327 réponses à ce sujet

[liggy002]

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?

My thoughts are that they've intended this from the start.

[cachx]

From the Bioware PAX panel:

"The indoctrination theory illustrates again how, um, committed the fanbase is..."
I wonder if there is a video of this part, because that "um" is probably a way of saying: "What the hell did those guys smoke?"

That said, I have no problems with the indoc theory ias long as it stays a theory.

[LelianaHawke]

The problem is that there are a lot of people who don't support the indoc theory, and who may even like the ending.

I don't like the indoc theory, I think it adds more plot holes than it fixes. It also reduces potential canon down to just one thing, and Bioware have always said the series has no official canon.

I'm also not terribly against the current ending. I think it has some plot holes, some problems, but overall was a satisfying conclusion. I just wish I knew what happened after.

Indoc theory is interesting player canon, but in no way is appropriate to foist than on everyone else. Your canon is not mine.

Modifié par LelianaHawke, 26 avril 2012 - 03:49 .

[Forsythia]

MJF JD wrote...

artistic integrity

/thread

Their so-called 'artistic vision' is more important than giving the series an actual proper ending and even if the IT wasn't the intention, it's the only thing that makes any kind of sense. But no, they still think that ridiculous star kid is an amazing ending. Really. There is no facepalm big enough for this.

[Clayless]

ohupthis wrote...

What we have been trying to do for 3 games of course, kill the Reapers!

NO nonsensical green*BLARGH* ending
NO nonsensical blue ending

Just obliterate the reapers and go home. or the bar, whichever's closer.

So a game that's about choices gives you no choice in the end? It presents you with 2 fake ones then railroads you into choosing 1, twice? And this is given to you when you pick destroy, so the only choice in the whole series that matters would be your decision on the Collector base?

[Aurvant]

I'm assuming they didn't take it because, and I'm assuming this because of the ending, that they can't recognize a good thing when they see it.

[GiarcYekrub]

IDT is rubbish because:

1.Ignores the major player decision at the end of the game
2.Fails to conclude the Reaper war
3.Fails to conclude Shepards story
4.It was all a dream is the worst cliche ever.

[XxDarkTimexX]

i think the IT theory could work if it makes since the game over all maybe bioware make few changs to where 90% of the fans will like it. But the only thing i wished when i got mass effect 3 is i wish the war against the reapers was longer because why end the war so quickly when all three games is all about how to stop the reapers

[Stevebo]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

IDT is rubbish because:

1.Ignores the major player decision at the end of the game
2.Fails to conclude the Reaper war
3.Fails to conclude Shepards story
4.It was all a dream is the worst cliche ever.

I believe part of the IT is that after Sheapard is hit by the beam he is in a fight with the process of indoctrination.. Shepard choosing destroy, which if you got the special ending shows him (possibly?) taking a breath on what seems to be earth.  So that being said, the story would continue on from there which would in turn, finish Shepards story, possibly destroy the reapers and possibly lead to a better ending overall.  

Of course this is all rather presumptuous, but I personally would like to see it play out that way.  Highly doubtful, one can dream though.

[flexxdk]

DuneMuadDib wrote...
They sold a game with Day One DLC that was actually important to the narrative, unlike Zaeed and Kasumi.

 
Important to the narrative? Hah! Where'd you get that idea?

Javik talks about nothing more than revenge. Okay, every now and then he says something about his empire... But nothing important really. He doesn't add anything to the story at all.

He's not important to the narrative and he never will be.

[HiddenKING]

Acceptin the Indoctrination Theory, would require them to change the direction they want to take for the future of the Mass Effect Universe.

[Makrys]

I can see no other explanation for the ending besides the IT. There are just so many things that point towards it. Please, someone explain these few things here without using the IT:

1. During the scene with TIM, Shepard shoots Anderson. Why the hell would be shoot Anderson?

2. Later, you see Shepard clutching his side with blood pouring out, and its EXACTLY WHERE HE SHOT ANDERSON! What?!

3. So... the Catalyst is just coincidentally the SAME boy in Shepard's nightmares/hallucinations? Explain that without the IT.

4. When telling Shepard about the three choices, the Catalyst deliberately paints a negative like on the 'destroy' ending, and a very positive light on the 'synthesis' ending? Why? (because one leads to indoctrination and the other to breaking free)

5. What is the point of the boy throughout the game in the first place? Without applying the IT, why did Bioware even insert some random kid into the game? And do you REALLY think he could have survived that Reaper laser on the room he was in at the beginning of the game?

6. Also, why throughout the whole scene with TIM are there 'oily lines' stretching in across the screen when the Reapers are being talked about? Especially when TIM says 'look at the power they have!' right before Shepard shoots Anderson.


Somebody answer these questions logically without using the IT. Otherwise, everyone who is against the IT needs to realize it is A LOT more credible than you give it credit for. Whether Bioware uses it or not remains to be seen. I think they would be idiots not to, but we'll see.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this post, but it just seems almost obvious that the IT is true. Also, didn't mean to sound arrogant. I'm just frustrated with the whole issue. I'm also frustrated with people who completely discount the IT and its fairly obvious they know little about it. Be well informed before you make up your mind. Now, Bioware could pull something out of their ass and make things even worse. But I hope not... I so hope not.

(Also: I posted a thread yesterday pinpointing the things about the IT that fascinate me, and also providing logical arguments on why it seems to be the only explanation of the end. Here is the link if you're interested: http://social.biowar...ndex/11663568/1)

Modifié par Makrys, 26 avril 2012 - 04:25 .

[zambot]

IT is not an ending. I don't want to discount all the hard work IT people put into coming up with it. The fact they were able to get so far with it is a testament to how deep ME actually is. But still, it is not an ending.

Let's look at some of the greatest ambiguous endings in modern story telling
- Blade Runner (was he a replicant?)
- Inception (is he still dreaming?)
- The Graduate (ok, now what?)

All of these movies ended ambiguously with a ton left open to interpretation to the viewer. However, they all have one thing in common: they ended the main story arc of the movie and anything left open to audience interpretation is not relevant to concluding the director's central theme of the movie. It doesn't matter whether Decker actually is a replicant: he now appreciates them as equals to himself. It doesn't matter whether Cobb is dreaming: he has released his obsession with knowing what is "real" and accepts a reality with his children. It doesn't matter whether Elaine and Benjamin actually live "happily ever after": they've made a decision to be together regardless of the future.

IT is different. Unlike Decker, Cobb, and Benjamin/Elaine, there is no moving on to the "next phase" which is open to interpretation by the viewer because the original phase, or the original conflict, is still UNRESOLVED. It would be like ending Blade Runner just before the fight with Roy and saying what happens next is up to you the viewers. That would make no sense at all, which is what we would be left with if IT were the actual ending.

tldr: IT is cool, but it is not an ending.

Modifié par zambot, 26 avril 2012 - 04:21 .

[suprarj]

because the IT isn't real and was just made up by fanboys? the "vocal minority" of the "vocal minority" if you will....

[LelianaHawke]

@Makrys: All the answers to your questions can be explained in simple ways.

1. Tim shoots Anderson to demonstrate the power of his biotics to show humanity evolving.

2. Shepard was heavily wounded by the beam. Is a coincidence.

3. The reaper AI was watching Shepard on earth, and saw that interaction.

4. Because the synthesis ending would end the cycle for good, whereas destroy is short term driven by emotions.

5. The boy exists in the game as a ploy to trigger emotion.

6. The boy survived the reaper laser due to luck. Newt survived the aliens in Aliens for weeks due to luck. It's not a new plot device.

7. Graphic VFX put in to look cool. If you read Bioware's statements about their production process, the cinematics team gets room to play with things without writer direction.

IT is interesting fan canon, but it isn't the 'true canon' that can'tbe resisted, as its supporters seem to believe.

Modifié par LelianaHawke, 26 avril 2012 - 04:24 .

[Makrys]

zambot wrote...

IT is not an ending. I don't want to discount all the hard work IT people put into coming up with it. The fact they were able to get so far with it is a testament to how deep ME actually is. But still, it is not an ending.

Let's look at some of the greatest ambiguous endings in modern story telling
- Blade Runner (was he a replicant?)
- Inception (is he still dreaming?)
- The Graduate (ok, now what?)

All of these movies ended ambiguously with a ton left open to interpretation to the viewer. However, they all have one thing in common: the ended the main story arc of the movie and anything left open to audience interpretation is not relevant to concluding the director's central theme of the movie. It doesn't matter whether Decker actually is a replicant: he now appreciates them as equals to himself. It doesn't matter whether Cobb is dreaming: he has released his obsession with knowing what is "real" and accepts a reality with his children. It doesn't matter whether Elaine and Benjamin actually live "happily ever after": they've made a decision to be together regardless of the future.

IT is different. Unlike Decker, Cobb, and Benjamin/Elaine, there is no moving on to the "next phase" which is open to interpretation by the viewer because the original phase, or the original conflict, is still UNRESOLVED. It would be like ending Blade Runner just before the fight with Roy and saying what happens next is up to you the viewers. That would make no sense at all, which is what we would be left with if IT were the actual ending.

tldr: IT is cool, but it is not an ending.

All of those things didn't take over 100 hours to finish with extremely awesome characters that you bonded with and want some closure with. Also, in those movies you didn't make choices for 100 hours and then see almost none of them come to fruition in the end. Also, those movies have nothing at all in common with Mass Effect. That was a dumb argument, no offense.

Modifié par Makrys, 26 avril 2012 - 04:23 .

[Trentgamer]

Wow people are still clinging to the wishful and flawed thinking of Inodc Theory? Just give it up and admit that BiowEAr totally screwed up their game. They weren't even smart enough to come up with something like this. Their game just sucks and was rushed and badly put together. They never meant indoc theory and they won't just 'run with it' because of the legal implications that could arise.

[Clayless]

zambot wrote...

Let's look at some of the greatest ambiguous endings in modern story telling
- Blade Runner (was he a replicant?)
- Inception (is he still dreaming?)
- The Graduate (ok, now what?)

I'd include The Thing in there too.

[Unit-Alpha]

OP, you are right, it really is a free pass.

[An English Gamer]

PLEASE! You can't expect the people who decided to not reveal Tali's face on Rannoch to make that sort of decision could you? That would be suggesting that they are capable of good decisions.

[zambot]

Makrys wrote...

zambot wrote...

IT is not an ending. I don't want to discount all the hard work IT people put into coming up with it. The fact they were able to get so far with it is a testament to how deep ME actually is. But still, it is not an ending.

Let's look at some of the greatest ambiguous endings in modern story telling
- Blade Runner (was he a replicant?)
- Inception (is he still dreaming?)
- The Graduate (ok, now what?)

All of these movies ended ambiguously with a ton left open to interpretation to the viewer. However, they all have one thing in common: the ended the main story arc of the movie and anything left open to audience interpretation is not relevant to concluding the director's central theme of the movie. It doesn't matter whether Decker actually is a replicant: he now appreciates them as equals to himself. It doesn't matter whether Cobb is dreaming: he has released his obsession with knowing what is "real" and accepts a reality with his children. It doesn't matter whether Elaine and Benjamin actually live "happily ever after": they've made a decision to be together regardless of the future.

IT is different. Unlike Decker, Cobb, and Benjamin/Elaine, there is no moving on to the "next phase" which is open to interpretation by the viewer because the original phase, or the original conflict, is still UNRESOLVED. It would be like ending Blade Runner just before the fight with Roy and saying what happens next is up to you the viewers. That would make no sense at all, which is what we would be left with if IT were the actual ending.

tldr: IT is cool, but it is not an ending.

All of those things didn't take over 100 hours to finish with extremely awesome characters that you bonded with and want some closure with. Also, in those movies you didn't make choices for 100 hours and then see almost none of them come to fruition in the end. Also, those movies have nothing at all in common with Mass Effect. That was a dumb argument, no offense.

What does any of what you said have to do with IT not providing an ending?  Your argument that IT is a good ending is predicated by the amount of time investment you put into ME and how good the characters are?  How does that make any sense?  No offense.

[Makrys]

LelianaHawke wrote...

@Makrys: All the answers to your questions can be explained in simple ways.

1. Tim shoots Anderson to demonstrate the power of his biotics to show humanity evolving.

2. Shepard was heavily wounded by the beam. Is a coincidence.

3. The reaper AI was watching Shepard on earth, and saw that interaction.

4. Because the synthesis ending would end the cycle for good, whereas destroy is short term driven by emotions.

5. The boy exists in the game as a ploy to trigger emotion.

6. The boy survived the reaper laser due to luck. Newt survived the aliens in Aliens for weeks due to luck. It's not a new plot device.

7. Graphic VFX put in to look cool. If you read Bioware's statements about their production process, the cinematics team gets room to play with things without writer direction.

IT is interesting fan canon, but it isn't the 'true canon' that can'tbe resisted, as its supporters seem to believe.

All of that is pure speculation and harder to believe than the IT. You need to read my thread. Synthesis is exactly what the Reapers have always wanted. How is that a good thing? People are not thinking. And 'luck' is the dumbest explanation for something so obvious. There is NO way a child could survive the blast with NO marks or blood or anything. It seriously takes A LOT more faith to believe in that than it does the IT. Oh and you didn't explain why Shepard was clutching his side exactly where he shot Anderson. Just a coincidence? Please. THEY DIRECTLY SHOWED YOU WHERE HE WAS HURT. RIGHT where he shot Anderson. Why is this so hard to understand? People make up excuses to try to deny the IT when there is quite a bit of proof to suggest it exists. 

Modifié par Makrys, 26 avril 2012 - 04:28 .

[NS Wizdum]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

IDT is rubbish because:

1.Ignores the major player decision at the end of the game
2.Fails to conclude the Reaper war
3.Fails to conclude Shepards story
4.It was all a dream is the worst cliche ever.

The only thing more cliche than "'it was all a dream" is "the hero sacrifices himself for the geater good". Nothing about the ending is revolutionary.

Those first 3 items are the same thing. How are you people forming ideas about the Indoc Theory, without actually reading about it to see what it is? I don't personally believe it, but atleast I know what it is. The original idea was that Bioware was holding the ending back to prevent the story from being leaked again (and to introduce the biggest twist gaming has ever seen). The theory states that, since Bioware failed to address the points you listed (and many more), then there must still be additional content that we have not seen. The theory is not meant to fill all the plot holes, it is only meant to explain why Bioware allowed them in the game.

Its not that fracking complicated people.

[LelianaHawke]

It doesn't take faith to believe that Bioware wanted speculation when there's published design documents of the the lead writer saying he wanted speculation after the ending. So by saying all my stuff is speculation, you're linking it to the only written evidence of the ending intent we have.

This evidence directly contradicts the existence of the One True Ending.

Modifié par LelianaHawke, 26 avril 2012 - 04:31 .

[Makrys]

zambot wrote...

Makrys wrote...

zambot wrote...

IT is not an ending. I don't want to discount all the hard work IT people put into coming up with it. The fact they were able to get so far with it is a testament to how deep ME actually is. But still, it is not an ending.

Let's look at some of the greatest ambiguous endings in modern story telling
- Blade Runner (was he a replicant?)
- Inception (is he still dreaming?)
- The Graduate (ok, now what?)

All of these movies ended ambiguously with a ton left open to interpretation to the viewer. However, they all have one thing in common: the ended the main story arc of the movie and anything left open to audience interpretation is not relevant to concluding the director's central theme of the movie. It doesn't matter whether Decker actually is a replicant: he now appreciates them as equals to himself. It doesn't matter whether Cobb is dreaming: he has released his obsession with knowing what is "real" and accepts a reality with his children. It doesn't matter whether Elaine and Benjamin actually live "happily ever after": they've made a decision to be together regardless of the future.

IT is different. Unlike Decker, Cobb, and Benjamin/Elaine, there is no moving on to the "next phase" which is open to interpretation by the viewer because the original phase, or the original conflict, is still UNRESOLVED. It would be like ending Blade Runner just before the fight with Roy and saying what happens next is up to you the viewers. That would make no sense at all, which is what we would be left with if IT were the actual ending.

tldr: IT is cool, but it is not an ending.

All of those things didn't take over 100 hours to finish with extremely awesome characters that you bonded with and want some closure with. Also, in those movies you didn't make choices for 100 hours and then see almost none of them come to fruition in the end. Also, those movies have nothing at all in common with Mass Effect. That was a dumb argument, no offense.

What does any of what you said have to do with IT not providing an ending?  Your argument that IT is a good ending is predicated by the amount of time investment you put into ME and how good the characters are?  How does that make any sense?  No offense.

I'm saying the IT would be the ending because it wouldn't 'change' anything, but instead pick up where it left off. It would just add on to the ending. Not change what is currently there. And without changing the ending, the IT is the only thing that makes sense. 

Modifié par Makrys, 26 avril 2012 - 04:32 .