622 réponses à ce sujet

[zambingo]

Meg, are you replying to me? If so I have no clue how you can say the other endings are devalued in what I presented. What I presented validates all endings. Even with low EMS Shepard wins. Shepard always "wins". The Reapers are gone, completely altered and or physically destroyed in each ending. The present threat is over. The "day" is saved. Possibilities for new stories exist.

BTW, with perhaps the exception of the inclusion of Harbinger what I presented is what I think was intended in the end(s) we got.

Modifié par zambingo, 27 avril 2012 - 04:47 .

[Unschuld]

magnetite wrote...

I think people need to have a spoon fed ending instead of trying to piece together the puzzle that was given to you. They laid all the facts out for you. You just need to put them together.

This isn't one of those endings which is spelled out for people. They pretty much admitted it in that Final Hours app. They did not want a spoon fed ending, but rather one where people have to think about it.

There's a lot of people who want an instant gratification ending where every plot hole is closed and every story wrapped up. That wasn't their plan.

Some of the best sci-fi is not about having spoon fed ending for the masses, but rather a deep thought proking ending

There's just too much evidence to say that this theory is not credible. It's just a theory, based on the facts that were laid out for you.

Well put.

I'm still holding on to my chips, but this is why I like the IT the most out of all the alternate possibilities. We'll see.

[Unschuld]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The problem with showing it was indoctrination would be what it would devalue everything but the red ending.

Only in the same way that knowing you have to kill Wrex if you sabotage the genophage cure devalues that choice. People will still do it to see the content. If IT were true, then the EC DLC would effectively be the ending, and RGB would just be another choice to make before it. Besides, who's to say yet if the Control/Synth choices would be completely devalued if IT were proven to be Bioware's intentions? It might just lead to a different way the ending plays out, still retaining some chance of success or a Paragon/Renegade heroic Shepard death.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter right now. None of us know exactly what this EC will be. Just wait and see, it's all we can do really for the time being.

[CptData]

Tbh, I can't see any "blow to the ribs" for the IT.

Just 'cause Mike Gamble says "Destruction isn't the best ending", it doesn't mean he's right. Actually, for what you have to sacrifice in this ending (Geth, EDI, most likely Shepard as well) the gain is too little.
As long as the IT is NOT true, destruction is not the best choice. However, the other choices aren't better too. Maybe Mike believes "Synthesis" is the best one since it sacrifices least. Right?
Nope. You still have to sacrifice diversity - which is an even bigger sacrifice than the end of an entire species.

And control? Hmm, why do we really want to keep the Reapers? That ending only makes sense in context of the dropped Dark Energy plot. Living beings NEED the Reapers to find a solution for that problem.
Since that plot is no longer there, "controlling the Reapers" doesn't feel like a win-win situation to me.

However, if the IT is true, then destruction is the BEST ending.

The EC may utterly destroy the IT - keep that in mind.

Modifié par CptData, 27 avril 2012 - 07:48 .

[BD Manchild]

Well, I'd rather cling to the IT until the EC proves it wrong.

In any case, it's only what Mike Gamble thinks; it doesn't mean that what he says can be taken as gospel. Though I would disagree with him and agree with the post above; sacrificing diversity is an even more unacceptable sacrifice than an entire species.

[Primalrose]

Can we just be honest. Indoc Theory was created to cope with the fact we got an ending that was basically incomplete and failed to deliver any kind of payoff for playing through all three games. It was clever, it made the ending look much better then it really was so everybody clung onto it.

[kalasaurus]

Of course killing the reapers is the worst ending in a game about killing the reapers.

[CptData]

Primalrose wrote...

Can we just be honest. Indoc Theory was created to cope with the fact we got an ending that was basically incomplete and failed to deliver any kind of payoff for playing through all three games. It was clever, it made the ending look much better then it really was so everybody clung onto it.

I still use the IT for my headcanon.

And in case EC damages or destroys IT, I'll find a way to keep my headcanon intact. Which basically means:

- Normandy does not vanish
- Shepard survives
- Shepard & LI come together in the end
- Rebuilding galactic society from the ashes once more

magnetite wrote...

The EC may utterly destroy the IT - keep that in mind.

In the control and synthesis ending Shepard was turned into a husk.

Yeah, who knows. The currend endings are just incomplete and the only logical way out of that mess is to pretend anything happening after Harby's beam is either a dream or indoctrination.

Unless the endings get changed / extended, this theory is highly plausible. The game itself supports it, like the oily shadows in Shepard's dreams or the way how TIM controls Shepard on the Citadel.
As soon as the EC kicks in, there's a very high chance the endings will provide enough hints everything is real. And if not, if BW uses the famous IT, they'll make sure to give a clear statement. However, I doubt BW is going to make IT real.

Modifié par CptData, 27 avril 2012 - 08:39 .

[mrbthq]

Shallyah wrote...

I just played the "Bring down the Sky" DLC for the original Mass Effect and it struck me how the ending was so similar to the ME3 ending. Basically you're given a choice to "sacrifice a few to save many" and an option to "let the villain go and nobody else dies". Turns out the "good" thing to do is to let the villain go to continue murdering people across the universe, because in exchange you save an amazing number of 3 people contained in a cell, when this guy's purpose was to annihilate 4 million people this time, god knows what he'll come up with next. The "good" thing is to just let him go to try again somewhere else! 

That leads me to believe that ME3 ending is pretty much that, without deeper meanings or significances. We all overstimated Bioware in their ability to play with our minds and twist the story beyond our cognitive power. They really went for "Blue = Paragon, Red = Renegade" in the most plain and simplistic way you can imagine. "Everyone lives today = paragon, sacrifice a few to save everyone forever = renegade". It is vastly disappointing. because of all the things, I hadn't expected Bioware failing at storytelling.

The funny thing is that Balak can become a war asset in mass effect 3 if he is still alive.

[DJBare]

KevShep wrote...



.... If you have a low EMS that only have destroy option then then you die! You CANT fight off indoctrination!

This is my take on it, destroy is always available, but you cannot survive destroy with low EMS, IT succeeded, the matrix uses this, if you die in your mind then your body dies in the real world, and along with that, low EMS does the reapers job for them, the crucible is not focused on just the reapers, it has no focus and anything in it's path is toast.

[CptData]

DJBare wrote...

KevShep wrote...



.... If you have a low EMS that only have destroy option then then you die! You CANT fight off indoctrination!

This is my take on it, destroy is always available, but you cannot survive destroy with low EMS, IT succeeded, the matrix uses this, if you die in your mind then your body dies in the real world, and along with that, low EMS does the reapers job for them, the crucible is not focused on just the reapers, it has no focus and anything in it's path is toast.

I'd say ...

CONTROL - Reapers win over Shepard's will.
SYNTHESIS - Reapers win over Shepard's will.
DESTRUCTION (low / med EMS) - Reapers don't win, but Shepard has not the power to survive the fight for his will.
DESTRUTCION (high EMS) - Reapers lose and Shepard barely survives.

That's my interpretation since I'm aware of the IT.

[Mobius-Silent]

I find it _hilarious_ that people still can't let go of I.T. even after all of this.
"We don't want to be prescriptive" Confirming I.T. would be prescriptive
"I don't believe destroy is the best option" I.T. says that destroy is the only "successful" option.

I saw some people saying that Bioware would have debunked I.T. by now if it wasn't true... are you kidding me? Bioware _love_ I.T. it's splitting the fanbase, causing infighting and generally keeping people quiet, defending Bioware and ME3. By the time the EC rolls around their primary sales of ME3 will be done, complaint will have no effect. Those I.T.ers who _then_ swear off Bioware would have done so earlier had Bioware debunked it.

There is _no_ positive outcome for Bioware by debunking I.T.

[CptData]

Well, Mobius, I think the IT is pretty much supported by the biggest chunk of the fandom.

I'm using it in a mixed form dying-dream/indoctrination for my headcanon. And technically, without the Normandy's escape, I wouldn't even need the dream or IT to get my headcanon working.

So basically, it's almost exclusively the fate of the Normandy for me. For everything else I do have a very sophisticated headcanon prepared - which is currently condensing into a fanfic (on hold, until EC).

Modifié par CptData, 27 avril 2012 - 09:34 .

[Mobius-Silent]

 

CptData wrote...
Well, Mobius, I think the IT is pretty much supported by the biggest chunk of the fandom.

 

I _strongly_ disagree with that.

I have no problem with people's headcanon. I fully support people modifying the story to make them happy.

But the notion that I.T as stated was intended and that the EC will produce a "real" ending based on the Crucible/Catalyst scene being metaphorical in nature is wishful thinking to the n'th degree.

And it really bugs me when people make up nonsense and call it "proof" It feels like a young-earth creationist forum in here

Modifié par Mobius-Silent, 27 avril 2012 - 09:39 .

[Cadence of the Planes]

GlassElephant wrote...

Of course killing the reapers is the worst ending in a game about killing the reapers.

There is a bit more to the game than that, I think

[Gwtheyrn]

Malanek999 wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

The thing I don't get about IT, and maybe I'm wrong, is that it seems to rely on the notion that BioWare sold us a game without an ending. At least that's the impression I get. I don't see how that's actually preferable to BioWare selling us a game with a bad ending.

The theory was the real ending was still to come. That was a requirment, not just allowing endless speculation. We are getting a new ending but the way bioware have presented it in press-releases makes it extrmeley unlikely unless they were attempting to deliberately mislead us.

IIRC someone posted a photo of some of Mac Walters' hand-written notes. It was pretty clear that endless speculation was the goal. It stated it outright in his own handwriting.

[CptData]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

 

CptData wrote...
Well, Mobius, I think the IT is pretty much supported by the biggest chunk of the fandom.

 

I _strongly_ disagree with that.

Of course.

I have no problem with people's headcanon. I fully support people modifying the story to make them happy.

Pretty much.

But the notion that I.T as stated was intended and that the EC will produce a "real" ending based on the Crucible/Catalyst scene being metaphorical in nature is wishful thinking to the n'th degree.

Maybe.
However, the hints are there. Shepard's nightmares for instances. Later nightmares have more "oily shadows" which you can either interpred as people - or as those oily shadows the Rachni Queen spoke about in ME1.
Also the fact everything after the blast feels unreal and ... detached supports that theory.
Even if BW didn't intend the IT, the endings -feel- like that.

So theoretically, BW could use the IT, implement it fully even if it wasn't intended at first, and done.
They don't have to. They also can utterly destroy it with the EC by rearranging and extending most scenes.

And it really bugs me when people make up nonsense and call it "proof" It feels like a young-earth creationist forum in here

Well, that's what people do. And some, 'though not in this fandom, are more than ready to die for their "nonsense they call proof". *cough*

EDIT

It's just like that: as long as there's nothing telling you the exact opposite with some real good evidence, that theory stays valid and the evidence supporting the theory is proof. Done.

So unless BW adds some evidence that kills the IT, any slightest hint that supports the IT is used to prove the IT. It's that.

You don't have to like it, you can make up your own theories and tell them everyone.

Modifié par CptData, 27 avril 2012 - 11:37 .

[davishepard]

People love their fanfictions. They wish to think that the endings are not real (because they didn't liked), and they will continue to think like this until the very end. This is called denial.

When EC cames out and shows more details about what happenned after Shepard's choice, they will rage all over the forums, pointlessly.

It can't be helped.

Modifié par davishepard, 27 avril 2012 - 11:45 .

[CptData]

davishepard wrote...

People love their fanfictions. They wish to think that the endings are not real (because they didn't liked), and they will continue to think like this until the very end. This is called denial.

When EC cames out and shows more details about what happenned after Shepard's choice, they will rage all over the forums, pointlessly.

It can't be helped.

Well, except BW got an idea what the ppl want.

It's not that we want a pure happy ending. That's not possible.
What ppl want is not just a closure. It's something ME3 virtually killed: "choices do matter".

The endings should display those choices. It shouldn't be "A B C" - "Blue Green Red Explosions". And the fate of the Normandy simply doesn't make any sense. It just feels as if BW forcefully tried to separate Shepard from the crew (in case s/he survives) PLUS making it entirely impossible to allow a reunion some time later.

No wonder a large part of the fandom doesn't accept this and tries to create a less brutal outcome?
It's human.

The endings in their current form feel incomplete, beat down the player and make a replay of the series obsolete. Since you always will get the same outcome - just a decision between three differently colored explosion, the nonsensical escape of the Normandy, the destruction of the Mass Relays. No one tells the player what's going to follow those events. And, as stated before, everything after Harbinger's beam feels so detached and OOC for ALL involved characters, it has to be either a dream, a hallucination ... or horribly bad writing that only can get accepted as "indoctrination".

[incinerator950]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

 

CptData wrote...
Well, Mobius, I think the IT is pretty much supported by the biggest chunk of the fandom.

 

I _strongly_ disagree with that.

I have no problem with people's headcanon. I fully support people modifying the story to make them happy.

But the notion that I.T as stated was intended and that the EC will produce a "real" ending based on the Crucible/Catalyst scene being metaphorical in nature is wishful thinking to the n'th degree.

And it really bugs me when people make up nonsense and call it "proof" It feels like a young-earth creationist forum in here

Holy **** I thought I was alone all morning.

[DJBare]

CptData wrote...

DJBare wrote...

KevShep wrote...



.... If you have a low EMS that only have destroy option then then you die! You CANT fight off indoctrination!

This is my take on it, destroy is always available, but you cannot survive destroy with low EMS, IT succeeded, the matrix uses this, if you die in your mind then your body dies in the real world, and along with that, low EMS does the reapers job for them, the crucible is not focused on just the reapers, it has no focus and anything in it's path is toast.

I'd say ...

CONTROL - Reapers win over Shepard's will.
SYNTHESIS - Reapers win over Shepard's will.
DESTRUCTION (low / med EMS) - Reapers don't win, but Shepard has not the power to survive the fight for his will.
DESTRUTCION (high EMS) - Reapers lose and Shepard barely survives.

That's my interpretation since I'm aware of the IT.

I agree, but I'm attempting to be specific here, people are saying IT does not work with the destroy ending, when in fact it can.

We have to relate EMS to the effectiveness of the crucible, choosing destroy means that Shepard is specifically choosing to target the reapers, but with low EMS the crucible is not focused, in other words it effects everything in it's path, with high EMS the crucible is focused and targets only the reapers.

So how does this relate to IT, easy, by choosing destroy Shepard has not succumbed to the catalyst suggestions, IT is about manipulating victims through suggestion(you can wipe out all synthetics if you want, even you are part synthetic), note the catalyst is not telling you, he is "suggesting", the crux of IT is to manipulate victims through suggestion.

IT works best if the reapers goal and the victims goal coincide, a Shepard that does not want to destroy EDI and the geth is going to look more favorably on the other options presented, this is where the reapers and victims goal coincide, the victim(Shepard) does not want to destroy EDI and the geth, the reapers want the victim(Shepard) to choose one of the other options.

[Iconoclaste]

DJBare wrote...

So how does this relate to IT, easy, by choosing destroy Shepard has not succumbed to the catalyst suggestions, IT is about manipulating victims through suggestion(you can wipe out all synthetics if you want, even you are part synthetic), note the catalyst is not telling you, he is "suggesting", the crux of IT is to manipulate victims through suggestion.

IT works best if the reapers goal and the victims goal coincide, a Shepard that does not want to destroy EDI and the geth is going to look more favorably on the other options presented, this is where the reapers and victims goal coincide, the victim(Shepard) does not want to destroy EDI and the geth, the reapers want the victim(Shepard) to choose one of the other options.

That is far from "official IT" where Shepard is quietly sleeping somewhere in the rubbles of London, no? If indoctrination only happen at the moment Shepard makes the "wrong choices", then most of the hype of IT is gone, since it's a relatively short issue just related to Shepard's final decision. That would also make the Normandy fleeing and crash landing a "real" sequence, even if poorly connected to what the player can understand of events, and not just "a dream".

If Shepard makes a "wrong choice", then he simply dies. If he chooses "destroy" with sufficient EMS, then he gets blown to some remote part of the final stage, and wakes up on the Citadel. He doesn't have to go through the whole thing once again, and doesn't need to see Anderson and TIM again, etc.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 27 avril 2012 - 12:21 .

[davishepard]

CptData wrote...

Well, except BW got an idea what the ppl want.

It's not that we want a pure happy ending. That's not possible.
What ppl want is not just a closure. It's something ME3 virtually killed: "choices do matter".

The endings should display those choices. It shouldn't be "A B C" - "Blue Green Red Explosions". And the fate of the Normandy simply doesn't make any sense. It just feels as if BW forcefully tried to separate Shepard from the crew (in case s/he survives) PLUS making it entirely impossible to allow a reunion some time later.

No wonder a large part of the fandom doesn't accept this and tries to create a less brutal outcome?
It's human.

The endings in their current form feel incomplete, beat down the player and make a replay of the series obsolete. Since you always will get the same outcome - just a decision between three differently colored explosion, the nonsensical escape of the Normandy, the destruction of the Mass Relays. No one tells the player what's going to follow those events. And, as stated before, everything after Harbinger's beam feels so detached and OOC for ALL involved characters, it has to be either a dream, a hallucination ... or horribly bad writing that only can get accepted as "indoctrination".

Doesn't matter what the people wanted. They are telling a history, just as they told one in ME and ME2, and they should never put an entire plot created by enraged fans in their game, no matter how much wonderful this fans think this plot is (and if you get the facts straight and think about, IT is total garbage, in every possible sense).

The choices mattered. You were able to choose your actions through the whole game, the ending included. Just because the choices that you are given aren't the choices you wanted, doesn't mean your choices didn't mattered.

You think, "doesn't make sense", because you don't know what happened. That doesn't mean that there is not a explanation. They probably will adress this problems in EC.

IT isn't a less brutal outcome. It's fanfiction, and a bad one. It was just created so the endings rightly never happened, because some people think they sucked. It means that you have none choice in the ending, since just one possible outcome is the right one. It also means that Bioware sold an incomplete game, that ends nothing.

You complain about the games not explaining the things well, but IT explain nothing. If you find that the games are unplayable because of ME3, I only can say that I feel sorry about you self-inflicted limited vision of the series.

EC hopefully will show what happened after Shepard's choice in details, so people will drop this horrible fanfiction called Indocrination Theory and either rage like hell and move on, or if they are adult enough, just move on.

Modifié par davishepard, 27 avril 2012 - 12:26 .