1057 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirian Thorn]

Katherine wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Read what I wrote about IT not being the end.  

In ME2 your gameplay affects the outcome.  If you don't do A,B,C,D, etc you CANNOT get the "perfect ending" in fact the Collectors/Reapers can win.  

Why can't picking Control/Synthesis be bad and if you didn't do other things in the game, then the Reapers can win.  

As I said, IT doesn't just explain the endings.  IT is also a way to continue the story and complete the ending.  

And I know a lot of people have a problem if that's the case, because then Bioware shipped them an incomplete game. 

 

If it is true that you can still "win" and continue the game no matter which ending you chose, then we are right back where we started before IT with no real ending to the game. Most IT people I've seen believe in that Destroy is the ONLY way to win.

And I am not saying you shouldn't be able to get a bad ending, but you should be able understand the consequences and strategize appropriately. If IT is true, and Control/Synthesis can lead to something terrible, there should be an indication of it and you should be able to fight it. (Or possibly NOT fight it depending on your EMS.)

With IT, it just seems like the idea of strategy and skill go out the window in favor of convoluted storytelling. 

We'll have to see. 

I look at all three choices as legitimate choices that will impact your ending.  I believe there is a possibility to still "win" even is Shepard is indoctrinated and to lose if your EMS wasn't high enough. 

But, it's all up in the air. 

[EpyonX3]

estebanus wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

You guys need to look at the symbolism and the metaphors.

Control: Shepard is trying to hold onto something he can't control, something that will kill him.

Synthesis: This is appealing to Shep's heroic side, he is sacrificing himself to save everyone. But it is a false hope because; half synthies could still create full synthies. (the created always rebel against the creator) and is also based on the lie that Synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution. Its actually the end of evolution and is the same fallacy that Saren believed in.

Destroy: You keep fighting, you keep resisting, you destroy the reapers no matter the cost.

Why do we need to see it that way? There's nothing in the story that makes us lean towards looking at things symblically. Especially at the last ten minutes.

Uhh, the dreams... and the Geth Consensus.

The dreams were explained by Shepard each time he woke up, leaving us with little to no work to do trying to decipher them. The consensus happened in reality and where a visaul representation of being inside of a physical server. No need for interpretation.

So I ask again, when have we needed to rethink events in ME3 metaphorically and symbolically?

How about Adam and Ev- Uhm... I mean joker and EDI after the Normandy crashes?

What about it? Why should rethink that scene symbolically? They crash landed and started civilization on that planet. The stargazer at the end of the credits confirms this.

[rachellouise]

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion generally represents stress/feeling powerless

Modifié par rachellouise, 13 avril 2012 - 07:33 .

[balance5050]

Falloutwarfare wrote...

"It's also comon sense that Shepard should have been vaporized re-entering the atmosphere in a space suit in ME2 and from getting hit by the reaper beam at the end. Yet he lives in both."


i think in ME2 that the only part of resurected shepard's body that is original is the brain (protected in his helmet) and mabee his heart (not to sure) and the rest was cloned and such because  when he hit the planet where the normandy crashed he was scattered over a large area. and as for harbringers beem attack at the end it appears to partly hit him but is kind of hard to tell so for me that bit is up in the air.

also he dont live when he re-enters at the beginning of ME2 cause his air supply gets cut so he sort of sufocates 

edit: not sure who i quoted cause i forgot to check lol
 

Yes, Shepard was a burnt hunk of meat at the beginning of ME2, he also was wearing full armor and had a helmet...

[NM_Che56]

Katherine wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Katherine wrote...

Katherine wrote...

 The reason I don't like the IT is because gameplay wise, it shows extremely poor design. I mentioned this in another thread, but challenges in games are either strategy based, or skill based. To "beat" the indoctrination at the end of the game, the player would need to be aware of how to use their strategy or skill to do so. There is no obvious indication that you are being indoctrinated in the game, so if IT is true, the player is unable to use strategy or skill to beat it, which leads to bad linear gaming. 

Now, people have mention that with Morinth it is capable to "lose" the game too, but Morinth is actually a good example of the player being aware of Shepard being controlled. When you are doing Samara's loyalty mission, Samara tells you that Morinth can influence you, and this happens you don't have enough paragon or renegade points. You as a player know what's going on, but your Shepard can't "break" Morinth's control until Samara shows up. This is good gameplay you can use strategy (by getting enough paragon or renegade points) to break Morinth's control. And if you don't break free from her control, you still see what happens afterwards with Samara showing up. 

Having there only be one "right" choice at the end of the game without proper set up for player strategy would simply be terrible level design. It's like those underground sections in the old Mario games where any of the three pipes could send you to another world... except unbeknownst to you two of the pipes automatically kill you, and only one of them works. :/

*bump*

No one wants to debate the merits of IT gameplay? 

Unless the game design was to not include dramatic irony. Us knowing that the attempts to indoctrinate Shepard were in full swing breaks the immersion illusion.  We ARE Shepard.  We can't BE Shepard if our awareness of events transcends his or her own.

That just shows that indoctrination doesn't work as a game mechanic. The reader needs to know what is going on at the end, where the plot is meant to be resolved. Not making it obvious makes it bad storytelling, simple as that

Exactly. Mass Effect isn't a movie. In games, there is a certain amount of seperation from the character you are playing so that you can strategize and work to win. Without that seperation, you get a lack of control as a player and linear storytelling - which is the opposite of what Bioware boasts about. 

so much for riveting cinematics...

[ajm317]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

palker wrote...

Well as was pointed out in the tasteful nerd rage video indoc theory has holes but there are a lot less of them in it. Still devs thought that this ending was satisfying and varied and that is the most problematic thing and a reason we will not get a new ending and why indoc theory is most likely wrong.

I'd still like you to keep in mind this is the same company that created KOTOR and there was quite the epic twist in that game. 

I'm not ready to discount that they were trying to One-UP themselves in that regard just yet. 

If there was going to be another shoe dropping I think it would have dropped by now.

The game has been out for over a month.  Most people have played the game, finished it (or quit in the middle) and moved on.  Any DLC they release at this point, even if it's the "real ending" is only going to reach a fraction of the player base.  That's bad design.

If there was a real ending coming they would have had it ready to go and released it when Retake ME started going and the outrage was at it's peak.  At this point they are clearly backtracking and trying to create new content they didn't think they were going to have to create.

[NM_Che56]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Hi,

I haven't seen one of these, FYI.

A lot of people don't seem to care for IT.  A good number seem to like it.  Aside from it not appealing to your personal tastes and style of narrative, I'm assuming that some people don't like it because they see holes in the theory. 

So, why don't we do this:

You post why IT doesn't work and then someone who supports IT can try to address that concern.

Sound like a plan?

Ok.  GO!

*EDITED TO KEEP PEOPLE ON TOPIC*

Why not exposing this ''whole theory'' as precisely as you can, and THEN see what people have to say about it? Do you think anyone is going to read a 1500+ pages thread for something seemingly so speculative, where half of the posts are pyramids of troll bashing and funny picture quoting? Here you go the other way around : you ask for ''holes'' so you can fill them, and yet this thread turns out just like many others. I'm not impressed at that. Was that the objective, to show that this theory can ''easily fill all plot holes you can throw against it''?

I think it's obvious it can't, even while resorting to such a ''trap'' as this thread. You ARE funny, that I give you. But you might just get better chances of gaining SINCERE interest by EXPOSING this theory in a READABLE manner, instead of throwing tidbits all around and having a crew of parrots repeating the most effective memes in circular reasonings. Just how could anyone pretend that ''HE ONLY'' detains the ''truth'' about any USAGE of indoctrination Bioware might have put in the games, and then use this as a standing point to defend 'THE THEORY'?

You are not proposing for discussion, I just read this thread. And don't post links if YOU pretend to know this theory. The ''bad endings'' outcry was what gave the original impulse to this theory, now it's all the series, up to light bulbs not being ''normal'', or Reapers ''ignoring'' the Catalyst because they are not jumping on it with all their tentacles. Cosmetics are turned in devilish designs, plain sound effects and camera angles are now  sophisticated ''pro tricks'', whatever.  

Clean IT up.

IT has a 23 minute video.  feel free to google it, watch it, formulate concise counterpoints and post when ready.

[EpyonX3]

OdanUrr wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Are you certain of that? 

Complete the ending again and listen. 

When you're walking on the plaform towards Control/Synthesis there is different music than when you're on the platform walking towards Destroy. 

I have the three endings recorded for posterity.<_<

I tested this. I didn't hear a difference. then I took too long and the crucible got destroyed.

Think about that for a second. Why would the crucible get destroyed if he was dreaming? If anything they want shepard to actually choose their side. Why make it impossible?

[translationninja]

What's the point in discussing if "the symbolism" indictates "indoctrination" when BW have clearly stated that's not what happened?

No troll or incitement intended, honest question...

[balance5050]

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

[estebanus]

jijeebo wrote...

estebanus wrote...

ajm317 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

errmm... Yes they do.

In the past they have because the Reapers goal is to destroy the advanced organics in the galaxy and indoctrination gives them valuable agents.

If the ending is taken at face value there is no reason to assume indoctrination still occurs.  That is no longer the Starchilds goal.

So what you're saying is that the reapers actually Want to be defeated?

He's saying that once Shep meets the catalyst, it has no reason to indoctrinate people anymore because indoctrination is a component of a solution that no longer works.

The reapers bow to the will of the catalyst, and during the ending it deemed them no longer necessary.

So now you're saying that the reapers would let themselves be killed because the catalyst tells them to?
That pretty much defies his own logic: "The created will always rebel against the creators..."

[NM_Che56]

SubAstris wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Katherine wrote...

Katherine wrote...

 The reason I don't like the IT is because gameplay wise, it shows extremely poor design. I mentioned this in another thread, but challenges in games are either strategy based, or skill based. To "beat" the indoctrination at the end of the game, the player would need to be aware of how to use their strategy or skill to do so. There is no obvious indication that you are being indoctrinated in the game, so if IT is true, the player is unable to use strategy or skill to beat it, which leads to bad linear gaming. 

Now, people have mention that with Morinth it is capable to "lose" the game too, but Morinth is actually a good example of the player being aware of Shepard being controlled. When you are doing Samara's loyalty mission, Samara tells you that Morinth can influence you, and this happens you don't have enough paragon or renegade points. You as a player know what's going on, but your Shepard can't "break" Morinth's control until Samara shows up. This is good gameplay you can use strategy (by getting enough paragon or renegade points) to break Morinth's control. And if you don't break free from her control, you still see what happens afterwards with Samara showing up. 

Having there only be one "right" choice at the end of the game without proper set up for player strategy would simply be terrible level design. It's like those underground sections in the old Mario games where any of the three pipes could send you to another world... except unbeknownst to you two of the pipes automatically kill you, and only one of them works. :/

*bump*

No one wants to debate the merits of IT gameplay? 

Unless the game design was to not include dramatic irony. Us knowing that the attempts to indoctrinate Shepard were in full swing breaks the immersion illusion.  We ARE Shepard.  We can't BE Shepard if our awareness of events transcends his or her own.

That just shows that indoctrination doesn't work as a game mechanic. The reader needs to know what is going on at the end, where the plot is meant to be resolved. Not making it obvious makes it bad storytelling, simple as that

It's not a mechanic.  It's a twist to the story. 

In dramatic irony, the reader knows what's going on but the character doesn't.  That removes you from the character.  this is a role playing game.

the kind of irony (can't recall the name) here is the kind like you experience when you see the 6th sense for the first time; neither YOU nor BRUCE WILLS knows that he's a ghost.  A total WTF moment for both you, the audience, and the character.

[NM_Che56]

translationninja wrote...

What's the point in discussing if "the symbolism" indictates "indoctrination" when BW have clearly stated that's not what happened?

No troll or incitement intended, honest question...

Show me where they stated it wasn't what happened? 

[ajm317]

estebanus wrote...

So now you're saying that the reapers would let themselves be killed because the catalyst tells them to?
That pretty much defies his own logic: "The created will always rebel against the creators..."

I don't think the Reapers "let" the Starchild kill them.  I think he just kills them with space magic.  What they want is irrelevant.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

Or more likely BW got a tab lazy and couldn't be bothered to turn the text the right way, hoping no one would notice.

[Falloutwarfare]

balance5050 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

That could explane the reversed 1M1 thing on the pylons before andreson.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

Are you certain of that? 

Complete the ending again and listen. 

When you're walking on the plaform towards Control/Synthesis there is different music than when you're on the platform walking towards Destroy. 

I have the three endings recorded for posterity.<_<

I tested this. I didn't hear a difference. then I took too long and the crucible got destroyed.

Think about that for a second. Why would the crucible get destroyed if he was dreaming? If anything they want shepard to actually choose their side. Why make it impossible?

It's entirely possible that he could be hallucinating, and that he was havving a "waking dream" and that the ending is him being manipulated through hallucinations to sabatoge the crucible. I think Indoctrination Theory 2.0 accounts for this. 

[balance5050]

Falloutwarfare wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

That could explane the reversed 1M1 thing on the pylons before andreson.

Indeed.

[ajm317]

Master Che wrote...

the kind of irony (can't recall the name) here is the kind like you experience when you see the 6th sense for the first time; neither YOU nor BRUCE WILLS knows that he's a ghost.  A total WTF moment for both you, the audience, and the character.

Clearly it can't be that kind of irony because there is no "Bruce Willis is a ghost" moment in ME3.  At no point do they come out and say "Surprise!  You were indoctrinated!".  They've also made it pretty clear they're not going to.

[estebanus]

EpyonX3 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

You guys need to look at the symbolism and the metaphors.

Control: Shepard is trying to hold onto something he can't control, something that will kill him.

Synthesis: This is appealing to Shep's heroic side, he is sacrificing himself to save everyone. But it is a false hope because; half synthies could still create full synthies. (the created always rebel against the creator) and is also based on the lie that Synthesis is the pinnacle of evolution. Its actually the end of evolution and is the same fallacy that Saren believed in.

Destroy: You keep fighting, you keep resisting, you destroy the reapers no matter the cost.

Why do we need to see it that way? There's nothing in the story that makes us lean towards looking at things symblically. Especially at the last ten minutes.

Uhh, the dreams... and the Geth Consensus.

The dreams were explained by Shepard each time he woke up, leaving us with little to no work to do trying to decipher them. The consensus happened in reality and where a visaul representation of being inside of a physical server. No need for interpretation.

So I ask again, when have we needed to rethink events in ME3 metaphorically and symbolically?

How about Adam and Ev- Uhm... I mean joker and EDI after the Normandy crashes?

What about it? Why should rethink that scene symbolically? They crash landed and started civilization on that planet. The stargazer at the end of the credits confirms this.

Think about what you just said. I mean it. THINK.
How can this not be seen symbolically?

A male and a "female" landing on a new world. Banished from their own one. A symbol of acceptance and love between two different groups (synthetics and organics), united in their love to each other. A symbol of tolerance. Of hope. 

How can this not be seen symbolically?

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

the 1M1 signs are not reversed. They are inverted because the structure it's printed on is upside down. If you look at a couple that aren't the 1M1 are not reversed.

Also, if he were dreaming, everything would be in slow motion all the way to the end.

Unless you're going to suggest that indoctrination dreams allow this, even though we've yet to see anyone experience this in the games before.

[Tirian Thorn]

ajm317 wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

palker wrote...

Well as was pointed out in the tasteful nerd rage video indoc theory has holes but there are a lot less of them in it. Still devs thought that this ending was satisfying and varied and that is the most problematic thing and a reason we will not get a new ending and why indoc theory is most likely wrong.

I'd still like you to keep in mind this is the same company that created KOTOR and there was quite the epic twist in that game. 

I'm not ready to discount that they were trying to One-UP themselves in that regard just yet. 

If there was going to be another shoe dropping I think it would have dropped by now.

The game has been out for over a month.  Most people have played the game, finished it (or quit in the middle) and moved on.  Any DLC they release at this point, even if it's the "real ending" is only going to reach a fraction of the player base.  That's bad design.

If there was a real ending coming they would have had it ready to go and released it when Retake ME started going and the outrage was at it's peak.  At this point they are clearly backtracking and trying to create new content they didn't think they were going to have to create.

Then why hasn't Bioware come out and said something like "while we appreciate the lengths to which fans have gone to explain the endings, the Indoctrination Theory isn't true." 

They haven't said anything like that.  (not yet at least.) 

If it were so clear that the Indoctrination Theory wasn't correct, why not just come out and say that?  (rhetorical question, but valid) 

That's not really a great arguement for IT.  But it's not so clear that they aren't using IT. 

At this point a theory that the damn space hamster is really a reaper agent could be true.  Heck, I bet the DEVS wouldn't even discount that theory. 

[SubAstris]

Master Che wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Katherine wrote...

Katherine wrote...

 The reason I don't like the IT is because gameplay wise, it shows extremely poor design. I mentioned this in another thread, but challenges in games are either strategy based, or skill based. To "beat" the indoctrination at the end of the game, the player would need to be aware of how to use their strategy or skill to do so. There is no obvious indication that you are being indoctrinated in the game, so if IT is true, the player is unable to use strategy or skill to beat it, which leads to bad linear gaming. 

Now, people have mention that with Morinth it is capable to "lose" the game too, but Morinth is actually a good example of the player being aware of Shepard being controlled. When you are doing Samara's loyalty mission, Samara tells you that Morinth can influence you, and this happens you don't have enough paragon or renegade points. You as a player know what's going on, but your Shepard can't "break" Morinth's control until Samara shows up. This is good gameplay you can use strategy (by getting enough paragon or renegade points) to break Morinth's control. And if you don't break free from her control, you still see what happens afterwards with Samara showing up. 

Having there only be one "right" choice at the end of the game without proper set up for player strategy would simply be terrible level design. It's like those underground sections in the old Mario games where any of the three pipes could send you to another world... except unbeknownst to you two of the pipes automatically kill you, and only one of them works. :/

*bump*

No one wants to debate the merits of IT gameplay? 

Unless the game design was to not include dramatic irony. Us knowing that the attempts to indoctrinate Shepard were in full swing breaks the immersion illusion.  We ARE Shepard.  We can't BE Shepard if our awareness of events transcends his or her own.

That just shows that indoctrination doesn't work as a game mechanic. The reader needs to know what is going on at the end, where the plot is meant to be resolved. Not making it obvious makes it bad storytelling, simple as that

It's not a mechanic.  It's a twist to the story. 

In dramatic irony, the reader knows what's going on but the character doesn't.  That removes you from the character.  this is a role playing game.

the kind of irony (can't recall the name) here is the kind like you experience when you see the 6th sense for the first time; neither YOU nor BRUCE WILLS knows that he's a ghost.  A total WTF moment for both you, the audience, and the character.

I haven't actually seen that movie, but I assume that once it is revealed, it is clear that all those things which didn't really make sense before suddenly made sense, yes? Now, that didn't happen in ME, people were completely confused by the ending, and it is certainly not due to people being less intelligent. It is due to BW's incompotence, assuming IT, on the matter and that is why it failed. Instead people had to resort to forums and youtube vids to establish the "truth", a good ending does not do that.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

Or more likely BW got a tab lazy and couldn't be bothered to turn the text the right way, hoping no one would notice.

If you look at where the text is written, it is on a "pylon" that frequently appears through out the game including multiplayer, it often has different text on it but the text is always frontwards. It would need to be deliberatly placed reversed.

[estebanus]

balance5050 wrote...

Falloutwarfare wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

well going by dream interpretation, running in slow motion represents stress/feeling powerless

Things are often backwards in Dreams to I think. Something about our brain reverses the image our eyes see. This would explain why there is backwards text all around the ending.

That could explane the reversed 1M1 thing on the pylons before andreson.

Indeed.

Damn, I never noticed that!