335 réponses à ce sujet

[nullobject]

RealStyli wrote...

Anyone have the link where BioWare say that IT is definitely not happening in the ending? I've been looking everywhere for it?

Obviously there isn't one, as Bioware made it quite plain that they are not so stupid as to alienate their most "um, committed" fans when there is still hope of salvaging them.

Care to comment on the implied change of schedule I mentioned here:

Sentiment seems pretty clear in this thread that IT is still alive until Bioware explicitly deny it (or release an ending that clearly rules it out)

Sentiment is also pretty clear that Indoc Theorists are certain they are bigger ME/Bioware fans than anyone else, but I'll give them that - I have no desire to be identified as a hardcore fan of something that was disappointing.

So.... any Indoc Theorists want to comment on how the original theory that Bioware planned this all along and had the "real" ending ready to go at launch is no longer viable?

Bioware have been pretty clear that they've only just started on the new ending DLC.... so how do y'all harmonize that with the "grand plan" theory? Does that mean that Indoctrination Theory now states that Bioware's original plan was to release an incomplete game, then make people wait months for the real ending?

Given Bioware stated that other DLC was delayed to accomodate getting the Extended Cut completed ASAP, how long do you think they were originally going to make us wait?

[Sweawm]

There is just a crazy amount of speculation mixed with space magic!

Reading the latest tweets, I think Bioware intended people to interrupt the ending in their own way instead of a defined: this happened. Sure, what you think happens depends on just how much you trust the Star God to be truthful to you (Even though he's clearly not)

[nullobject]

Sweawm wrote...

There is just a crazy amount of speculation mixed with space magic!

Reading the latest tweets, I think Bioware intended people to interrupt the ending in their own way instead of a defined: this happened. Sure, what you think happens depends on just how much you trust the Star God to be truthful to you (Even though he's clearly not)

Speculation and vagueness is fine, but a key part of the IT was that there was one "true" interpretation of the ending, and that Bioware had a special "true" ending DLC prepared and ready to go. It was going to be the "greatest twist ending in gaming history".

Recent statements contradict that (or at the very least imply they hadn't even started working on the "true" ending, and had no plans to release anything like it for some time).

So how do the IT'ers square that circle?

Modifié par nullobject, 08 avril 2012 - 06:52 .

[Big_Choppa]

I am. It's damn good. If Bioware had adopted this....good God...

[nullobject]

DuskRose wrote...

nullobject wrote...

Sweawm wrote...

There is just a crazy amount of speculation mixed with space magic!

Reading the latest tweets, I think Bioware intended people to interrupt the ending in their own way instead of a defined: this happened. Sure, what you think happens depends on just how much you trust the Star God to be truthful to you (Even though he's clearly not)

Speculation and vagueness is fine, but a key part of the IT was that there was one "true" interpretation of the ending, and that Bioware had a special "true" ending DLC prepared and ready to go. It was going to be the "greatest twist ending in gaming history".

Recent statements contradict that (or at the very least imply they hadn't even started working on the "true" ending, and had no plans to release anything like it for some time).

So how do the IT'ers square that circle?

It really depended on which IT supporter you were talking to.

As for me, IT is still a perfectly good way to interpret the ending and although it would have been awesome if there had been  DLC for the ending this weekend, we just have to wait and see.

So you think it was their original plan to release a game with an incomplete ending, and then to not even start working on the real ending until a few months after release? 

I understand people can still think IT is good head-canon (at least until the extended cut hits), but I specifically wanted someone who thinks this is all part of Bioware's grand plan that they've had from the start to explain their recent actions.

Or is there noone left who thinks that?

[TemplarLord]

AxholeRose wrote...

Indoc Theorists are people willing to give BioWare the benefit of doubt until they themselves make a confirming statement.

IT theorists are bigger fans of the game than you will ever be.

Sums this thread up perfectly.

Hold the line!

[PlumPaul93]

AtlasMickey wrote...

Oh my god, I always have. From day one.

It's like down syndrome. You want to believe that they are capable of leading fulfilling lives, but it's hard to ignore the cruelty nature has inflicted on them.

lol

[revo76]

I feel sorry too, i was ITs too, until PAX. Then i realized in PAX BW BSed and trolled people so i gave up. I'm not expecting something from BW anymore about ME franchise.

But more than this, ITs are people who really love ME franchise, and they're looking a reason, a hope, to play ME1 and ME2. Because with these **** finals you dont have power or will to play them again. IT was something which gave hope to players, and with PAX it's gone.

I made 3 characters in ME1, starting the game,when dropping to Eden Prime, i quit.

Personnaly i dont give a d**m about people who comment about endings or people say 'Dont worry they'll give closure or epilogue' There wont be epilogue, there will be deleted scenes, that's all.

We wont see Shep reunite his LI or crew, we wont see Tali in her homeworld, nope these are not gonna happen.

Because it's Bioware, company who BSed us from the announcement of ME3 until now and also company who screwed Dragon Age series too. Now they have C&C at their hands, easy to guess C&C series is also about to screwed up.

But it's not a big deal, CC series was screwed up when Westwood bought by EA anyway.

Modifié par revo76, 08 avril 2012 - 07:54 .

[Fhaarkas]

nullobject wrote...

So you think it was their original plan to release a game with an incomplete ending, and then to not even start working on the real ending until a few months after release? 

I understand people can still think IT is good head-canon (at least until the extended cut hits), but I specifically wanted someone who thinks this is all part of Bioware's grand plan that they've had from the start to explain their recent actions.

Or is there noone left who thinks that?

[disclaimer]
I don't know if I would be constituted as an 'orthodox IT-ist' (don't think so) but I am one of the 'pro-enders' and 'IT-ist'. I also stopped believing in any 'grand plan' some time ago as it is quite apparent that these people are not that genius. Portal was a genius, Half-Life 2 was a genius (for its time), this pile of mess is not.
[...]

Anyway,  here's my logic in trying to decipher what the tried to do, are doing and are going to do -

The known facts
1. The game ends with the Breath Scene. 
2. They (he) want the ending to have a 'polarizing effect' on the fanbase, said Hudson - 'artistic vision'
3. They have repeatedly said they will stick to the current ending - 'artistic intergrity'
4. The final sequence of the game ended up as a pile of mess (nobody can deny this - IT or not)
5. Rumor of differing opinions among the writers

• From [1] and [2], one can infer that their intention with the breath scene was to incite questions (which will have no answers) along the line of - "Did it really happen?", "Where is Shepard?", "If it didn't happen, what happened?" and "Was I, the player, 'indoctrinated'?"
• Meanwhile the preceeding sequence was supposed to [a] foreshadow the notion how it all could've been a hallucination/dream/indoctrination and [b] provide a proper closure to the story, characters and show some glorious cinematics of the final push and the victory.
• The game is excellent in doing [a] however it failed miserably in doing [b] which lead to [4] and disgruntled fans asking for a different ending (Retakers) - whether a complete makeover or extension of gameplay

Some more inference.

• The fate of Shepard shall not be known.
• Depending on whether [5] is true or not, Starchild might have been added in the last minute. Have fun rationalizing that, BioWare. *smirk*

Implications

• The ending was marred by poor writing
• From [3], one can expect point [b] to be adressed in The Truth DLC - more varied scenes and explosions, and a proper closure, all depending on players' choices and EMS throughout the game. There may be limited gameplay, but no new chapter
• The DLC will provide a satisfactory ending when taken on face value, without compromising the possibility of IT or any other interpretation (in their eyes) - this may have been the original intention
• It is in their best interest (in the context of preserving their 'artistic vision' - see [2]) to not provide any sort of confirmation or denial for IT. (Though I don't see how it'd be relevant anymore. The appeal has been lost and any sort of confirmation will only result in "I told you so" reactions.)
• They're having a headache trying to explain the Starchild. The Truth DLC would be much easier to pull off without this character

What should can they do?

What they tried to pull off could have gone down as the greatest feat in gaming history, but they botched it and I doubt that  trying to 'correct' this will quite garner the same effect it would've given. Harm's done, window of opportunity is lost. The cat's out of the bag, they say. Now they either have to

• Pull a real genius (or rip off some more other works) and actually succeed in spinning this to impress everyone
• Pull a CD Projekt and release Mass Effect 3: Enhanced Edition
• Change nothing and be remembered as the lame developer who tried to pull a genius and failed
• Hire Christopher Nolan, the genius himself

[gunslinger_ruiz]

nullobject wrote...

Sentiment seems pretty clear in this thread that IT is still alive until Bioware explicitly deny it (or release an ending that clearly rules it out)

Sentiment is also pretty clear that Indoc Theorists are certain they are bigger ME/Bioware fans than anyone else, but I'll give them that - I have no desire to be identified as a hardcore fan of something that was disappointing.

So.... any Indoc Theorists want to comment on how the original theory that Bioware planned this all along and had the "real" ending ready to go at launch is no longer viable?

Bioware have been pretty clear that they've only just started on the new ending DLC.... so how do y'all harmonize that with the "grand plan" theory? Does that mean that Indoctrination Theory now states that Bioware's original plan was to release an incomplete game, then make people wait months for the real ending?

Given Bioware stated that other DLC was delayed to accomodate getting the Extended Cut completed ASAP, how long do you think they were originally going to make us wait?

We won't be able to say anything for sure until Bioware tells us otherwise with a straight answer, or until the Extended Cut comes out.

I don't think Bioware intended to release an unfinished game, but if that is the case I figure the only reason they'd do that is because EA didn't want to give them any more time (they had already delayed release by a few months from what I understand). Either that, or maybe Bioware wasn't entirely sure how to end ME3 without this community backlash we see happening, or maybe they didn't want it to end either.

I also believe/speculate Bioware inteded to release Post-ending content in place of what we are getting with Extended Cut, but had to abort those plans because of the backlash from fans. I've no idea what could be on the Post-Ending DLC, OR on the Extended Cut DLC for that matter but after seeing all the endings, and especially after seeing the "Shepard's Breath" scene first hand, I Know Bioware must be, or must have been, planning something BIG for the game after enough time past to let the world of gaming see the endings. Otherwise the "Shepard's Breath" scene serves no purpose other than to tell fans of the "good"  Destroy ending their Shepards may be alive and the other 2 option Shepards are dead which doesn't make much sense to me regarding the style of Choice in the game (i.e. you're not often rewarded more or punished more for choosing one thing over another in ME3, not nearly as much as in ME1 or 2).

As the endings are now I believe the Indoctrination Theory provides the most valid arguement for why the endings play out the way they do. A lot of the "evidence" may be grasping or reaching but the one solid piece of evidence we have is "Shepards Breath" and how to get it.  Once the Extended Cut comes out, we'll all see how things play out further for the future of ME3 but until then this is what we have to analyse.

[im commander shep]

The key thing with almost everything bioware has said is that it almost does not confirm or deny any theory/idea while leaving what they do have planned open to massive debate and change. I mean the only thing we know is that there will be free DLC based on the current ending that will only be based on cinematics and epilogues no game play. What all this will say and how exactly they will make sense of the current end is still wide open.

Its been said many times before the IDT fans (myself included) don't belive that the end we saw was the real ending just the beginning of the end so when bioware talks about the ending DLC and in not denying IDT there is still scope for them to take the game where ever they want while still saying "we never said we would not do that."

For me at least and I think most people that belive in IDT, it's not about being bigger fans or caring more about the story or being so upset at the ending etc etc. It simply does not make any sense that such a great developer at creating story driven games could basically destroy the ending so quickly and have it make so little sense. I just can't believe that even if casey hudson and the lead writer were the only ones to write the end would create such a poor piece of work. IDT simply builds/carries on with the great writing and takes it to the next level that we have come to expect with bioware. If the ending is true and IDT is aload of rubbish, all I want to know is WHAT HAPPENED BIOWARE!!!

[Foxcat]

I only feel sorry for the people who don't understand why IT would have been a far better plot device than a real magic light child.

[Robhuzz]

As one of those 'indoctrination theorists' (Though not someone who'll flame people or call them names for not believing said theory) I'll say no. I do not feel sorry for myself nor any of the others who defended the indoctrination theory. We simply gave BioWare too much credit when we believed they could come up with an ending like this while their EA masters held the leash.

As a matter of fact, I feel sorry for BioWare for being forced to rush this ending thanks to their EA overlords and not getting the chance to use this great theory since it could've made the ending everything they promised it to be. Instead they settled for a less-than mediocre ending with plain terrible writing. And now they even HAVE to defend it. Like I said, I feel sorry for them.

[nullobject]

im commander shep wrote...
Its been said many times before the IDT fans (myself included) don't belive that the end we saw was the real ending just the beginning of the end so when bioware talks about the ending DLC and in not denying IDT there is still scope for them to take the game where ever they want while still saying "we never said we would not do that."

But this implies that either they are lying in their recent statements, or they had no plans to even start working on the rest of the ending until months after release.

Why would they do that?

A real ending that showed up a few weeks after release would be a good PR stunt. One that shows up months later after your game has got a great deal of bad press about it's terrible ending is a PR disaster.

[nullobject]

Robhuzz wrote...

As one of those 'indoctrination theorists' (Though not someone who'll flame people or call them names for not believing said theory) I'll say no. I do not feel sorry for myself nor any of the others who defended the indoctrination theory. We simply gave BioWare too much credit when we believed they could come up with an ending like this while their EA masters held the leash.

As a matter of fact, I feel sorry for BioWare for being forced to rush this ending thanks to their EA overlords and not getting the chance to use this great theory since it could've made the ending everything they promised it to be. Instead they settled for a less-than mediocre ending with plain terrible writing. And now they even HAVE to defend it. Like I said, I feel sorry for them.

Why do people keep blaming EA? Bioware knew their trilogy needed a satisfying ending when they started it. They should have worked it out then. If they changed their minds about the ending late in the process, and didn't have enough time to do a good job, then how is that EA's fault?

Or do people think that EA made them change the ending late in the process?

[im commander shep]

nullobject wrote...

im commander shep wrote...
Its been said many times before the IDT fans (myself included) don't belive that the end we saw was the real ending just the beginning of the end so when bioware talks about the ending DLC and in not denying IDT there is still scope for them to take the game where ever they want while still saying "we never said we would not do that."

But this implies that either they are lying in their recent statements, or they had no plans to even start working on the rest of the ending until months after release.

Why would they do that?

A real ending that showed up a few weeks after release would be a good PR stunt. One that shows up months later after your game has got a great deal of bad press about it's terrible ending is a PR disaster.

I agree and for me this is the only major reason why the IDT does not make sense unless they thought that the current ending would not have had such a bad response, but ypu would think they would have come out and said something. If you carry on reading down the main reason I belive in IDT is that I just don't belive bioware could mess the ending up so badly.

[Dendio1]

At this point believe in IT until bioware says otherwise
Or dont, up to the individual. We wait until the dlc comes out. IT currently still explains stuff better than what we have...though slowly dev tweets are putting the pieces together.

Devs saying that the citadel didnt really blow up all the way imo is a major blow to IT. The biggest support for IT remains though...shepard wakes up on earth after choosing destroy. Until the devs tweet * yea we had star kid teleport him*, speculations reign

Modifié par Dendio1, 08 avril 2012 - 08:20 .

[nullobject]

im commander shep wrote...
If you carry on reading down the main reason I belive in IDT is that I just don't belive bioware could mess the ending up so badly. 

I made a post about that once. Make sure you click on the links.

[FrozenDreamfall]

Feel sorry? hell for what,our IT version of the ending makes more sense than whatever **** BW can throw at you,in a way we did half of BW's job trying to explain this,even if it doesn't prove to be true and the DLC won't make it better I'll still believe in it,makes more damn sense than their actually explanation.

[Robhuzz]

nullobject wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

As one of those 'indoctrination theorists' (Though not someone who'll flame people or call them names for not believing said theory) I'll say no. I do not feel sorry for myself nor any of the others who defended the indoctrination theory. We simply gave BioWare too much credit when we believed they could come up with an ending like this while their EA masters held the leash.

As a matter of fact, I feel sorry for BioWare for being forced to rush this ending thanks to their EA overlords and not getting the chance to use this great theory since it could've made the ending everything they promised it to be. Instead they settled for a less-than mediocre ending with plain terrible writing. And now they even HAVE to defend it. Like I said, I feel sorry for them.

Why do people keep blaming EA? Bioware knew their trilogy needed a satisfying ending when they started it. They should have worked it out then. If they changed their minds about the ending late in the process, and didn't have enough time to do a good job, then how is that EA's fault?

Or do people think that EA made them change the ending late in the process?

Because it was EA who determined the deadline on when the game had to be finished? Because a company like EA doesn't mind to completely mess up and milk a franchise if that brings them more profit? If that destroys the company who made the game... so be it. What better way to tie up ME3 than with a big cliffhanger and an ending that's riddled with plot holes? Literally ANYTHING can happen after ME3, much easier to make ME4 that picks up after that...

I have no doubt it was not BioWare's intention to make this ending. They've got plenty of good writers in there to know this ending is a big pile of garbage. The fact that no one from the BioWare team outright defends the ending also says enough. They do not agree with this ending, yet they're being forced to defend it, which they reluctantly do with the 'artistic integrity' argument. Even Patrick Weekes didn't go into the most ridiculous points of the ending in his interview, he avoided the starchild and the 3 'choices' altogether... to me this is a sign that he cannot explain this part or does not want to try and explain this part.

[nullobject]

Robhuzz wrote...

nullobject wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

As one of those 'indoctrination theorists' (Though not someone who'll flame people or call them names for not believing said theory) I'll say no. I do not feel sorry for myself nor any of the others who defended the indoctrination theory. We simply gave BioWare too much credit when we believed they could come up with an ending like this while their EA masters held the leash.

As a matter of fact, I feel sorry for BioWare for being forced to rush this ending thanks to their EA overlords and not getting the chance to use this great theory since it could've made the ending everything they promised it to be. Instead they settled for a less-than mediocre ending with plain terrible writing. And now they even HAVE to defend it. Like I said, I feel sorry for them.

Why do people keep blaming EA? Bioware knew their trilogy needed a satisfying ending when they started it. They should have worked it out then. If they changed their minds about the ending late in the process, and didn't have enough time to do a good job, then how is that EA's fault?

Or do people think that EA made them change the ending late in the process?

Because it was EA who determined the deadline on when the game had to be finished?

Bioware set out to make Mass Effect as a trilogy before they were bought by EA. Trilogies need endings.

Also, EA were quite happy in May 2011 to let them delay the release date by 4 months so they had more time to work on the game. If they knew at that point that the ending needed even more time than that, why not delay it further?

Any explanation that blames time constraints implies that Bioware didn't bother to start writing the ending for their trilogy until very late in the process. I think this is technically true, but I think the reason is that the new lead writer decided to change the ending from the one originally planned when the trilogy was conceived.

Robhuzz wrote...
Because a company like EA doesn't mind to completely mess up and milk a franchise if that brings them more profit?

For EA, the ideal profit-generator is a much loved frannchise that they can release new games in every year with a minimum of development effort (like their sports titles, or like Activision's Call of Duty). Killing a popular franchise is bad business for EA.

Modifié par nullobject, 08 avril 2012 - 08:32 .

[Aiyie]

as intriguing as indoc theory was... and i do personally wish it had been true...

it was apparent long ago that it was never bioware's original intention.  most indoc theorists had accepted that awhile before any dlc announcement and were hoping bioware would use it as a means to provide us with a better finale... it was just a few delusional hold outs that said otherwise.

of course, on the flip side, it was apparent long ago that bioware was never going to completely scrap the starchild scene and completely redo the ending.

so while the indoc theorists that still insisted bioware was planning something, that would have been mind blowing, were completely delusional... so were all the anti-indoc theorists who were insisting that bioware would totally rewrite the existing ending.

so to answer the op... no, i don't really feel sorry for the indoc theorists.  nor do i feel sorry for the retakers who are now stunned that bioware isn't completely redoing the ending.

i feel no pity for fools who are unable to see the obvious coming and prepare for it in time.

Modifié par Aiyie, 08 avril 2012 - 08:41 .

[Liquoid]

Troll harder, dipsh*t.