for it unless it is confirmed. And think about, the theory makes sense but is going completely around the context of it which makes it very unlikely. That kid from Earth was real, not fake (my opinion). Why the hell would Bioware plan the IT for that long when they can give us a ending we all would like and enjoy. Face reality, it was last minute rushed with bad writing.

And the last scene where Shepard takes a breathe. Yeah that's the "lost part". They knew they're ending was rushed. So they put that last scene cause they had a lot of certainty we would hate it and they put it in a lost type.

The only part i think he was getting indoctrinated was at the part with Anderson and the illusive man.

But then again it's a 50 50 chance for both sides. They probably never intended it, but i suppose they may go with it. I'd be glad.

[Ariella]

froggeh2 wrote...

Ariella wrote...
There's no hard proof what so ever that Shepard is indoctrinate, and in fact, if he was, one of the three options wouldn't be open to him (control). This is very specifically and plainly laid out. 

You are demonstrating your lack of understanding of the IT here. Yes the catalyst says TIM couldn't control the reapers because they already controlled him.  However that did not stop TIM from thinking he could control the reapers.

However Cat specifically points out that Shepard can. It's not just some random thought in Shepard's own mind, and he still has a choice between the three or two if one hasn't gotten the ratings high enough to get synthessis. Plsu there's the Crucible to consider. And Shepard's whole conversation with Cat prior to having to make the choice is one of defiance, and not submission.

"We'll keep our own forms, thanks." for example and that's the general tone of Shepard and Cat's conversation: the Reapers need to go away and stay away. Someone indoctrinated wouldn't want that. Shepard is still Shepard desperately trying to find a way to get the Crucible to work before the Reapers kill even more people.

[chance52]

Because Indoctrination Theory is just the most popular fan fiction to fix the horrible ending, that doesn't make it suddenly part of the trilogy.

But it is all fiction so if you want to believe that is how the story should play out, then just consider it the truth of the story.

[Wolfen919]

SovereignX6 wrote...

The theory has really good opposing points. I would not get any hopes up for it unless it is confirmed. And think about, the theory makes sense but is going completely around the context of it which makes it very unlikely. That kid from Earth was real, not fake (my opinion). Why the hell would Bioware plan the IT for that long when they can give us a ending we all would like and enjoy. Face reality, it was last minute rushed with bad writing.

And the last scene where Shepard takes a breathe. Yeah that's the "lost part". They knew they're ending was rushed. So they put that last scene cause they had a lot of certainty we would hate it and they put it in a lost type.

The only part i think he was getting indoctrinated was at the part with Anderson and the illusive man.

But then again it's a 50 50 chance for both sides. They probably never intended it, but i suppose they may go with it. I'd be glad.

For now it's the most logical ending we got. Worst case scenario? Bioware will go under because of a large percentage or gamers disappointed with their previous 2 products ending poorly; or even created poorly in general. 

[wheelierdan]

how many of these threads need to exist before you all admit that intoxication theory is the only true explanation and has 0 plot holes?

[Wolfen919]

As far as I can tell the main anti-IT argument so far has been "How come the VI at TIM's base cannot detect Shepard's indoctrination?" Hooray for small plot-hole. We don't know enough about how the VI can detect indoctrinated forces, but the rest of the plot holes that the ending contains can actually be explained pretty well if viewed under IT.

wheelierdan wrote...

how many of these threads need to exist before you all admit that intoxication theory is the only true explanation and has 0 plot holes?

 

How many trolls do we have to shoo away?

Modifié par Wolfen919, 04 avril 2012 - 03:15 .

[Mystiq6]

AtlasMickey wrote...

Because it guts a good story.

This offends me almost as much as the ending does. The story was good, I'll give you that but the ending was most certainly not. There are so many pieces on why it's a bad ending. Here are a few:

http://www.themetaga...oblem-with.html
http://jmstevenson.w...-mass-effect-3/


The Indoctriation Theory still has some holes. After hearing a slightly different idea, I'm more inclined to believe that one. It said that there was no indoctrination, it was simply a nightmare Shepard was having about his worst fears.

Modifié par Mystiq6, 04 avril 2012 - 03:18 .

[wheelierdan]

Wolfen919 wrote...

As far as I can tell the main anti-IT argument so far has been "How come the VI at TIM's base cannot detect Shepard's indoctrination?" Hooray for small plot-hole. We don't know enough about how the VI can detect indoctrinated forces, but the rest of the plot holes that the ending contains can actually be explained pretty well if viewed under IT.

wheelierdan wrote...

how many of these threads need to exist before you all admit that intoxication theory is the only true explanation and has 0 plot holes?

 

How many trolls do we have to shoo away?

please, show me one plothole with the intoxication theory, instead of calling me a troll.  It it a seamless and perfect explanation and you know it, which is why youd rather name call then refute the FACTS.

[BlackArtsViper]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

BananaBlitz wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...


Wait you think that the original ending makes MORE SENSE than indoctrination, the most powerful weapob the reapers possess.  I still think that the extended ending will show shep either give in/break free of indoctrination only to find that the crucible is a reaper trap and then kills harbinger who is infact the real target(being the alpha reaper...you know, largest and oldest) and the defeats the reapers and earth and the galaxy are saved and all the sacrifices that you and you friends (mordin, legion etc) made actually mattered.

So if they did make ending DLC like this what would happen to all the players who did not pick Destroy with EMS of 5000, what people believe to be the ending that Shepard breaks free from Indoc if I am not mistaken, would the game just be like oh sorry you picked the wrong ending you are now indoctrinated now go back and try again? If this has been addressed in the indoc thread let me know.

Well it may have you team mates trying to reason with you or it might just give you a bad ending.  But the whole sequence (the citadel/catalyst) is a test and if you pass it, then you will get to see the ending you want with all you choices and their consquences with it.
Doesnt that sound better then the original (incomplete) ending?

No because then its an incomplete game and that it tells people who are unable to download DLC's, to bad you paid 60 dollars for a game for an incomplete game and are stuck with it.

[Tiax Rules All]

Wolfen919 wrote...

wheelierdan wrote...

how many of these threads need to exist before you all admit that intoxication theory is the only true explanation and has 0 plot holes?

 

How many trolls do we have to shoo away?

hes proud of his little joke he came up with. He is gonna spam the hell out of the forums until he gets enough simple minds to tell him he is funny.

Modifié par Tiax Rules All, 04 avril 2012 - 03:19 .