179 réponses à ce sujet

[Getorex]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Melrache wrote...

Nothing wrong with da endings, there's just a lot of peeps with wrong opinions.

If there was nothing wrong with the endings than there is nothing wrong with the other aspects bring nit-picked about (gameplay, visuals/audio, etc ...)

If ME3 has the wrong opinons, the first two games had the "right" one.

Like/Right, Dislike/Wrong aren't exclusive.

I may like villians, but I'm not necessary right (or wrong) - if I follow there beliefs.

I may hate heroes, but they aren't wrong for believing everybody's worth saving because I don't.

Since you made that statement though: What exactly is the right opinion? Agreeing doesn't make it right as well as disagreeing doesn't make it wrong.

IT is a very popular theory for what occured, but most are tired of it being rammed down his or her throat; yet, I haven't seen any other theory or something more substantial than "It's complete bull!" It could be, but there's no explanation as to why - except it doesn't make sense.

Why or how doesn't it make sense? IT could be just as right, but still make no sense as can any other theory out there.

I've never witnessed a real debate of any kind where those opposed have said only "You're wrong!" (at least not without looking like an idiot doing it) Most often, there's evidence to prove it and much more than it doesn't make sense. The IT has no longer become a debate, but an argument and we know that they are clearly different terms.

If supporters can build it up and actually do the building - piece by piece - those who tear it down ought to do it in the same manner. Yes, tossing a wrecking ball, is the easiest of methods, but it isn't the best! Some against this theory do that; as I said though, it's easiest to bring out the wrecking ball.

If one side, tosses wrecking balls, evetually both sides will which has clearly happened and not just here.

SIGH.  IT is NOT a theory.  It isn't even a hypothesis.  There is no test you can conduct to support it or disprove it (critical for something to be a hypothesis OR a theory).  It is a supposition.  It is an interpretation.  It is NOT a theory.

It is bullcrap, 100%, if nothing is ever forthcoming from Bioware to make it true.  Left hanging there as is it is flat-out nothing more than a desire by some people to make sense of something that was inherently nonsensical (the ending).  For the ending bullcrap to be "indoctrination" then it MUST be followed with something to demonstrate it is such...otherwise the game is not finished and is just hanging there with even less resolution than the full-retard non-resolving ending that currently sits there steaming and stinking up the dead franchise.

A theory is built of from hypothesis testing.  Hypothesis testing requires many experiments be conducted that fail to falsify the hypotheses.  When you have a host of hypotheses that are supported you come up with an over-arching theory that simply ties all the data together...but is itself falsifiable and continuously testable. 

IT is an IDEA.  A supposition.  An INTERPRETATION.  Nothing more.  When Bioware releases their full retard "extended cut" garbage it will either very poorly show that indoctrination was correct. It wont be but even if they made it so it would NOT be acceptable because all they are offering is more cut scene, no more action, so IF they made indoctrination the explanation for the gibberish ending...so what?  You cannot DO anything about it.  You don't get to dust off your Shepard and then fight to the REAL ending.  You are stuck with a godd@mned cut scene and judging from how F*CKING RETARDED the story/cut scenes were for the gibberish ending, there is no way an indoctrination extended cut scene is going to be any better.  When you are swimming in sh*t, changing direction doesn't magically get you out of the sh*t.  You are STILL swimming in sh*t, just in a different direction!

[Grimwick]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Lack of a happy ending is a legitimate reason to want a different ending. And it is certainly one of the reasons I hate it.

It may have been quoted and cited many times before but JK Rwoling changed the ending to Harry Potter to please the fans in this respect.

A lot of people are annoyed by the unhappiness because it was described as 'bittersweet' by the developers, only to turn out just bitter. Endings that are just bitter need to actually lead to that conclusion in order for it to work on a narrative, emotional and thematic level. ME didn't do that.

I don't like the ending of Titanic and having all those people die. It made me sad. James Cameron should change it.

Extreme example? Yes. But you don't have the right to demand someone change something THEY made because YOU are sad. 

Glancing around my room right now, looking at my movie collection, I see many many movies with bittersweet endings and I'm quite happy with them. Sometimes adding an uberhappy ending to something would do more harm than good.

I see you didn't actually read the posts. There, I underlined an important bit.
I don't ask for an 'uberhappy' ending, just a happy-ish one. A happy ending would fit well with some of the themes of the game and wouldn't defile the other ones.

The ending as it stands does not execute the bittersweet ending well. It forgets the major aspects of bittersweet endings - characters, the universe etc - as well as being completely out of sync with many of the narrative and thematic aspects.

Tragedies such as R&J and Titanic don't forget their narratives, nor do they forget the characters. They actually executed the ending well.

[iamthedave3]

Grimwick wrote...


And you DON'T "surely" have more knowledge on literature. What on earth justifies you to say that?

Apparently he has a degree from the Arts College. According to him that means nobody else on the entire forum has anything approaching an education or knowledge in the same field. He also blithely ignores the fact that multiple editors, writers (several of them published) and other people who do in fact know what they're talking about hate the endings for the usual reasons.

In short: unless you agree absolutely with Amioran, you are an uneducated lout unfit to comment on anything.

[Getorex]

Grimwick wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

Lack of a happy ending is a legitimate reason to want a different ending. And it is certainly one of the reasons I hate it.

It may have been quoted and cited many times before but JK Rwoling changed the ending to Harry Potter to please the fans in this respect.

A lot of people are annoyed by the unhappiness because it was described as 'bittersweet' by the developers, only to turn out just bitter. Endings that are just bitter need to actually lead to that conclusion in order for it to work on a narrative, emotional and thematic level. ME didn't do that.

I don't like the ending of Titanic and having all those people die. It made me sad. James Cameron should change it.

Extreme example? Yes. But you don't have the right to demand someone change something THEY made because YOU are sad. 

Glancing around my room right now, looking at my movie collection, I see many many movies with bittersweet endings and I'm quite happy with them. Sometimes adding an uberhappy ending to something would do more harm than good.

I see you didn't actually read the posts. There, I underlined an important bit.
I don't ask for an 'uberhappy' ending, just a happy-ish one. A happy ending would fit well with some of the themes of the game and wouldn't defile the other ones.

The ending as it stands does not execute the bittersweet ending well. It forgets the major aspects of bittersweet endings - characters, the universe etc - as well as being completely out of sync with many of the narrative and thematic aspects.

Tragedies such as R&J and Titanic don't forget their narratives, nor do they forget the characters. They actually executed the ending well.

Well, then again the Titanic was a dramatization of a TRUE STORY.  You cannot change the ending of a true story because you are displeased with it.  It actually happened and is unchangable.  Now, if you came up with an alternative history bit of FICTION then go for it.  You can do interesting FICTION with alternative history.  Titanic, in short, is a BAD example to use.  Not just an "extreme" example, but an inherently BAD example.  

Most endings, for the winners, are fairly sweet.  The ones that get the brunt of the bitter part is the LOSING SIDE...on the larger scale.  On the personal scale there are all kinds of super happy, kinda happy, so-so, bittersweet, bitter, disastrous endings to any big war.  What we got in ME was a godd@mned ridiculous JOKE ending.  Not a good joke, but a pathetic joke.

[beyondsolo]

Getorex wrote...

SIGH.  IT is NOT a theory.  It isn't even a hypothesis.  There is no test you can conduct to support it or disprove it (critical for something to be a hypothesis OR a theory).  It is a supposition.  It is an interpretation.  It is NOT a theory.

It is bullcrap, 100%, if nothing is ever forthcoming from Bioware to make it true.  Left hanging there as is it is flat-out nothing more than a desire by some people to make sense of something that was inherently nonsensical (the ending).  For the ending bullcrap to be "indoctrination" then it MUST be followed with something to demonstrate it is such...otherwise the game is not finished and is just hanging there with even less resolution than the full-retard non-resolving ending that currently sits there steaming and stinking up the dead franchise.

A theory is built of from hypothesis testing.  Hypothesis testing requires many experiments be conducted that fail to falsify the hypotheses.  When you have a host of hypotheses that are supported you come up with an over-arching theory that simply ties all the data together...but is itself falsifiable and continuously testable. 

IT is an IDEA.  A supposition.  An INTERPRETATION.  Nothing more.  When Bioware releases their full retard "extended cut" garbage it will either very poorly show that indoctrination was correct. It wont be but even if they made it so it would NOT be acceptable because all they are offering is more cut scene, no more action, so IF they made indoctrination the explanation for the gibberish ending...so what?  You cannot DO anything about it.  You don't get to dust off your Shepard and then fight to the REAL ending.  You are stuck with a godd@mned cut scene and judging from how F*CKING RETARDED the story/cut scenes were for the gibberish ending, there is no way an indoctrination extended cut scene is going to be any better.  When you are swimming in sh*t, changing direction doesn't magically get you out of the sh*t.  You are STILL swimming in sh*t, just in a different direction!

Please take a deep breath and count to ten.

While I generally agree with you that IT is an interpretation and certainly the wishful thinking of many, I think you're being a bit too harsh. I don't subscribte to IT, but it does have its merits as it's at least creative. It can't fix the ending though, and it's unlikely that BioWare will confirm it, if only for legal reasons.

[Repearized Miranda]

Getorex wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Melrache wrote...

Nothing wrong with da endings, there's just a lot of peeps with wrong opinions.

If there was nothing wrong with the endings than there is nothing wrong with the other aspects bring nit-picked about (gameplay, visuals/audio, etc ...)

If ME3 has the wrong opinons, the first two games had the "right" one.

Like/Right, Dislike/Wrong aren't exclusive.

I may like villians, but I'm not necessary right (or wrong) - if I follow there beliefs.

I may hate heroes, but they aren't wrong for believing everybody's worth saving because I don't.

Since you made that statement though: What exactly is the right opinion? Agreeing doesn't make it right as well as disagreeing doesn't make it wrong.

IT is a very popular theory for what occured, but most are tired of it being rammed down his or her throat; yet, I haven't seen any other theory or something more substantial than "It's complete bull!" It could be, but there's no explanation as to why - except it doesn't make sense.

Why or how doesn't it make sense? IT could be just as right, but still make no sense as can any other theory out there.

I've never witnessed a real debate of any kind where those opposed have said only "You're wrong!" (at least not without looking like an idiot doing it) Most often, there's evidence to prove it and much more than it doesn't make sense. The IT has no longer become a debate, but an argument and we know that they are clearly different terms.

If supporters can build it up and actually do the building - piece by piece - those who tear it down ought to do it in the same manner. Yes, tossing a wrecking ball, is the easiest of methods, but it isn't the best! Some against this theory do that; as I said though, it's easiest to bring out the wrecking ball.

If one side, tosses wrecking balls, evetually both sides will which has clearly happened and not just here.

SIGH.  IT is NOT a theory.  It isn't even a hypothesis.  There is no test you can conduct to support it or disprove it (critical for something to be a hypothesis OR a theory).  It is a supposition.  It is an interpretation.  It is NOT a theory.

It is bullcrap, 100%, if nothing is ever forthcoming from Bioware to make it true.  Left hanging there as is it is flat-out nothing more than a desire by some people to make sense of something that was inherently nonsensical (the ending).  For the ending bullcrap to be "indoctrination" then it MUST be followed with something to demonstrate it is such...otherwise the game is not finished and is just hanging there with even less resolution than the full-retard non-resolving ending that currently sits there steaming and stinking up the dead franchise.

A theory is built of from hypothesis testing.  Hypothesis testing requires many experiments be conducted that fail to falsify the hypotheses.  When you have a host of hypotheses that are supported you come up with an over-arching theory that simply ties all the data together...but is itself falsifiable and continuously testable. 

IT is an IDEA.  A supposition.  An INTERPRETATION.  Nothing more.  When Bioware releases their full retard "extended cut" garbage it will either very poorly show that indoctrination was correct. It wont be but even if they made it so it would NOT be acceptable because all they are offering is more cut scene, no more action, so IF they made indoctrination the explanation for the gibberish ending...so what?  You cannot DO anything about it.  You don't get to dust off your Shepard and then fight to the REAL ending.  You are stuck with a godd@mned cut scene and judging from how F*CKING RETARDED the story/cut scenes were for the gibberish ending, there is no way an indoctrination extended cut scene is going to be any better.  When you are swimming in sh*t, changing direction doesn't magically get you out of the sh*t.  You are STILL swimming in sh*t, just in a different direction!

It wasn't tested? Are you kidding me?

Read/Watch the Codex where is generally flashes back to previous evets!

"Turning foes into allies!" - Last I checked, Saren and Nihlus were buddies and Saren shot him. Why would Benezia trust Saren who is clearly the bad guy in ME? Why would Saren as well as Benezia struggle eventually killing themselves? TIM also does this metaphorically Shepard never gave into TIM (even if you gave him the base)

"Seeing the Reapers as Zeus!" LEGION!! (Before he separated himself from them and his geth buddies) Saren, Benezia, TIM and Shepard (the kid) took everything they said in stride without batting an eyelash.

True this is speculation, but it's not as if there is no proof to back this - whether it's sensible or senseless.

That's like if I shoot a guy who's unarmed - not bothering me and then claiming I did it in self-defense (which says otherwise) - knowing I damn well did not! If there's proof of this, assuming I don't confess, how will may claim be bought unless the one I'm selling it to buys it is inept?

This here is a real world instance!

Yes, I agree that if they had cleared this up in-game, then the uproar wouldn't be as bad. I didn't say the idea/theory whatever would be accepted, but the concept of ME and it's universe is flimsy, but it's accepted, but something within which is possibly just as flimsy isn't?

Explain this to me - and something other than it being written poorly because just as nonsensical our speculative ideas can be- so, too can the ideas of the most talented/respected writers. I mean, most think DM, would've solved everything!

DM > IT, If so, why wasn't that played up instead of IT? They've come this far using it, don't back ot now! That'd be the worst thing they could do. I'd say the same if they went with DM!

[beyondsolo]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

It wasn't tested? Are you kidding me?

Read/Watch the Codex where is generally flashes back to previous evets!

"Turning foes into allies!" - Last I checked, Saren and Nihlus were buddies and Saren shot him. Why would Benezia trust Saren who is clearly the bad guy in ME? Why would Saren as well as Benezia struggle eventually killing themselves? TIM also does this metaphorically Shepard never gave into TIM (even if you gave him the base)

"Seeing the Reapers as Zeus!" LEGION!! (Before he separated himself from them and his geth buddies) Saren, Benezia, TIM and Shepard (the kid) took everything they said in stride without batting an eyelash.

True this is speculation, but it's not as if there is no proof to back this - whether it's sensible or senseless.

That's like if I shoot a guy who's unarmed - not bothering me and then claiming I did it in self-defense (which says otherwise) - knowing I damn well did not! If there's proof of this, assuming I don't confess, how will may claim be bought unless the one I'm selling it to buys it is inept?

This here is a real world instance!

Yes, I agree that if they had cleared this up in-game, then the uproar wouldn't be as bad. I didn't say the idea/theory whatever would be accepted, but the concept of ME and it's universe is flimsy, but it's accepted, but something within which is possibly just as flimsy isn't?

Explain this to me - and something other than it being written poorly because just as nonsensical our speculative ideas can be- so, too can the ideas of the most talented/respected writers. I mean, most think DM, would've solved everything!

DM > IT, If so, why wasn't that played up instead of IT? They've come this far using it, don't back ot now! That'd be the worst thing they could do. I'd say the same if they went with DM!

I'm sorry, but can you please clarify this a bit? To me it seems that you're arguing that indoctrination exists, which, by the way, no one doubts as it's established canon. But how does any of what you said support Indoctrination Theory? I'm curious and maybe a little dense here.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 11 mai 2012 - 05:52 .

[Pairikas]

The Ending is absolut Perfect. People just don't understand it and I explain now why:

What they make wrong: They take it serious.
What they don't understand: It's Comedy. The End is a genius Mass Effect Parody and its Hilarious.

[Repearized Miranda]

beyondsolo wrote...

I'm sorry, but can you please clarify this a bit? To me it seems that you're arguing that indoctrination exists, which, by the way, no one doubts as it's established canon. But how does any of what you said support Indoctrination Theory? I'm curious and maybe a little dense here.

Very clever! (That was a joke *wink*)

How does it not? It's as if people need to see tubes going into people or what not to validate this theory. I don't think they need to get that nasty about it.

Let me put it this way:

No one argues that Manipulation takes place, but what supports that it exists or happens?

"Why'd you rob this store?"

"My friend said I wouldn't get in trouble and he desperately needed some money!" Your supposed friend could have perhaps bribed you or made promises that wet your whistle. So, you went along and paid a heavy price - or almost did if someone stopped you because they knew better.

Sovereign promised Saren the goods if he were to join him. Benezia went through the same issue, Yet, here comes Shepard (the one who knows better) to talk them out of it.

Likewise, TIM was promised the gift of Control and enlisted the service of Miranda's father. We find this out in ME3, and why the Reapers wanted to ramshack the *spoiler* location - not to nention the "main" enemy you combat while there (and do check out the logs) Oh, and the BFD they made with TIM's eyes! It wasn't to show how "beautiful" they were.

Towards the end, well, you have to see if you haven't already.

TIM's lackies - Cerberus - which we also find out about (before the last mission)

And lastly, Shepard! S/he has spent years around this stuff in any and every form - resistance is certainly out of the question! That is worse, then the Batarian Ale and s/he did surivive that!!

So, again. if you want me to provide evidence to support Indoctrination (Theory), do the same regarding Manipulation (Theory)! You should since there the same thing!

I apologize if I sounded harsh.

I'm not saying I'm right, but that's some pretty damning evidence which will take more than "It's BS!" to refute it, but by all means, do try.

[xbeton0L]

Deducting from the ending, I disagreed with much of the story. Flatlined at best. BUT still a great game and an AWESOME story.

For reference, ME2 did it right.

[Random citizen]

xbeton0L wrote...
..
For reference, ME2 did it right.

Soo true. I think most people expected and wanted the ultimate, but survivable suicide mission where your war-assets plays a major part..  followed by retirement and rebuilding.

[D24O]

Amioran wrote...


Me: The narrative of ME has a primary theme behind that's called order vs. chaos.

I have to disagree with this. Yes the theme is there,
embodied by the ever-present threat of the reaper's but it takes a backseat to
themes of hope, perseverance, and unity. The whole series is about trying to
fight an overwhelmingly powerful foe with seemingly no real way to defeat them,
but Shep and crew don't give up, they keep up fighting, find the crucible, and
unite the disparate races of the galaxy to combat the threat. Maybe we are interpreting
the story differently, but I saw those themes as being more important to
the story than order vs. chaos, although I agree that the ending was consistent
with themes present in the games.



Thematic consistency aside, that's only one part of the story. Another major
part of the series, and any BW series, is the characters. My gripe with the
ending isn't about thematic consistency, I disagree with their choice to
pretty much ignore the characters that they spent 1-3 games building up and
developing. The story really isn't all that compelling without the characters;
we have no reason to care about the reapers destroying the galaxy if we didn't
get attached to the people inhabiting it. The shift of focus on interpersonal
relationships to make us care, to trying to make us care about synthetics and
organics as a whole, at least to me, falls flat. I don't care, at all, and I'm
pretty annoyed that all we get is a scene of 4 of the crew stranded in bumf***
nowhere. The characters were more important to my game than any thematic
element could ever be, like I said earlier, I don’t give two s**** about the
themes if there’s nothing to make them matter to me,  and I strongly disagree with their
treatment of people that I genuinely cared about.

Modifié par D24O, 11 mai 2012 - 07:22 .

[beyondsolo]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Let me put it this way:

No one argues that Manipulation takes place, but what supports that it exists or happens?

"Why'd you rob this store?"

"My friend said I wouldn't get in trouble and he desperately needed some money!" Your supposed friend could have perhaps bribed you or made promises that wet your whistle. So, you went along and paid a heavy price - or almost did if someone stopped you because they knew better.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with indoctrination. Indoctrination doesn't work through convincing rhetoric or exploitation of ignorance (at least not in this form). It works through radiation, ultrasound, and projection of Reaper thoughts.

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Sovereign promised Saren the goods if he were to join him. Benezia went through the same issue, Yet, here comes Shepard (the one who knows better) to talk them out of it.

Saren had no idea what Sovereign was until it was too late. So yes, Saren was indoctrinated and so was Benezia, though she falsely attributed indoctrination to Saren, even though she suspected that the "ship" had something to do with it.

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Likewise, TIM was promised the gift of Control and enlisted the service of Miranda's father. We find this out in ME3, and why the Reapers wanted to ramshack the *spoiler* location - not to nention the "main" enemy you combat while there (and do check out the logs) Oh, and the BFD they made with TIM's eyes! It wasn't to show how "beautiful" they were.

The Illusive Man was indoctrinated in ME3, true. There is more than enough evidence so we can agree on that. However, AFAIK TIM's eyes were like that because of something that happened in a comic; it has nothing to do with Reapers. TIM was not indoctrinated in ME2. Evidence of that is that his role in ending the Reaper/Collector plot is too crucial. His methods are questionable, but he definitely isn't on the Reapers' side.

Repearized Miranda wrote...

TIM's lackies - Cerberus - which we also find out about (before the last mission)

It is explained why they are the way they are in ME3. It has something to do with the Cerberus raids across the galaxy and that place you go to following Kai Leng.

Repearized Miranda wrote...

And lastly, Shepard! S/he has spent years around this stuff in any and every form - resistance is certainly out of the question! That is worse, then the Batarian Ale and s/he did surivive that!!

All right, here's where we're actually starting to talk about Indoctrination Theory, because everything before that had nothing to do with it. Indoctrination Theory states, in simple terms, that there are hints in the game that point toward Shepard fighting against indoctrination and that enough EMS in combination with the right choice in the end prove this with the "Breath Scene."

My problem with Indoctrination Theory is that all evidence presented in favor of it is circumstantial and not conclusive. As stated by someone else before, Indoctrination Theory is less of a theory but rather a specific interpretation of things we witness in the game. There is nothing wrong with that. But there is no proof in favor of it, either.

First of all, Shepard didn't spend "years" around "this stuff." He was briefly near a Reaper on Eden Prime, Virmire, and on the Citadel in ME1. Then he was briefly aboard a Reaper (Mnemosyne orbit) and briefly near one (Collector Base) in ME2. Further, he spent several hours near a Reaper artifact in Arrival (Object Rho). This last point is the one single most crucial Reaper presence in Shepard's life because he's mostly unconscious and the object is active. If indoctrination ever occured, then it was there. But again, it's all speculation and there is no conclusive evidence.

Reaper proximity and interaction in ME3 was infinitisemal and is therefore negligible. That presents another problem for Indoctrination Theory: There would be effects of indoctrination without indoctrination actually happening. Keep in mind that indoctrination doesn't happend across massive distances (millions of kilometers or even lightyears) but only in close proximity to Reapers.

Repearized Miranda wrote...

So, again. if you want me to provide evidence to support Indoctrination (Theory), do the same regarding Manipulation (Theory)! You should since there the same thing!

What is this Manipulation Theory you speak of?

Repearized Miranda wrote...

I apologize if I sounded harsh.

Don't worry, I've had worse.

Repearized Miranda wrote...

I'm not saying I'm right, but that's some pretty damning evidence which will take more than "It's BS!" to refute it, but by all means, do try.

As I explained, I don't find the evidence presented very convincing. It's definitely an interesting and creative interpretation, but I don't believe it, and I doubt BioWare will confirm it, if only for legal reasons. Also, I didn't say it was BS. That was the other guy.

[Getorex]

beyondsolo wrote...

Getorex wrote...

SIGH.  IT is NOT a theory.  It isn't even a hypothesis.  There is no test you can conduct to support it or disprove it (critical for something to be a hypothesis OR a theory).  It is a supposition.  It is an interpretation.  It is NOT a theory.

It is bullcrap, 100%, if nothing is ever forthcoming from Bioware to make it true.  Left hanging there as is it is flat-out nothing more than a desire by some people to make sense of something that was inherently nonsensical (the ending).  For the ending bullcrap to be "indoctrination" then it MUST be followed with something to demonstrate it is such...otherwise the game is not finished and is just hanging there with even less resolution than the full-retard non-resolving ending that currently sits there steaming and stinking up the dead franchise.

A theory is built of from hypothesis testing.  Hypothesis testing requires many experiments be conducted that fail to falsify the hypotheses.  When you have a host of hypotheses that are supported you come up with an over-arching theory that simply ties all the data together...but is itself falsifiable and continuously testable. 

IT is an IDEA.  A supposition.  An INTERPRETATION.  Nothing more.  When Bioware releases their full retard "extended cut" garbage it will either very poorly show that indoctrination was correct. It wont be but even if they made it so it would NOT be acceptable because all they are offering is more cut scene, no more action, so IF they made indoctrination the explanation for the gibberish ending...so what?  You cannot DO anything about it.  You don't get to dust off your Shepard and then fight to the REAL ending.  You are stuck with a godd@mned cut scene and judging from how F*CKING RETARDED the story/cut scenes were for the gibberish ending, there is no way an indoctrination extended cut scene is going to be any better.  When you are swimming in sh*t, changing direction doesn't magically get you out of the sh*t.  You are STILL swimming in sh*t, just in a different direction!

Please take a deep breath and count to ten.

While I generally agree with you that IT is an interpretation and certainly the wishful thinking of many, I think you're being a bit too harsh. I don't subscribte to IT, but it does have its merits as it's at least creative. It can't fix the ending though, and it's unlikely that BioWare will confirm it, if only for legal reasons.

"IT" has become something of a RELIGION and for that alone it needs to be chewed on.  In any case you miss my point: if Bioware doesn't actually DO something (release DLC ending, for instance) to MAKE indoctrination of Shepard at the end as an "explanation" for the gobbledygook that was the actual ending, then IT is bullcrap.  It doesn't matter that it is a clever idea (it is).  It isn't "real" unless Bioware makes it so by releasing more game to set it out. 

Problem for IT types: the ending AS IS was THE intended ending (post REAL ending leak - after which that moron Casey at Bioware closed himself into a room for a week and whipped up a new ending - the current ending - by pulling it out of his @ss).  Only after the uproar over the ridiculous and illogical ending, only ater WEEKS of people trying to make any sense of it (and THEN some people came up with IT in desperation) did Bioware throw up their collective hands and say, "OK, we see you guys need 'more closure' so we will whip something up."

Do you SEE the problem here for IT?  The ending AS IS was the intended ending AS IS. To make it IT Bioware has to go back and fudge it in to change their intended ending to make a new ending that uses IT.  IT is NOT an explanation for the actual ending, merely a clever means for Bioware, if they chose to do so, to make a "new" ending DLC that incorporates IT and thus makes the nonsense that is THE ending an acceptable fever dream.  

Another problem: this is NOT what Bioware is doing.  They announced that they would flesh out the ending AS IS with more cut scene crap.  No IT.  For IT to work, they have to add on more game play so gamers can work to the next "real" ending.  Cut scenes to flesh out what is already there (nonsense) doesn't make IT real or valid.  By this I mean it doesn't make the actual game ending an IT ending.  IT is A valid way that Bioware COULD easily fix their F*CKUP but they wont use it.  Casey has doubled down, all ego-y on his stupid ending, and it IS stupid, so all you will get is more cut scene on the same ending that currently exists, sans IT.  

IT isn't real or correct until and unless Bioware adopts it and actually MAKES it correct. 

I'll bet my left nut they do no such thing.  I await the youtube videos of the extended scene nonsense because there is NO WAY I will download any DLC of any kind, extended cut or not, with the current ending left in place as is.  

Hell, I played ME3 ONCE and haven't looked back because it is so much SUCK.  Instead, I went back and replayed AGAIN awsome games (Deus Ex: Human Revolution, my 6th run through, and replayed Half-Life 2, HL2: Episode 1 and 2 ---Episode 3 has been announced for release later this year!).  I wont be replaying any ME crap ever again.

[wolfstanus]

People wanted...

[beyondsolo]

Getorex wrote...

"IT" has become something of a RELIGION and for that alone it needs to be chewed on.  In any case you miss my point: if Bioware doesn't actually DO something (release DLC ending, for instance) to MAKE indoctrination of Shepard at the end as an "explanation" for the gobbledygook that was the actual ending, then IT is bullcrap.  It doesn't matter that it is a clever idea (it is).  It isn't "real" unless Bioware makes it so by releasing more game to set it out.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it's bullcrap. It's an interpretation, as you said yourself. Of course, as you also said, that doesn't make it real. All we can really do is talk about what evidence there is in favor of or against it. And so far all evidence that has been presented is circumstantial and doesn't prove anything.

Getorex wrote...

Problem for IT types: the ending AS IS was THE intended ending (post REAL ending leak - after which that moron Casey at Bioware closed himself into a room for a week and whipped up a new ending - the current ending - by pulling it out of his @ss).  Only after the uproar over the ridiculous and illogical ending, only ater WEEKS of people trying to make any sense of it (and THEN some people came up with IT in desperation) did Bioware throw up their collective hands and say, "OK, we see you guys need 'more closure' so we will whip something up."

There are many reasons why I hate the ending, and there are many reasons I can pick it apart both in terms of narrative and game design. However, you imply that not only do IT supporters support the ending, but that it also somehow vindicates the ending as some sort of stroke of genius. Well, I think we both know it doesn't. The fact that something like IT had to come up in the first place to make the ending less horrible than it is at face value undermines any attempt at making it look good. In my opinion, IT is more detrimental to than supportive of the ending, even if some of its followers may not realize that.

Getorex wrote...

Do you SEE the problem here for IT?  The ending AS IS was the intended ending AS IS. To make it IT Bioware has to go back and fudge it in to change their intended ending to make a new ending that uses IT.  IT is NOT an explanation for the actual ending, merely a clever means for Bioware, if they chose to do so, to make a "new" ending DLC that incorporates IT and thus makes the nonsense that is THE ending an acceptable fever dream.

I doubt BioWare will clarify the ending in favor of IT. I could be wrong, of course, but to me it seems that BioWare ran out of time and slapped together a rushed ending and hoped to get away with it. IT is just a way of fans to cope with the horrible failure that was the ending. I'll repeat what I posted before: Legal reasons will also prevent BioWare from confirming the IT. It could possibly get them in trouble from both a creative and a legal point of view.

Getorex wrote...

Another problem: this is NOT what Bioware is doing.  They announced that they would flesh out the ending AS IS with more cut scene crap.  No IT.  For IT to work, they have to add on more game play so gamers can work to the next "real" ending.  Cut scenes to flesh out what is already there (nonsense) doesn't make IT real or valid.  By this I mean it doesn't make the actual game ending an IT ending.  IT is A valid way that Bioware COULD easily fix their F*CKUP but they wont use it.  Casey has doubled down, all ego-y on his stupid ending, and it IS stupid, so all you will get is more cut scene on the same ending that currently exists, sans IT.

I agree with your assessment of the situation. Based on what BioWare has said it's very likely that they will attempt to clarify the ending with no reference to IT at all. And before you say it, no, I don't think that will fix the ending. There are too many problems with it for clarification to repair what is unsalvageably broken. But I'm reserving my final judgment until I've seen it.

[xbeton0L]

Perhaps they will merely continue whatever story they'd originally intended. Pre-IT and other "endings" speculation.

[harrier25699]

wolfstanus wrote...

People wanted...
*snip*

lol yeah the use of unicorns and space magic goes well together.

[Repearized Miranda]

1.

It's the same damn thing! Ever heard of the power of suggestion? (Another thing mentioned in the codex) Hypnotists use this trick all the time - with nothing more than some kind of pendulum.

You'd rather someone literally put a hole in your head and talk into the auditory section? I know it makes no sense which is why I said, it wasn't necessarily to get nasty about it; however, they did so, to make it tangible.

They show the science behind it. That's no different than going to a Neurologist/Psychologist/Psychiatrist all of whom have to know quite a bit of science and anatomy! The first person, is more scientific in the literal sense compared to the other two.

Are you with me so far?

2. I never said Saren knew from the get-go. What I said was, Saren clearly went with Sovereign wishes - talking you down like you were wrong, but then at the last moment (after he fights you (twice), he seems to be himself and commits suicide - just like Benezia - whom you also fought and talked down.

(Slight spoiler) TIM does the same thing in ME3, but this is metaphorically speaking as do you "talking him down" as well.

You said Benezia suspected her ship was Indoctrinated, but everyone expected that something or someone was such (and it was not limited to main characters)

3. No argument regarding TIM

4. Now, I will agree that if nothing else, it does explain away the EMS (which lots take issue with); however, it's the idea that this can't/shouldn't affect Shepard. I would like to know why (and this has nothing to do with EMS)

The time length was an exaggeration; however, the span of three games + DLCs is years. (2007-2012)

And yes, you're right! However, take deafness and blindness!

Overtime sight and hearing deteriorates if you strain those parts! I'm sure there are ways to can think of this happening. It takes years for a sense to be lost unless you just poor it on ad nuaseum! It'l take less time, but a considerable amount of time does pass before one or both senses completely deteriorate.

IOW, it's a slow process. This is one of the forms of Indoctrination! It appears that Saren and Benezia got the rapid form, but that's because they were such when we met them. They could have been simmered to perfection as well. We don't know, so we go by what we do know! We essentially agree on this process regarding TIM; yet, since there were so many Cerberus troops (and there's that one you meet on Mars which repulses Ash/Kaidan) it's hard to say as it is with the husks; however, since we just met them in ME and saw the process in ME3 - or even the other Reaper factions in the same game - though we met and know their previous forms.

As you said with radiation, no matter how much or little exposure, it still affects you and the effects last - they don't go away because you walk away from the plant (provided you aren't dressed properly) It may be that the sting from "Reaper Radiation" wears off, but one is still affected.

5. You mean it isn't one! Manipulation in fact, exist? No way! I clearly said that in jest, point being that is what Indoctrination is! If not, why are users opposed to it using it - when they're basically saying "BW's manipulating you!" According to them, it not a theory, it's a proven fact! See what I did there?

6. Well, you are posting here, no?

7. Yeah, I know! I understand that it's all speculation. My point is, the people against it, need to dig to find there own reasons or just wait until the reasons are spoon-fed to them, instead of condemning the people for taking the time to do some digging - even if they do turn out to be wrong. Prove the IT supporters wrong and more than just "It's stupid!" or "It's just one giant collender!"

PS:  The BS claim has been made by alot of people. I didn't intend to call you out specifically - despite what I wrote. I'm sorry.

Modifié par Repearized Miranda, 11 mai 2012 - 08:47 .

[wright1978]

Becoming starbrat's dogsbody really annoys me. Shep just passively accepts the word of a genocidal maniac and trots off to do its bidding.No ability to argue or reject its nutty logic. No ability to question it at all in fact.

Then there's the railroading of the mass relay destruction and the railroading of the normandy crew getting stranded. Apparently somebody was too in love with their galactic dark age analogy and adam and eve BS symbolism to bother to actually have different futures based on player choice.

No closure on characters we care about or races.
No chance to see war assets in action

Basically theending was truly appalling and destroyed the series/franchise imo. EC has got its work cut out.

[TheRealJayDee]

Amioran wrote...

I make you a little summary:

Me: The narrative of ME has a primary theme behind that's called order vs. chaos.
Others: No, it's not.
Me: It is. It is foundable in all the narrative in many points (explaining all of them).
Other: No, it's not so. You are making it up.
Me: I'm not making anything up. I know the theme perfectly and I can recognize the same in the narrative. You don't know the theme, on the contrary, but you insist that you know better and that what I say is not true, on what basis?
Other: It's not how you say. You didn't bring up any evidence and you are not superior than me.
Me: I've brought you evidences before (I wasted pages and pages on it, on this and many other threads), and I'm just saying that you cannot tell me I'm making it up because I provided evidences and I know the theme and you don't. Why don't you try to have an open mind and check the theme yourself instead insisting that I'm wrong without motive?
Other: I cannot lose time to read your "wall of texts", who cares. Anyway it is wrong because the theme is not order vs. chaos and you are making it up. I have no need of having background on the theme to understand that what you say is wrong and you are making it up.
Me: Why if you insist I'm making it all up don't you post the same in a literature forum and see it for yourself? Why you pretend to be an expert in a thing you don't know?
Other: You are not superior than me. You don't know better. You have not brought any evidence of it.  (And the cycle continues, over and over).

Please, please, please give us a link to these fabled explanations of yours. I want to read them, I really do. All I've ever seen is you referring to your writings as the definite explanation of ME themes, but I never actually got to read any of it. I take no pleasure in thinking of you as the godfather of condescending pricks, so please give me reason not to.

What I see is:

You: The narrative of ME has a primary theme behind that's called order vs. chaos.
Others: Okay... I never saw that as the primary theme. Care to elaborate?
You: I already did, I won't do it again.
Others: Well, that makes it kinda hard to judge your POV. I'll keep mine.
You: Your's is wrong.
Others: Urm... what?
You: I've already explained why. Besides, none of you can judge the theme of ME anyways.
Others: That's... rather not nice to say. Why would you deny me my own judgement of ME writing?
You: Because I have superior knowledge of these things and you cannot possibly have any.
Others: Hm, maybe I don't want to talk to you anymore...

edit: typos

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 11 mai 2012 - 09:15 .

[beyondsolo]

Ah, I think we're finally reaching some common ground now. But there is one point that I have to say I explicitly disagree with:

Repearized Miranda wrote...

The time length was an exaggeration; however, the span of three games + DLCs is years. (2007-2012)

Let's put away the reference to development time and release intervals of the games as it's not really relevant. The story of the Mass Effect games encompasses a time of something between 2.5 and 3 years. This would be plenty of time for Shepard to get indoctrinated. But my point concerning indoctrination still stands: Shepard was not under continuous influence of Reapers during this time. In fact, he had only a few very brief encounters, the longest lasting a few hours. Outside those encounters Shepard was never under Reaper influence. We know this because the Reapers' influence gets weaker and at some point completely fades the farther the indoctrination victim is away from the Reaper (unless they have an implant like Saren after Virmire, who got manipulated into getting it by Sovereign specifically because Sovereign feared that he might lose control over his minion).

While I admit that Shepard could have been indoctrinated at least to some degree during his encounters with the Reapers and their tech (most notably on Project Base in Arrival), I am strongly opposed to the notion that the Reapers were exerting any form of influence over Shepard beyond that.

[Repearized Miranda]

beyondsolo wrote...

Ah, I think we're finally reaching some common ground now. But there is one point that I have to say I explicitly disagree with:

Repearized Miranda wrote...

The time length was an exaggeration; however, the span of three games + DLCs is years. (2007-2012)

Let's put away the reference to development time and release intervals of the games as it's not really relevant. The story of the Mass Effect games encompasses a time of something between 2.5 and 3 years. This would be plenty of time for Shepard to get indoctrinated. But my point concerning indoctrination still stands: Shepard was not under continuous influence of Reapers during this time. In fact, he had only a few very brief encounters, the longest lasting a few hours. Outside those encounters Shepard was never under Reaper influence. We know this because the Reapers' influence gets weaker and at some point completely fades the farther the indoctrination victim is away from the Reaper (unless they have an implant like Saren after Virmire, who got manipulated into getting it by Sovereign specifically because Sovereign feared that he might lose control over his minion).

While I admit that Shepard could have been indoctrinated at least to some degree during his encounters with the Reapers and their tech (most notably on Project Base in Arrival), I am strongly opposed to the notion that the Reapers were exerting any form of influence over Shepard beyond that.

Yes, I know, gamewise, time was short. And I'm not disputing it nor did I in fact say that s/he was under continous influence. If that were true, s/he would have donned a Merc/Cerberus outfit (not the armor one) or husk like signatures since being in constant proximity. Shepard's seen/heard/fought more husks than any other turning or full blown Indoctrinated enemy!

And as with the Nuclear Plant analogy, did the effects completely wear off? Oh, let's not forget the Reaper tech (Implant) put in him/her. Tali spoke of something like a vaccine regarding Legion or EDI even. Why else would Shepard be subceptable as were the previous victims? EDI knew Cerberus like the back of her diodes and something of Reaper Tech because that's what Cerberus put in her. We all know the purpose of vaccines, thus that analogy as well.

Again, I'm not disputing that I may have made errors, but proximity isn't everything! I don't have to be literally in the clouds to call myself getting rained on thus getting wet. I may not be as wet if away from then still but I'm still (getting) wet - not drenched!

And maybe they weren't exerting powers full-on, but we know why this is! Willpower! Which is what human manipulation does if you let it.

"Gee! That piece of chocolate cake looks good, but I'm not going to eat it!" then, someone comes over to eat it in front of your face - practically trying to break you to eat it using every trick in the book! Can you resist? It's if you actually do that counts!

And characters have referenced Shepard's willpower since the beginning and we see it manifest itself near the end of ME3, with the final tests!

Reapers use anything to break you! That child you saw die (who can't possibly be alive), showing up in your dreams burning and you with him! Saying how you'll sacrifice your firends and even yourself if you don't do what they want. TIM who's pro-control (even if he was right - not). they may not have broken all their tentacles, but they would try if they had to trying to break you! Will you let it happen? (Forget the reward you gain) Perhaps, Shepard needs that person that made him/herself available when Saren/Benezia/TIM had the same problem.

But no! All folks are seeing is how this isn't real and if it isn't how ridiculous this would be! Yet, internal struggles are very real! Perhaps that too deep for some people though!

This particular genre (whatever the product) goes this route and very frequently. Outside-going-In-and-back-out-again. Leaving spectators to go in the opposite direction. Inside-going-out-and-back in-again to figure this out.

[Getorex]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

beyondsolo wrote...

Ah, I think we're finally reaching some common ground now. But there is one point that I have to say I explicitly disagree with:

Repearized Miranda wrote...

The time length was an exaggeration; however, the span of three games + DLCs is years. (2007-2012)

Let's put away the reference to development time and release intervals of the games as it's not really relevant. The story of the Mass Effect games encompasses a time of something between 2.5 and 3 years. This would be plenty of time for Shepard to get indoctrinated. But my point concerning indoctrination still stands: Shepard was not under continuous influence of Reapers during this time. In fact, he had only a few very brief encounters, the longest lasting a few hours. Outside those encounters Shepard was never under Reaper influence. We know this because the Reapers' influence gets weaker and at some point completely fades the farther the indoctrination victim is away from the Reaper (unless they have an implant like Saren after Virmire, who got manipulated into getting it by Sovereign specifically because Sovereign feared that he might lose control over his minion).

While I admit that Shepard could have been indoctrinated at least to some degree during his encounters with the Reapers and their tech (most notably on Project Base in Arrival), I am strongly opposed to the notion that the Reapers were exerting any form of influence over Shepard beyond that.

Yes, I know, gamewise, time was short. And I'm not disputing it nor did I in fact say that s/he was under continous influence. If that were true, s/he would have donned a Merc/Cerberus outfit (not the armor one) or husk like signatures since being in constant proximity. Shepard's seen/heard/fought more husks than any other turning or full blown Indoctrinated enemy!

And as with the Nuclear Plant analogy, did the effects completely wear off? Oh, let's not forget the Reaper tech (Implant) put in him/her. Tali spoke of something like a vaccine regarding Legion or EDI even. Why else would Shepard be subceptable as were the previous victims? EDI knew Cerberus like the back of her diodes and something of Reaper Tech because that's what Cerberus put in her. We all know the purpose of vaccines, thus that analogy as well.

Again, I'm not disputing that I may have made errors, but proximity isn't everything! I don't have to be literally in the clouds to call myself getting rained on thus getting wet. I may not be as wet if away from then still but I'm still (getting) wet - not drenched!

And maybe they weren't exerting powers full-on, but we know why this is! Willpower! Which is what human manipulation does if you let it.

"Gee! That piece of chocolate cake looks good, but I'm not going to eat it!" then, someone comes over to eat it in front of your face - practically trying to break you to eat it using every trick in the book! Can you resist? It's if you actually do that counts!

And characters have referenced Shepard's willpower since the beginning and we see it manifest itself near the end of ME3, with the final tests!

Reapers use anything to break you! That child you saw die (who can't possibly be alive), showing up in your dreams burning and you with him! Saying how you'll sacrifice your firends and even yourself if you don't do what they want. TIM who's pro-control (even if he was right - not). they may not have broken all their tentacles, but they would try if they had to trying to break you! Will you let it happen? (Forget the reward you gain) Perhaps, Shepard needs that person that made him/herself available when Saren/Benezia/TIM had the same problem.

But no! All folks are seeing is how this isn't real and if it isn't how ridiculous this would be! Yet, internal struggles are very real! Perhaps that too deep for some people though!

This particular genre (whatever the product) goes this route and very frequently. Outside-going-In-and-back-out-again. Leaving spectators to go in the opposite direction. Inside-going-out-and-back in-again to figure this out.

Naw.  That child creep was throwaway.  Shepard was a sole survivor (or war hero, etc) and MILITARY.  He's seen combat up the yingyang.  People croak or get croaked, including little sh*t kids.  He don't break down on one creepy little brat.  That kid was bullcrapola and WAY out of character for Shepard to get all whiney/teary/weepy over ONE F*CKING KID.  Big deal!  Shepard ain't no pantywaist.  He brushes that crap off and asks for some more.

They turned Shepard into a whiny-@ssed-******-baby against my will!  MY Shepard doesn't fall apart over a nobody among bazillions of nobodies.  That crap was crap.

[o Ventus]

Angry Joe's top 10 reasons we hate ME3's endings

Gamefront's Mass Effect 3 ending hatred: 5 reasons the fans are right

Only 2 links I could remember off the top of my head. I have my own gripes with the endings that aren't in these two, but it turns more into nitpicking territory.