327 réponses à ce sujet

[PirateT138]

The same thought occurred to me, the fan-base came up with a better ending reason that the ending sucked than the suits at EA ever could, why not seize the opportunity? Go, "Yeah..that's what we meant you all to get..."

Tuck tail between legs and tell Bioware to write something that doesn't suck.

[IamBlue]

MisterJB wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...
 What? After IT, The game would continue after you wake up on Earth and you would bring your war assets to a final battle which can now be freely written.

A final battle where the only possible outcome would be the destruction of the Reapers?
No, thank you very much.

No, depending on your choices throughout the game and your war assets the reapers could still win.

[zambot]

Valentia X wrote...

Makrys wrote...


You have simply GOT to be kidding me. Was your head screwed on when you saw the ending? This is laughable. I guess if you enjoy plotholes, lying star brats, inconsistencies in story telling, and blue red green decision making, then yeah you could enjoy it. It's like building a lego house. Blue, green, or red lego? Hmmm, Imma go with red because its my favorite color. Either way I still build a house in the end, they would just be different colors. La la la la la, doo dee doo, ooh colored play doh!! 

You know, I see posts like these, and then I see ITers wondering why some people get so annoyed when IT pops up in a thread. There's a connection.

We've already been told that the writers dropped the ball writing some parts of the game (see: the uproar with Thanemancers when his death is basically ignored) and that they would have liked to put Indoctrination as a mechanic in game, but they couldn't implement it so they had to toss it. Add in the fact that selling an unfinished game that requires DLC to finish it is a horrible business plan campaign side...


IT is a theory and not a bad one as far as theories go, but it's not ironclad, it's not (at the moment) canon, and shoving it in people's faces and dismissing it when they don't like it only hurts your cause. Just saying.

^^This.  I used to like IT yesterday a whole lot better than I do today.  After participating in this thread, I now get the same vibes from IT people that I get from overly religous people.  

[MisterJB]

IamBlue wrote...
No, depending on your choices throughout the game and your war assets the reapers could still win.

Who said I want the Reapers to win?
Imagine if the Salarian/Krogan conflict had only one outcome. Same thing for Quarian/Geth.
But it's ok to treat the Reapers with revolting simplicity?
We destroy them or they destroy us? Bullsh*t!

[MisterJB]

Mr Massakka wrote...
As I said, freely written...
My take on it: Your war assets have to defend against the Reaper counter-attack and this would impact a lot of things happening on your way to/through the Citadel. Once you are next to activating it, there could be Harbinger which reveals the dark energy plot and you get to the decision which was orginally intended: Merge humans to stop dark energy once and for all, or try to destroy Reapers with your war assets and try to fix the dark energy problem on your own... 

I like the options we have now along with the motivations of the Reapers.
What I don't like is "Priority: Earth" which should be compeltely rewritten taking into account your War Assets.
The endings just need some clarification.

[Mr. Big Pimpin]

MisterJB wrote...

Imagine if the Salarian/Krogan conflict had only one outcome. Same thing for Quarian/Geth.

Speaking of which, there should have been a "control the geth" option. As it is, two of the three options in that arc are basically "you fail" outcomes, rendering them rather pointless.

Modifié par Mr. Big Pimpin, 26 avril 2012 - 06:46 .

[NoSpin]

Arcian wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...

Arcian wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Okay, so Bioware are now a subsidiary of EA (correct me if I am wrong).

The suits have many rights, including veto power, and the ability to shape the direction of a game.

Why haven't they just made an executive order to make the ending indoc theory as part of the clarification DLC? It. is. a. free. pass.

All signs point to the ending NOT being indoc theory, but being REAL (incl. starkld and coward normandy).

I'm a pragmatist, and I see nothing concievably bad occuring as a result of indoc theory being taken up. The other direction, however, reveals a much more bleak outlook.

Thoughts?

The IT is retarded and creates more problems than it solves by raping the everliving christ out of indoctrination lore and removing the little element of choice we actually have left in the RGB endings.

What? After IT, The game would continue after you wake up on Earth and you would bring your war assets to a final battle which can now be freely written.

Let me clarify:

1: If you chose Destroy, you somehow wake up magically free of Indoctrination, which according to three games of lore isn't possible because Indoctrination is utterly permanent. No one in Mass Effect has EVER escaped indoctrination permanently. Yes, people with tremendous willpower can resist it for a short while, but a short while is not the several hours required to fight the final battle. At best, Shepard would wake up, get his/her bearings for a few minutes and then turn Reaper Mode and attack friends and allies after being mentally overpowered by the Reapers.

.

You aren't understanding. Shepard is undergoing the indoctrination PROCESS. Iff you choose Blue/Green it succeeds and you are indoctrinated. Destroy makes the attempt fail. No indoctrination. No lore breaking. Completely fits the Codex.

[Stalker]

MisterJB wrote...

Mr Massakka wrote...
As I said, freely written...
My take on it: Your war assets have to defend against the Reaper counter-attack and this would impact a lot of things happening on your way to/through the Citadel. Once you are next to activating it, there could be Harbinger which reveals the dark energy plot and you get to the decision which was orginally intended: Merge humans to stop dark energy once and for all, or try to destroy Reapers with your war assets and try to fix the dark energy problem on your own... 

I like the options we have now along with the motivations of the Reapers.
What I don't like is "Priority: Earth" which should be compeltely rewritten taking into account your War Assets.
The endings just need some clarification.

Well, I dislike the synthetics-vs-organics plot, because it's never hinted anywhere in Mass Effect, unlike IT or Dark Energy. It just doesn't have this "oh my god, of course!"-effect.

However, I could agree in Earth being rewritten as a replacement for IT/Dark Energy, but that would make BioWare even more butthurt with their strange obsession to "artistic integrity". They just won't do that.

Modifié par Mr Massakka, 26 avril 2012 - 06:55 .

[FatalX7.0]

I think Indoctrination is fairly boring, too obvious.

And kind of a cheap thing to fall back on, also not fond of the idea that they withheld the "real" ending from us. It's all very silly.

[Stalker]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I think Indoctrination is fairly boring, too obvious.

And kind of a cheap thing to fall back on, also not fond of the idea that they withheld the "real" ending from us. It's all very silly.

I think there is one thing everyone can agree on: It doesn't matter what BioWare really does. Everyone will hate it.

[Leafs43]

Indoc Theory isn't even an ending.

It's just an awesome theory that allows Bioware to rewrite another ending more suitable to the franchise.



Hell, I think the best ending for the Shepherd story line is him taking the citadel to dark space where the reapers came from and have their reserves and detonates the citadel, which is a giant mass relay.

Modifié par Leafs43, 26 avril 2012 - 06:57 .

[balance5050]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I think Indoctrination is fairly boring, too obvious.

And kind of a cheap thing to fall back on, also not fond of the idea that they withheld the "real" ending from us. It's all very silly.

Too obvious, that's a critique I don't often hear about IT.

Other games have with held endings before; Prince of Persia (2008), Final Fantasy XIII-2,  and Asura's Wrath are all doing the same thing. Mass Effect is just the most popular.

[IamBlue]

MisterJB wrote...

IamBlue wrote...
No, depending on your choices throughout the game and your war assets the reapers could still win.

Who said I want the Reapers to win?
Imagine if the Salarian/Krogan conflict had only one outcome. Same thing for Quarian/Geth.
But it's ok to treat the Reapers with revolting simplicity?
We destroy them or they destroy us? Bullsh*t!

It makes much more sense than the options we have. Why would the reapers allow Shepard to control them? And how would that stupid idea of shyntesis work?? And dont give me that starchild nonsense of "my solution doesnt work anymore". That's just stupid.

And like someone said, they could still give us choices, like the Dark Energy one.

[OdanUrr]

stysiaq wrote...

The thing is the final moments of ME3 are so dumb, unrealistic and rushed, that 'its all a dream' scenario FITS. 

While we're at it, 90% of ME3 could fit into that dream scenario. I mean, finding a way to stop the Reapers an hour into the game? And in your own backyard? Tell me that isn't wishful thinking!

[Makrys]

Arcian wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

You aren't understanding.

Ohherewego.jpg

NoSpin wrote... 

Shepard is undergoing the indoctrination PROCESS.

That process involves gradually damaging your brain. It's like dipping a fruit in acid for a while and then pulling it back up - sure, it has stopped melting but the damage is done.

NoSpin wrote... 

Iff you choose Blue/Green it succeeds and you are indoctrinated. Destroy makes the attempt fail.

But there is no "attempt" involved at all. The process happens by DAMAGING YOUR BRAIN. This isn't a "Roll over 5 to dodge, roll under 5 and you get hit"-kind of deal. How do you "shrug off" brain damage? 

NoSpin wrote... 

No indoctrination. No lore breaking. Completely fits the Codex.

Shows what you know about the codex and the lore.

The mental damage from indoctrination is severe and permanent. As Shepard saw, the captured salarians on Virmire had been turned into shambling husks, who either attacked on sight or just stood awaiting orders. Only people with immense mental strength are able to resist indoctrination, and even then, only for a short time. Matriarch Benezia used her abilities to keep a 'haven' in her mind free of indoctrination, hoping for a chance to use it, but this meant she was effectively trapped in her own mind, watching in horror as she committed atrocities on Saren's orders. When mortally injured on Noveria, a despairing Benezia refused Shepard's offer of help and chose to die, saying "I am not myself, I never will be again."

The only person who fully escaped indoctrination's grip was Shiala, but her case was unique; Sovereign's control was supplanted by the Thorian's when she was exchanged for the Cipher, which ended with the Thorian's demise—a scenario unlikely to be repeated.

Mmhmm, but what you are forgetting is that if Shepard resists Indoctrination for just long enough to destory the Reapers after he wakes up back on Earth, then he is no longer under seige by them. Therefore the indoctrination would end, and he would be free. He only needs to resist it for long enough to destroy him. There IS hope for him. To say he's basically f***** because he's indoctrinated one way or the other is false logic. Destroying the Reapers would end the indoctrination process.

Modifié par Makrys, 26 avril 2012 - 07:05 .

[FatalX7.0]

balance5050 wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I think Indoctrination is fairly boring, too obvious.

And kind of a cheap thing to fall back on, also not fond of the idea that they withheld the "real" ending from us. It's all very silly.

Too obvious, that's a critique I don't often hear about IT.

Other games have with held endings before; Prince of Persia (2008), Final Fantasy XIII-2,  and Asura's Wrath are all doing the same thing. Mass Effect is just the most popular.

What's the point of this? Are you trying to justify it? Does that make it right because other games did it?

Like I said, I'm not fond of that.

[ahandsomeshark]

balance5050 wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I think Indoctrination is fairly boring, too obvious.

And kind of a cheap thing to fall back on, also not fond of the idea that they withheld the "real" ending from us. It's all very silly.

Too obvious, that's a critique I don't often hear about IT.

Other games have with held endings before; Prince of Persia (2008), Final Fantasy XIII-2,  and Asura's Wrath are all doing the same thing. Mass Effect is just the most popular.

yeah but those games stated IN GAME at the end that more was coming.

There's no explanation for why EA/Bioware would have not stated there was more coming (not just clarification) by now, especially not one that is in anyway reconcilable with the fact EA is a publicly traded company with responsibility to it's share holders.

[balance5050]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I think Indoctrination is fairly boring, too obvious.

And kind of a cheap thing to fall back on, also not fond of the idea that they withheld the "real" ending from us. It's all very silly.

Too obvious, that's a critique I don't often hear about IT.

Other games have with held endings before; Prince of Persia (2008), Final Fantasy XIII-2,  and Asura's Wrath are all doing the same thing. Mass Effect is just the most popular.

yeah but those games stated IN GAME at the end that more was coming.

There's no explanation for why EA/Bioware would have not stated there was more coming (not just clarification) by now, especially not one that is in anyway reconcilable with the fact EA is a publicly traded company with responsibility to it's share holders.

Final words of the series... "DLC"

[ahandsomeshark]

So on that note could anyone who still strongly believes in IT explain the logic in not confirming it to this point from the business standpoint? Especially the fact that EA is a publicly traded company who's stock price has been spiraling downward for months and ME3, by most measures, is not meeting expectations due in large part to the ending controversy. How could they possibly continue to justify or think there's anything to gain at this point?

Don't worry I'll wait.

[FatalX7.0]

balance5050 wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I think Indoctrination is fairly boring, too obvious.

And kind of a cheap thing to fall back on, also not fond of the idea that they withheld the "real" ending from us. It's all very silly.

Too obvious, that's a critique I don't often hear about IT.

Other games have with held endings before; Prince of Persia (2008), Final Fantasy XIII-2,  and Asura's Wrath are all doing the same thing. Mass Effect is just the most popular.

yeah but those games stated IN GAME at the end that more was coming.

There's no explanation for why EA/Bioware would have not stated there was more coming (not just clarification) by now, especially not one that is in anyway reconcilable with the fact EA is a publicly traded company with responsibility to it's share holders.

Final words of the series... "DLC"

My god.

That explains everything. EA wants more money guys!

[balance5050]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I think Indoctrination is fairly boring, too obvious.

And kind of a cheap thing to fall back on, also not fond of the idea that they withheld the "real" ending from us. It's all very silly.

Too obvious, that's a critique I don't often hear about IT.

Other games have with held endings before; Prince of Persia (2008), Final Fantasy XIII-2,  and Asura's Wrath are all doing the same thing. Mass Effect is just the most popular.

What's the point of this? Are you trying to justify it? Does that make it right because other games did it?

Like I said, I'm not fond of that.

No, not justifying it, just saying this isn't the first time. It's not like I'm happy about the "ending" we got.

[ahandsomeshark]

balance5050 wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

I think Indoctrination is fairly boring, too obvious.

And kind of a cheap thing to fall back on, also not fond of the idea that they withheld the "real" ending from us. It's all very silly.

Too obvious, that's a critique I don't often hear about IT.

Other games have with held endings before; Prince of Persia (2008), Final Fantasy XIII-2,  and Asura's Wrath are all doing the same thing. Mass Effect is just the most popular.

yeah but those games stated IN GAME at the end that more was coming.

There's no explanation for why EA/Bioware would have not stated there was more coming (not just clarification) by now, especially not one that is in anyway reconcilable with the fact EA is a publicly traded company with responsibility to it's share holders.

Final words of the series... "DLC"

yeah but the game also dropped you well before the ending and once again most of the public statements since then have basically said any DLC would be PRE ending. In complete contrasts those games DIRECTLY in no uncertain terms stated there would be a continuation of the story POST ending. How is it even comparable. Why would Bioware/EA have not directly stated it by now.