622 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

Xellith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Well, we just don't know the consequences for...well, really anything yet.

Indoctrination theory requires red to be the good ending.  Unless there is some crazy plot twist we dont know about...

The Indoctrination Theory does not requeire the red ending to be the best....the whole basis of the indoctrination theory is that "it" is the crazy plot-twist and that the game continues on after the current endings because they are not in fact the "real" endings....

So yeah....idk maybe go check out the Indoctrination Theory thread to freshen up on the details

[DreamTension]

Xellith wrote...

twitter.com/#!/GambleMike/status/195308506214187008

Mike Gamble said...

Personally, I don't think the best ending is destroy, actually.

Looking more and more likely that the ending we got was actually real and Bioware just completely forgot how to make a decent RPG right at the end.

This clarification DLC seems like its going to clear up that it wasnt indoctrination and that the ending just sucks.  Seems its likely part of their "artistic vision" to have a sucky ending.

Maybe that have some epic ME2 quality dlc planned?  /shrug

This really says absolutely nothing about IDT.  One way or the other.

I take this two ways:
1)  Gamble wants lots of speculation about what really is the 'best' ending (for reasons we may or may not know but can speculate on).
2) Gamble completely doesn't realize destroy is the only way to have Shepard live (or breathe I suppose) and if that's the case what the hell is going on with BioWare? 

[Bill Casey]

Malanek999 wrote...

What the OP was getting at is that in the IT, choosing destroy was symbolic in terms of resisting the indoctrination whereas control and synthesis make the player submit to it. I don't think you can make an argument that submitting to indoctrination is better than resisting it.

I don't know...
An ending where Shepard has to blow his brains out to save his friends would be pretty ****ing awesome...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 26 avril 2012 - 01:35 .

[Shallyah]

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.

Modifié par Shallyah, 26 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[Aaleel]

Well if you wanted synthesis you may as well have joined Saren in ME1 instead of spending the entire game trying to stop him and suicide him at the end.

If you wanted control you may as well have joined TIM instead is spending all of ME3 trying to stop him and suicide him at the end.

I had to pick destroy, it was the only I hadn't forced someone to put a gun to their head to stop lol.

[DTKT]

Malanek999 wrote...

DTKT wrote...

It really means nothing. It's the personal account of one of the developper. The only thing it means is that he believes that the destroy ending is not the best one.

That's it. He might prefer the "LETS CHANGE THE DNA OF THE ENTIRE GALAXY. FUN FUN FUN" ending.

What the OP was getting at is that in the IT, choosing destroy was symbolic in terms of resisting the indoctrination whereas control and synthesis make the player submit to it. I don't think you can make an argument that submitting to indoctrination is better than resisting it.

Maybe, but I disregard the IT theory anyways. I see that tweet as it is. Just one guy on the dev team saying that he doesn't prefer the destroy ending.

[zambot]

I like IT. I think it's really cool how fans poured through tons of content and put together pieces to make a believable interpretation of the ending.

The problem with IT is that is not an ending, but merely a chapter before the ending.

[Malanek]

Bill Casey wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

What the OP was getting at is that in the IT, choosing destroy was symbolic in terms of resisting the indoctrination whereas control and synthesis make the player submit to it. I don't think you can make an argument that submitting to indoctrination is better than resisting it.

I don't know...
An ending where Shepard has to blow his brains out to save his friends would be pretty ****ing awesome...

What makes you think shepard would blow his brains out if he was indoctrinated? And how would that be "better" than resisting the indoctrination?

[Chuvvy]

MG know's what's up. Finish the mission.

[Malanek]

DTKT wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

DTKT wrote...

It really means nothing. It's the personal account of one of the developper. The only thing it means is that he believes that the destroy ending is not the best one.

That's it. He might prefer the "LETS CHANGE THE DNA OF THE ENTIRE GALAXY. FUN FUN FUN" ending.

What the OP was getting at is that in the IT, choosing destroy was symbolic in terms of resisting the indoctrination whereas control and synthesis make the player submit to it. I don't think you can make an argument that submitting to indoctrination is better than resisting it.

Maybe, but I disregard the IT theory anyways. I see that tweet as it is. Just one guy on the dev team saying that he doesn't prefer the destroy ending.

Exactly. But if the IT was true, then a dev probably wouldn't/shouldn't be saying this. This thread was an argument (and a good one) against the IT. Unless we are missing something else on top of that.

Modifié par Malanek999, 26 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[FatalX7.0]

Deuterium_Dawn 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.

Deliberately, no. At least I don't think so. That would have required, at best, for them to have an ending ready to go shortly after people started finishing the game. Their complete non-response to the backlash says they weren't ready. My best guess, based on the clues laid out by IT and the Final Hours app quoting someone (casey I think) talking about trying to implement indoctrination as a mechanic but having to abandon it is that they were simply rushed and couldn't make it work in the time/budget allotted. I am still hoping they will fix this with EC.

He didn't say anything about being rushed, he said that they didn't know how to properly implement indoctrination so they just dropped it.

[Clayless]

You'll never convince the ITer's.

[N7 ironman]

If I have to speculate much more than I already am I may actually throw up.

[NUM13ER]

As it stands red is the only ending Shep lives and Reapers are definitively destroyed. The latter decision was the most important for me. It was the goal all along. It worries me that there seems to be some sort of hierarchy among BioWare regarding the three choices. Which seems odd in that all three options should have obvious pro's and cons.

[Fingertrip]

I don't get it OP? What "another" blow? What's the previous blow?

What's to stop him from being a fan of Saren's ideal or TIM ideals of controlling or becoming part- of the Reaper?

This isn't exactly a debunk. If they wanted to debunk the IT theory, they would have done it by now, yet they have not- and they've been consecutively tease and hint about it both in-game and tweet-wise.

[ashwind]

Malanek999 wrote...
What makes you think shepard would blow his brains out if he was indoctrinated? And how would that be "better" than resisting the indoctrination?

If Saren & TIM can fight off indoctrination long enough to blow their own brains out, why wont Shepard do that? Didnt he talk them into doing so? And that is THE only thing Shepard can do IF the Reapers start to indoctrinate him with all the Reaper in-plans Cerberus used to rebuld him. Or is Shepard a weak willed hypocrite?

None has "completely resisted" the indoctrination process thus far, none that we know of. It is only a matter of time before the subject yields. Nothing in the series or the codex suggested even in the most remote way that indoctrination can be "resisted".

For the sake of argument, I claim that on the contrary, people who choose the Destroy ending are those who are truly indoctrinated, hence left alive to become an agent of the Reapers. Benezia thought she could resist indoctrination, TIM though he could. All of them BELIEVED that they are NOT indoctrinated and have resisted bu in fact they are nothing but PAWNS just like those who believe that Destroying is resisting.

Modifié par ashwind, 26 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[RainyDayLover]

Unless.....Mike Gamble himself is indoctrinated by the rEApers

Anyways, that doesn't really disprove it. Didn't Bioware already state somewhere that Synthesis is supposed to be the best ending?

Modifié par RainyDayLover, 26 avril 2012 - 01:47 .

[Makrys]

People need to keep in mind that any questions that might 'prove' the IT, Bioware is going to dodge or deflect. In other words, if the IT is true, then Bioware isn't going to hint at it. They are going to hint AGAINST it so that when it is actually revealed to be true, the wow and suprise factor will be much higher. I am convinced there is no other way to explain the endings other than IT. If Bioware does not go with it, I'm done. You can't explain bull crap. And that's what the ending was without the IT.

[liggy002]

Fingertrip wrote...

I don't get it OP? What "another" blow? What's the previous blow?

What's to stop him from being a fan of Saren's ideal or TIM ideals of controlling or becoming part- of the Reaper?

This isn't exactly a debunk. If they wanted to debunk the IT theory, they would have done it by now, yet they have not- and they've been consecutively tease and hint about it both in-game and tweet-wise.

Not only that but they wont come out and say why Harbinger was silent and mostly absent from ME3.  That is what makes we wonder.  I believe that Harbinger's absence is linked to the IT.

[DTKT]

Makrys wrote...

People need to keep in mind that any questions that might 'prove' the IT, Bioware is going to dodge or deflect. In other words, if the IT is true, then Bioware isn't going to hint at it. They are going to hint AGAINST it so that when it is actually revealed to be true, the wow and suprise factor will be much higher. I am convinced there is no other way to explain the endings other than IT. If Bioware does not go with it, I'm done. You can't explain bull crap. And that's what the ending was without the IT.

Of course you can explain bullcrap. Lack of time and money.

They ran out of time and/or money and had to cut heavily where they could. And where can you easily cut? In stuff that isn't final yet. What comes last? Endings. That's where you save time. Why do you think we have so many unused audio files? It's not there to be pretty. It's there because they were supposed to be integrated in the main game. But, they ran out of time and had to cut them.

There you go.

Modifié par DTKT, 26 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[Deuterium_Dawn]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Deuterium_Dawn 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.

Deliberately, no. At least I don't think so. That would have required, at best, for them to have an ending ready to go shortly after people started finishing the game. Their complete non-response to the backlash says they weren't ready. My best guess, based on the clues laid out by IT and the Final Hours app quoting someone (casey I think) talking about trying to implement indoctrination as a mechanic but having to abandon it is that they were simply rushed and couldn't make it work in the time/budget allotted. I am still hoping they will fix this with EC.

He didn't say anything about being rushed, he said that they didn't know how to properly implement indoctrination so they just dropped it.

"Our team was still trying to implement it as late as November, but we had technical difficultes with the implentation" and removing control of the character while still allowing conversation chioces and such iirc, or something to that effect. No he doesn't outright say it(not that he would or could actually admit that) but it does seem to imply they ran out of time especially given that there are other signs the game was rushed and we know bioware wanted to push back the release another three months.

Modifié par Deuterium_Dawn, 26 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[liggy002]

Makrys wrote...

People need to keep in mind that any questions that might 'prove' the IT, Bioware is going to dodge or deflect. In other words, if the IT is true, then Bioware isn't going to hint at it. They are going to hint AGAINST it so that when it is actually revealed to be true, the wow and suprise factor will be much higher. I am convinced there is no other way to explain the endings other than IT. If Bioware does not go with it, I'm done. You can't explain bull crap. And that's what the ending was without the IT.

I absolutely agree Makrys that if they foster doubt in us regarding the IT that will make it all the more shocking when it is released.

[Fingertrip]

liggy002 wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

I don't get it OP? What "another" blow? What's the previous blow?

What's to stop him from being a fan of Saren's ideal or TIM ideals of controlling or becoming part- of the Reaper?

This isn't exactly a debunk. If they wanted to debunk the IT theory, they would have done it by now, yet they have not- and they've been consecutively tease and hint about it both in-game and tweet-wise.

Not only that but they wont come out and say why Harbinger was silent and mostly absent from ME3.  That is what makes we wonder.  I believe that Harbinger's absence is linked to the IT.

Considering the "Starchild" character model in-game is named Harbinger, I don't think there's any need for speculations. It's more or less a fact, the problem is spreading it to everyone.

Altho, I guess to some degree with it being somewhat of a secrecy, the better to reap the reward of curioisity and knowledge over the ones that are ignorant over the facts, during the day of reckoning. I guess why the hush-hush over it.

It will be a joyful day, the day of EC release.

[Taboo]

The other blow was science and reasoning. Reading a psychology textbook on Confirmation Bias would help people out a bit.

It isn't there and has never been there. Much like the second shooter in the grassy knoll.

[Aaleel]

The IT theory has it's fair share of plot holes itself. Clarification DLC that just replaces one set of questions with another doesn't make sense to me.

Not to mention the IT would mean that the final game of a 5 year trilogy shipped with no ending on the disk. Why people are asking for this to be the case is beyond amazing to me.