448 réponses à ce sujet

[harrier25699]

What gets me is that in ME1 you flee from reapers pretty much on sight.  In ME2 you have to upgrade the Normandy massively in order to take on a pseudo reaper (collector) ship then in ME3 you decide to run on foot straight at the biggest one of them all.

I don't think to IT or not to IT is the issue lol.

Modifié par harrier25699, 14 avril 2012 - 09:12 .

[frylock23]

III Achilles II wrote...

kal_reegar wrote...

you're right, IF the end we've seen is the end of the trilogy, indoc theory makes no sense. It's pointless and useless

but casey's words aren't an immutable dogma, he can still change his mind.
CASEY/BIOWARE, IT'S NOT OVER YET! YOU CAN STILL REDIME YOURSELF!

But if this is the end, then why is Shepard only kept alive in just the "Destroy" ending? 

Shepard wakes up and this serves no purpose if this is the end of the trilogy and Shepard will not come back. I give Bioware more credit and believe this was put in for a reason.

But if this is the end, then why are there two endings that leave the Reapers alive? It serves no purpose to end the trilogy with a major galactic menace still alive and in the game if they truly meant to end it out.

[balance5050]

frylock23 wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...

kal_reegar wrote...

you're right, IF the end we've seen is the end of the trilogy, indoc theory makes no sense. It's pointless and useless

but casey's words aren't an immutable dogma, he can still change his mind.
CASEY/BIOWARE, IT'S NOT OVER YET! YOU CAN STILL REDIME YOURSELF!

But if this is the end, then why is Shepard only kept alive in just the "Destroy" ending? 

Shepard wakes up and this serves no purpose if this is the end of the trilogy and Shepard will not come back. I give Bioware more credit and believe this was put in for a reason.

But if this is the end, then why are there two endings that leave the Reapers alive? It serves no purpose to end the trilogy with a major galactic menace still alive and in the game if they truly meant to end it out.

But if this is the ending then why didn't we get that famous Bioware twist that is in so many other Bioware games?

[UrdnotGrunty2]

I read through your OP and some of your points and I think you are to far confused and lost on why the endings aren't good, and don't make sense.

I never even asked for an indoctrination theory, and not sure if it's true or not, but you either need to read through every point everybody has made against the ending (concerning plot holes and such, will be very easy to find these) and lies that Casey Hudson has had come out of his mouth (which again anytime you quote Casey Hudson take what he says for a grain of salt) you would probably think differently.

However you could just be a hipster or **** who defends anything Bioware makes and can't possibly imagine how something Bioware made is bad. The endings are bad literature if you know anything about literature, unless the indoctrination theory is true, if it is true then the endings are good literature and everything is foreshadowed properly.

That is the reason people are wanting the indoctrination theory it would show Bioware actually knew what they were doing and the endings weren't just a lazy pile of dog****,

They are writing the Mass Effect 3 endings to end the Mass Effect series and to end them in a way that does not fit the themes of Mass Effect or provide a satisfactory ending for the majority (or at least half, its no where even close to half) then they did something wrong and the Indoctrination Theory is a way to fix it.

Whether the things they left in there are intentional or not intentional they are there and they do make sense if they are true.

And no Shepard cannot wake up on the Citadel because the Citadel being reaper tech would suffer the same fate as the Mass Effect relays, plus he walked in to an explosion (I know makes no sense) while out in the middle of space with no suit, nothing to help him breathe. That enough is a big enough plot hole not to mention things such as Normandy Crash (impossible in every way, no way Normandy could make it to another planet that fast, and no way for the characters to get on the Normandy, and it goes against what the characters would actually do)

An extra note Anderson could not have made it before Shepard because if you analyze the Citadel there is one way to the control panel, and Illusive Man comes from where you were heading from meaning he is either a super stealth ninja or has space magic.

If all of what you say is true it does NOT change the fact that the endings are bad, unsatisfactory endings, that really can't be fixed without the use of Space Magic (I can understand what you said about technology being passed us, however somethings are space magic like Shepard magically surviving, Earth surviving a relay being blown up, Normandy crash and squad mates teleported, etc.). That is why people want indoctrination because it is a way for new endings that would make sense.

Short bulleted list of why the endings are bad literature
Lots and lots of unexplainable plot holes
Catalyst as a character is not foreshadowed
Dues Ex Machina
Lies that your choices would matter and many drastically different endings (they aren't different no argument can convince me they are)
Lies that there would be no ABC style choices
Lies that the endings wouldn't be Lost styled and be confusing (funny thing they are exactly this)
Lies that space magic wouldn't be a part of Mass Effect
An unheroic death for a heroic figure (Shepard) (I have a thread explaining how Shepard's death is not heroic)

[Khemi]

Ah. Another Stockholm Syndrome thread.

[majinbuu1307]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

still conflicts with mass effect 1 (why mess around with saren and sovereign, when the citadel is part of you? why don't you know that the protheans came and fiddled with your keepers?) and with almost everything sovereign says.

Therefore, i have to choose between the lore of the earlier games, and the new lore introduced by the star chiId. prefer to maintain the integrity of the earlier games and indeed most of me3, along with sovereign (who is awesome apart from the whole genocide thing).

Even Star Wars has its fair share of conflicting stories. Doesn't make it a bad series of movies.

Could you elaborate on these conflicting stories about star wars, or is this another attempt to pull evidence from your a***.

Here's one, jerk:) I've got a ton so keep asking. C3PO has his memory wiped, but R2D2 knows the story of Anakin's fall to the dark side. He could have tried to communicate this to Luke, Leia, etc.

And another-Luke has "no memory" of his mother. Leia says she "died when I was very young," yet remembers "images, feelings. She was very beautiful, kind, but very sad." So she has jedi powers that  luke doesn't have? But should? 

Should I go on? ok.


Then there's also the fact that kenobi doesnt recognize r2d2 or 3po (but maybe alzheimers runs in jedis?)

[majinbuu1307]

Rulid wrote...

1. OP seems to miss the point. the catalyst logic is consistent of itself. Just not consistent with the REST of the story.

2. Tech sigularity doesn't work that way. The fact is you cannot PREDICT beyond the singularity. However, OP propounds the catalyst's empirical logic that "rebellion has always happened". This is obvious. It can happen, and it has happened in this cycle. But it was RESOLVED in some playthroughs. Hence, supporting catalyst due to fear of rebellion beyond tech singularity is just "being played by the catalyst" - like getting tricked into signing up an insurance contract.

You miss the point too, most people are only focused on Shepards lifespan and story. Who cares if  850 years later something really bad happens, cuz shepard got a happy ending in his lifetime, thats their problem, silly future people.

[iamthedave3]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

still conflicts with mass effect 1 (why mess around with saren and sovereign, when the citadel is part of you? why don't you know that the protheans came and fiddled with your keepers?) and with almost everything sovereign says.

Therefore, i have to choose between the lore of the earlier games, and the new lore introduced by the star chiId. prefer to maintain the integrity of the earlier games and indeed most of me3, along with sovereign (who is awesome apart from the whole genocide thing).

Even Star Wars has its fair share of conflicting stories. Doesn't make it a bad series of movies.

Could you elaborate on these conflicting stories about star wars, or is this another attempt to pull evidence from your a***.

Here's one, jerk:) I've got a ton so keep asking. C3PO has his memory wiped, but R2D2 knows the story of Anakin's fall to the dark side. He could have tried to communicate this to Luke, Leia, etc.

And another-Luke has "no memory" of his mother. Leia says she "died when I was very young," yet remembers "images, feelings. She was very beautiful, kind, but very sad." So she has jedi powers that  luke doesn't have? But should? 

Should I go on? ok.


Then there's also the fact that kenobi doesnt recognize r2d2 or 3po (but maybe alzheimers runs in jedis?)

Are you referring to the first three Star Wars movies? The ones so bad that they all but killed the franchise?

Two different trilogies born of different timelines. Only explanation.

[majinbuu1307]

DJBare wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...
The lack of Harbinger just served to make his appearance more dramatic. BOOM (lands) Oh Shi-

Actually I did not even know that was harbinger, that's how much of an impact he had on me, I thought it was just some generic reaper protecting the beam.

But hes the only one with creeepy glowy "eyes"

[majinbuu1307]

iamthedave3 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

still conflicts with mass effect 1 (why mess around with saren and sovereign, when the citadel is part of you? why don't you know that the protheans came and fiddled with your keepers?) and with almost everything sovereign says.

Therefore, i have to choose between the lore of the earlier games, and the new lore introduced by the star chiId. prefer to maintain the integrity of the earlier games and indeed most of me3, along with sovereign (who is awesome apart from the whole genocide thing).

Even Star Wars has its fair share of conflicting stories. Doesn't make it a bad series of movies.

Could you elaborate on these conflicting stories about star wars, or is this another attempt to pull evidence from your a***.

Here's one, jerk:) I've got a ton so keep asking. C3PO has his memory wiped, but R2D2 knows the story of Anakin's fall to the dark side. He could have tried to communicate this to Luke, Leia, etc.

And another-Luke has "no memory" of his mother. Leia says she "died when I was very young," yet remembers "images, feelings. She was very beautiful, kind, but very sad." So she has jedi powers that  luke doesn't have? But should? 

Should I go on? ok.


Then there's also the fact that kenobi doesnt recognize r2d2 or 3po (but maybe alzheimers runs in jedis?)

Are you referring to the first three Star Wars movies? The ones so bad that they all but killed the franchise?

Two different trilogies born of different timelines. Only explanation.

Nope you can't reject them. They are cannon.  Plus those plotholes i mentioned are from the original trilogy..

Modifié par majinbuu1307, 14 avril 2012 - 10:01 .

[majinbuu1307]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...

I don't understand the point of these threads when it is all speculation on both sides.

Well it wouldn't be much of a forum is no one argued or discussed or speculated:)

Or someone is just trying to stoke the fire of the anti IT brigade.

Oh there is plenty of logs to burn:P

Really, now who sounds deluded (or indoctrinated)
Plus your little guide also completely forgets about harbinger and the lack of screen time he has, unless as IT puts it, he was with shep the whole time, even at the end as the catalyst.
IT is a theory but it works, not just as a way to make the ending make sense, but also in the sotry of shepard, because he is only human is as suseptable to indoctrination the same as everyone else.  Hell even bioware staff (the ones who are not working on ME, like it, so do the media as well as more and more fans who complete the game lately)  
Have you seen the poll that some one made.  IT has a stronger fanbase than the people who are claim that it was lazy writing, or a brilliant thoughtful ending.( yeah because the normandy running away sequence makes so much sense, just like  the battle of new caprica in BSG, lee adama should have been "galactica is doomed, we legging it in the opposite direction"  I think not.

The lack of Harbinger just served to make his appearance more dramatic. BOOM (lands) Oh Shi-

No becuase that would then make people believe that his sudden reapearence has alot more importance to it rather than the blink and you miss it cameo, after all the build up he had in ME2.  Plus you wouldnt even think he was in the game at all unless you read the codex and heard the blink and you miss it bit of dialogue from the reaper on rannoch.  
No there is more to harbinger than we have seen so far and the EE shuold clear that up.  
How bad would thundercats have been if after facing mum-ra for years only to have the final battle against a completely new enemy who has had no foreshadowing or build up before hand.  that would not make any sense.

How is that a blink or you'll miss it cameo? HE's  KILLING EVERYONE AROUND YOU. Blowing up everything, and possibly killing your team mates. 

[majinbuu1307]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

Except that would be  NEW ENDING, and they said they aren't making a NEW one.

[balance5050]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

Except that would be  NEW ENDING, and they said they aren't making a NEW one.

They also said they aren't using an ABC ending which is what we got. Please try to use "in game" evidence to disprove the infalliable Indoctrination Theory please. Thank you.

[majinbuu1307]

Khemi wrote...

Ah. Another Stockholm Syndrome thread.

Lol I'm not sympathetic to bioware or EA, logic is just logic. 
They don't have me under any spell or control or "indoctrination"

[majinbuu1307]

balance5050 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

Except that would be  NEW ENDING, and they said they aren't making a NEW one.

They also said they aren't using an ABC ending which is what we got. Please try to use "in game" evidence to disprove the infalliable Indoctrination Theory please. Thank you.

When you said infalliable I totally stopped reading lol.<_<

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

OP no matter how you understand it, it is still a terrible ending, I understand what they were trying to do but they failed miserably

[majinbuu1307]

DinoSteve wrote...

OP no matter how you understand it, it is still a terrible ending, I understand what they were trying to do but they failed miserably

I understand how you feel because I felt that too for like 3 weeks. Dug deeper and finally got (most) of it. What I didn't get will probably be explained(joker fleeing etc)

Saying something is terrible is a matter of opinion.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

OP no matter how you understand it, it is still a terrible ending, I understand what they were trying to do but they failed miserably

I understand how you feel because I felt that too for like 3 weeks. Dug deeper and finally got (most) of it. What I didn't get will probably be explained(joker fleeing etc)

Saying something is terrible is a matter of opinion.

well its the majority opinion on these boards, I have played the game 5 times and every time I see the ending it seems more ridiculous

btw I don't believe in the Indoctrination theory, I think its bull****

Modifié par DinoSteve, 14 avril 2012 - 10:28 .

[balance5050]

So Majin, You're saying you like the ending?

[Fail_Inc]

Well friend I read your post. All of these "guide to endings" posts are pretty much says the same things. At least good job on not taking the "I understood because I'm such an intellectual here my 10 PHDs" approach.

This is the problem with ending, people are having the urge to post a "guide" to make people understand it. This is the only evidence needed to see that the ending is a failure.

And it's not really that deep or anything. Game just gives you the chance to play God, in 3 different ways/colors... It just doesn't belong to the story I'm playing for the last years. They're not the worst but still when these 3 choices are the only ones I get, I'm just...disappointed.
After seeing the effort in the game this lazy ending becomes much more disappointing.

[majinbuu1307]

balance5050 wrote...

So Majin, You're saying you like the ending?

At first no, too emotional to let anything sink in. When it did, I enjoyed it a bit more, enough to start another playthrough without being depressed. 

The only things I want cleared up is what happens after that breath, does he reunite with his crew like that are saying is possible, why did they flee in the first place? Something happened to make him flee. EC DLC will hopefully clear this up, and Then I can start from ME1 and playthrough to the end one more time:)

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I think and this is my opinion, that bioware didn't know what story they were trying to tell

[majinbuu1307]

Fail_Inc wrote...

Well friend I read your post. All of these "guide to endings" posts are pretty much says the same things. At least good job on not taking the "I understood because I'm such an intellectual here my 10 PHDs" approach.

This is the problem with ending, people are having the urge to post a "guide" to make people understand it. This is the only evidence needed to see that the ending is a failure.

And it's not really that deep or anything. Game just gives you the chance to play God, in 3 different ways/colors... It just doesn't belong to the story I'm playing for the last years. They're not the worst but still when these 3 choices are the only ones I get, I'm just...disappointed.
After seeing the effort in the game this lazy ending becomes much more disappointing.

We were never going to take out that many reapers(look what one, sovereign did) with just lots of fleets. How would it end then? Reaper off button on the citadel? I don't know myself, personally though, despite everything I said, I would like a nice happy rainbow and bunnies ending, at least for an option, if you worked hard enough, i'll admit that lol. Maybe DLC will help with that. A possible crew reuniting would nail that.

Oh and you said the problem with the ending is people having to make a guide to understand it? Isn't that true for the opposite? People making guides about why IT is right and all the little nuances people might have missed?

Modifié par majinbuu1307, 14 avril 2012 - 10:42 .

[Fail_Inc]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Fail_Inc wrote...

Well friend I read your post. All of these "guide to endings" posts are pretty much says the same things. At least good job on not taking the "I understood because I'm such an intellectual here my 10 PHDs" approach.

This is the problem with ending, people are having the urge to post a "guide" to make people understand it. This is the only evidence needed to see that the ending is a failure.

And it's not really that deep or anything. Game just gives you the chance to play God, in 3 different ways/colors... It just doesn't belong to the story I'm playing for the last years. They're not the worst but still when these 3 choices are the only ones I get, I'm just...disappointed.
After seeing the effort in the game this lazy ending becomes much more disappointing.

We were never going to take out that many reapers(look what one, sovereign did) with just lots of fleets. How would it end then? Reaper off button on the citadel? I don't know myself, personally though, despite everything I said, I would like a nice happy rainbow and bunnies ending, at least for an option, if you worked hard enough, i'll admit that lol. Maybe DLC will help with that. A possible crew reuniting would nail that.

Well we push the Reaper off button on Citadel, sorta (and control reaper on button too!) so I guess Bioware couldn't find a good way to end as well (Unless that was a joke, sleepyhead for teh win!)

I would accept a "Final Stand" ending you know we gather all our allies then fight till the end, Alamo style. Our cycle dies fighting and Liara's box delievers the message to the future cycles. "Secret ending" would be someone discovering the box. And yes I think Shepard&Crew deserves at least ONE happy ending, since you know we'll probably never see them again, if we trust Bioware's word? So why the **** not...

[ForceXev]

I just need to refute two things people keep saying "proves" IT can't be true--

1) "IT can't be true because then the story isn't over, and they will have to make a new ending which they said they are not going to do."

That's wrong. When Bioware says that they are not making a new ending, that means they are not going to replace what is currently in the game with a new ending. They can, however, extend the current ending with more scenes (in fact, that is exactly what they said they are doing). By continuing the ending after Shepard either becomes indoctrinated or wakes up after the attempted indoctrination, they will be EXTENDING the ending to provide clarity and closure, not creating a whole new ending.

2) "IT can't be true because Bioware hasn't told us it's true, or hinted that it's true in any way." This is the dumbest defense. Bioware would never SPOIL the story. They hate spoilers. From Bioware's perspective, the less we know about their plans the better. If IT is true, it's already bad enough that it has become such a major point of conversation. Even the slightest nod from Bioware in favor of IT would basically spoil the whole thing if it's not spoiled already.