55528 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

This thread is so silly.

There is no indoctrination theory - You want to sum up everything about ME3 in two words? Mac Walters. The dude ran the franchise into the ground face first. The catalyst is real, what happens in the game really happens, I'm sorry it's that bad but it is.

Let me quote Bioware employee Tully Auckland for you.

There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them.

Source: http://social.biowar...2916857-1.html

In fairness, this doesn't really mean anything in regards to the validity of IT. You can not believe in IT and think there are non-literal interpretations to other things in-game

[Donrael47]

For me, the ending scene with the catalyst is very similar to Shepard being in the Geth consensus. If he is speaking with the reaper equivalent it would make sense that he sees the representation of their collective as something familiar, like Legion states earlier. The whole project overlord segment seems relevant to the end because in both cases he is interacting with AI consciousnesses, and to me indoctrination seems like Reapers hooking up people to their network and controlling them, which is perhaps what they are doing to Shepard at the end, but making the network feel real enough using familiar projections similar to what Legion showed Shepard (again, with the gun) to help him through the Geth server.

[legaldinho]

LaughingDragon wrote...

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Let me quote Bioware employee Tully Auckland for you.

There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal
interpretations. The hope is that these things provide
thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the
motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on
players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the
enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete
way of viewing them.

Source: http://social.biowar...2916857-1.html

Ok so if you believe what that guy says, then you are saying that ME3 makes no sense, and therefore is open to whatever the players interpretation is. So the game was made to make no sense intentionally so that you could use your imagination to fill in the story?

There is no doubt that the end is a clusterfrack. It doesn't mean the indoctrination interpretation is invalid. I think this is something both literalists and ITers miss. It's a very very poor ending to a great series. Indoctrination, done right, would have worked like total recall. One interpretation, perfectly plausible, would be the literal ending. That should have made sense in the context of the whole game in its own right. Then, another, would be the IT. That would have been genius.

Imagine everything after the beam is a struggle. Shepard gets past TIM, who has a plausible reason to be there. You then have another conversation with, preferably, harbinger. THEN you have a final battle to unleash the crucible. Preferably, it is just like total recall's "alienhand" win button. You don't know what it does. You battle. Exhausted, you take a chance. It wounds the reapers. The fleet finishes them off. Happy ending. Dreamlike quality.

Fade to white.

Did it happen or not?

Total Recall- doing indoctrination right since before any of the bioware devcos started d&d.

Modifié par legaldinho, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:19 .

[TSA_383]

SubAstris wrote...

Sareth Cousland wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

This thread is so silly.

There is no indoctrination theory - You want to sum up everything about ME3 in two words? Mac Walters. The dude ran the franchise into the ground face first. The catalyst is real, what happens in the game really happens, I'm sorry it's that bad but it is.

Let me quote Bioware employee Tully Auckland for you.

There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them.

Source: http://social.biowar...2916857-1.html

In fairness, this doesn't really mean anything in regards to the validity of IT. You can not believe in IT and think there are non-literal interpretations to other things in-game

Such as?

[TSA_383]

LaughingDragon wrote...

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Let me quote Bioware employee Tully Auckland for you.

There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal
interpretations. The hope is that these things provide
thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the
motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on
players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the
enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete
way of viewing them.

Source: http://social.biowar...2916857-1.html

Ok so if you believe what that guy says, then you are saying that ME3 makes no sense, and therefore is open to whatever the players interpretation is. So the game was made to make no sense intentionally so that you could use your imagination to fill in the story?

Open to interpretation =/= "Makes no sense"

Brave New World is "Open to interpretation"
The plot of COD MW3 "Makes no sense"

[dreamgazer]

legaldinho wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

10 secs before evac, harby was shooting at Shepard's squadmates, nearly killing them. The idea that he is anger-managing shep is so utterly deluded, I can't even believe I'm having to spell this out. If that's the motivation why kill anyone? Why target the squadmates?

Did the squad-mates die, outside of soldiers that Shepard might lump into the category of "faceless forces killed by the Reapers"? Demoralization differs from vengeance.  Killing the Normandy and her crew would burn faces in Shepard's mind.

By the way, using words like "deluded" is a real simple way to stop a conversation, as you'll lead the listener of said comments to make the same generalizations.

Wow.

Same could be said for you, buddy. 

I think you need to think about the context of the catalyst's new exposition a bit, and the overall tone.  I understand that's not going to stick in this thread, but it's worth considering when building an interpretation after all this is over and done.  Indoctrination can still fit into all of it, unless you don't want it to and simply force everything into the idea of the "theory" delivering on its promises. 

This isn't about indoctrination, or the themes. It's about saying that harbinger doesn't shoot the normandy because he wants to preserve Shepard's state of just demoralized enough, short of vengeful. Even though he's massacring all the soldiers, london is a ruin, so's all of earth for that matter, and his squadmates nearly got killed... by harbinger. I was wowed by your ability to completely ignore the nonensical nature of your contention.

That's fine.  It's an opinion. 

Yes, soldiers die and London is in ruins.  But killing the squadmates would drive Shepard over the edge to vengeance.  If your canon Shepard's already there, GOOD.  Mine is too.  But people who picked Control and Synthesis might be a whole lot less likely to pick those options if the beasts responsible for the deaths of Shepard's squad were allowed to walk around.  That's a personal line.  The soldiers were fighting for the cause.  Shepard might not have an attachment to London, at all.  But s/he has an attachment to the Normandy and her crew, no matter what. 

[LaughingDragon]

TSA_383 wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Let me quote Bioware employee Tully Auckland for you.

There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal
interpretations. The hope is that these things provide
thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the
motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on
players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the
enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete
way of viewing them.

Source: http://social.biowar...2916857-1.html

Ok so if you believe what that guy says, then you are saying that ME3 makes no sense, and therefore is open to whatever the players interpretation is. So the game was made to make no sense intentionally so that you could use your imagination to fill in the story?

Open to interpretation =/= "Makes no sense"

Brave New World is "Open to interpretation"
The plot of COD MW3 "Makes no sense"

I guess if I could only make one point, it would be that when you are a dealing with a writer who is on the record as saying "The presence of the Rachni has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3 even
just in the final battle with the Reapers." that you are dealing with an entity that just makes no sense.

Modifié par LaughingDragon, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:20 .

[insomniak9]

Spot the difference 

First image is what you see when Shep shoots up the magical beam of light (aka Conduit)

Second image is what you see when Shepard wakes up from all three of the nightmares

[HellishFiend]

legaldinho wrote...

There is no doubt that the end is a clusterfrack. It doesn't mean indoctrination can't exist. I think this is something both literalists and ITers miss. It's a very very poor ending to a great series.

It's the LOTR equivalent of finding out at the very end that "So, Saruman was right after all" and that Sauron really just has everone's best interests at heart, and will give Frodo the opportunity to take his place as the new Dark Lord. 

[dreamgazer]

HellishFiend wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I like the notion behind it. I really do, and it's why I've defended the idea for a while under the heat of the rest of the forum, since it's within BioWare's creative DNA. But if there was an opportunity to telegraph a resolution to the broad kind of indoctrination you're suggesting, the EC was it. All eyes were on it, anticipation was high, and BioWare knew this.

They added elements that strengthen versions of that interpretation. That's a good thing. But they missed THE opportunity to deliver on the theory. You have to think about the fact that delivering on the theory will completely negate all of the people's opinions out there (and on the board) about their choices, which vary. And some people's renegade Shepard might WANT to exact control, or realign everyone's DNA. If they do anything to strengthen belief in the IT camp, I think it's going to run parallel with the story as an interpretation. And it's a fine interpretation, folks.

I disagree. I think what the EC does fits quite well in the context of IT.

What does Indoctrination do? It makes you see what you want to see in order for you to believe in Reaper goals.

What were the endings as we original had them? I think "multi-colored blank slates" is apt. Then what happened?
Bioware takes all the fan feedback and mushes it together into an EC that is exactly what literalists wanted to see.

Thus they are now in exactly the same situation an indoctrinated individual is in. Their desires have been manipulated in an attempt to get them to believe in 2 of the very concepts we've thematically been driven to oppose for over 100 hours of gameplay and storytelling.

When are they going to deliver on it? At the end of the DLC cycle, and keep up with the manipulation? That's the window.

You have to realize that there are Shepards out there---renegades, evil ones---who might want to lord over everybody as a Reaper God, or rearrange everyone's DNA. And there are people out there who have justifiable reasons for earnestly implementing them. Negating all that will kill the perception for a wide, wide audience and ruin the resolution for their Shepards, those who enjoy all facets of the lore.

As I've said, you can take the information that's present in the EC and craft a great interpretation---yeah, including the hyper-satisfying, overblown visions of control and synthesis. But there's the terms of realistic implementation to consider here. The Destroy and Refusal endings offer a certain amount of malleable hope that work within the realm of interpretation. They can be extrapolated on, but BioWare's saying "NO" on post-ending DLC right now.

Destroy is the most popular choice, of course, and they can use that with future DLC if they wanted to. Hell, they might, given the IT's popularity among some audiences. But doing so in a way that kills the perception people have had of their games would not bode well, and the "don't install it" argument really doesn't work in this instance. People want to experience what they can of the universe, and BioWare knows this.

[SubAstris]

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Sareth Cousland wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

This thread is so silly.

There is no indoctrination theory - You want to sum up everything about ME3 in two words? Mac Walters. The dude ran the franchise into the ground face first. The catalyst is real, what happens in the game really happens, I'm sorry it's that bad but it is.

Let me quote Bioware employee Tully Auckland for you.

There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them.

Source: http://social.biowar...2916857-1.html

In fairness, this doesn't really mean anything in regards to the validity of IT. You can not believe in IT and think there are non-literal interpretations to other things in-game

Such as?

For example, I would say the kid in the dreams is symbolic of everyone Shepard has lost.

[Bill Casey]

More white circles...

White Circle in Control

White Circle in Synthesis 1
White Circle in Synthesis 2

No additional white circles in Destroy or Refuse EC...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:24 .

[zigamortis]

HellishFiend wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Consider two important factors, though. 

What we know about indoctrination.
&
Bioware stating that they want us to feel what Shepard feels from a first person perspective.

When you put those two things together, anything is fair game, including the idea that everything we're seeing at any given point is just a lie. 

I like the notion behind it.  I really do, and it's why I've defended the idea for a while under the heat of the rest of the forum, since it's within BioWare's creative DNA.  But if there was an opportunity to telegraph a resolution to the broad kind of indoctrination you're suggesting, the EC was it. All eyes were on it, anticipation was high, and BioWare knew this.

They added elements that strengthen versions of that interpretation.  That's a good thing.  But they missed THE opportunity to deliver on the theory.  You have to think about the fact that delivering on the theory will completely negate all of the people's opinions out there (and on the board) about their choices, which vary.  And some people's renegade Shepard might WANT to exact control, or realign everyone's DNA.  If they do anything to strengthen belief in the IT camp, I think it's going to run parallel with the story as an interpretation.  And it's a fine interpretation, folks.

I disagree. I think what the EC does fits quite well in the context of IT. 

What does Indoctrination do? It makes you see what you want to see in order for you to believe in Reaper goals. 

What were the endings as we original had them? I think "multi-colored blank slates" is apt. Then what happened?
Bioware takes all the fan feedback and mushes it together into an EC that is exactly what literalists wanted to see.

Thus they are now in exactly the same situation an indoctrinated individual is in. Their desires have been manipulated in an attempt to get them to believe in 2 of the very concepts we've thematically been driven to oppose for over 100 hours of gameplay and storytelling. 

Yes! Yes! One hundred times yes!

[HellishFiend]

dreamgazer wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

I like the notion behind it. I really do, and it's why I've defended the idea for a while under the heat of the rest of the forum, since it's within BioWare's creative DNA. But if there was an opportunity to telegraph a resolution to the broad kind of indoctrination you're suggesting, the EC was it. All eyes were on it, anticipation was high, and BioWare knew this.

They added elements that strengthen versions of that interpretation. That's a good thing. But they missed THE opportunity to deliver on the theory. You have to think about the fact that delivering on the theory will completely negate all of the people's opinions out there (and on the board) about their choices, which vary. And some people's renegade Shepard might WANT to exact control, or realign everyone's DNA. If they do anything to strengthen belief in the IT camp, I think it's going to run parallel with the story as an interpretation. And it's a fine interpretation, folks.

I disagree. I think what the EC does fits quite well in the context of IT.

What does Indoctrination do? It makes you see what you want to see in order for you to believe in Reaper goals.

What were the endings as we original had them? I think "multi-colored blank slates" is apt. Then what happened?
Bioware takes all the fan feedback and mushes it together into an EC that is exactly what literalists wanted to see.

Thus they are now in exactly the same situation an indoctrinated individual is in. Their desires have been manipulated in an attempt to get them to believe in 2 of the very concepts we've thematically been driven to oppose for over 100 hours of gameplay and storytelling.

When are they going to deliver on it? At the end of the DLC cycle, and keep up with the manipulation? That's the window.

You have to realize that there are Shepards out there---renegades, evil ones---who might want to lord over everybody as a Reaper God, or rearrange everyone's DNA. And there are people out there who have justifiable reasons for earnestly implementing them. Negating all that will kill the perception for a wide, wide audience and ruin the resolution for their Shepards, those who enjoy all facets of the lore.

As I've said, you can take the information that's present in the EC and craft a great interpretation---yeah, including the hyper-satisfying, overblown visions of control and synthesis. But there's the terms of realistic implementation to consider here. The Destroy and Refusal endings offer a certain amount of malleable hope that work within the realm of interpretation. They can be extrapolated on, but BioWare's saying "NO" on post-ending DLC right now.

Destroy is the most popular choice, of course, and they can use that with future DLC if they wanted to. Hell, they might, given the IT's popularity among some audiences. But doing so in a way that kills the perception people have had of their games would not bode well, and the "don't install it" argument really doesn't work in this instance. People want to experience what they can of the universe, and BioWare knows this.

When are they going to deliver on it? At the end of the DLC cycle, and keep up with the manipulation? That's the window. 

Obviously that is up to BW's artistic vision. Go along with it, or dont. Your choice. 

You have to realize that there are Shepards out there---renegades, evil ones---who might want to lord over everybody as a Reaper God, or rearrange everyone's DNA. 

Are you saying those individuals are entitled to actually be able to do that, even though we know via established lore that Control has never worked and Synthesis is the Reaper definition of the pinnacle of evolution?

 those who enjoy all facets of the lore. 

"Those who enjoy all facets of the lore" are the ones that are seeing through the illusion and are posting in this thread. Those who have read the comics, read the novels, studied and understand all the themes.

Modifié par HellishFiend, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:31 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

LaughingDragon wrote...

Sareth Cousland wrote...

Let me quote Bioware employee Tully Auckland for you.

There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal
interpretations. The hope is that these things provide
thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the
motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on
players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the
enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete
way of viewing them.

Source: http://social.biowar...2916857-1.html

Ok so if you believe what that guy says, then you are saying that ME3 makes no sense, and therefore is open to whatever the players interpretation is. So the game was made to make no sense intentionally so that you could use your imagination to fill in the story?

I honestly don't get literalists. You whine and moan that the story makes no sense. We give you a highly plausible explanation, with evidence taken from the game's lore and literature, and you spit it back at our faces and call us idiots. 

[Turbo_J]

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Sareth Cousland wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

This thread is so silly.

There is no indoctrination theory - You want to sum up everything about ME3 in two words? Mac Walters. The dude ran the franchise into the ground face first. The catalyst is real, what happens in the game really happens, I'm sorry it's that bad but it is.

Let me quote Bioware employee Tully Auckland for you.

There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them.

Source: http://social.biowar...2916857-1.html

In fairness, this doesn't really mean anything in regards to the validity of IT. You can not believe in IT and think there are non-literal interpretations to other things in-game

Such as?

This depends on where the dream states/hallucinations go from intermittent to entirely submersible. Indoctrination isn't one or the other - it's a process that utilizes both reality and Illusion to create a skewed view of events. At the beginning of the game you can't take the park disapearing literally. You have to chalk it up to bad programming or fit into the context of IT.

The same goes for the start of the relay explosions starting in the Bahak system; where these is no relay. Literal interpretation had you exiting the game lore to justify it. The only other explanation is it can't happen or is taking place as an illusion inside Shepard's mind.

Modifié par Turbo_J, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:27 .

[MegumiAzusa]

HellishFiend wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

There is no doubt that the end is a clusterfrack. It doesn't mean indoctrination can't exist. I think this is something both literalists and ITers miss. It's a very very poor ending to a great series.

It's the LOTR equivalent of finding out at the very end that "So, Saruman was right after all" and that Sauron really just has everone's best interests at heart, and will give Frodo the opportunity to take his place as the new Dark Lord.

That would be quite fun

[HellishFiend]

zigamortis wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

I disagree. I think what the EC does fits quite well in the context of IT. 

What does Indoctrination do? It makes you see what you want to see in order for you to believe in Reaper goals. 

What were the endings as we original had them? I think "multi-colored blank slates" is apt. Then what happened?
Bioware takes all the fan feedback and mushes it together into an EC that is exactly what literalists wanted to see.

Thus they are now in exactly the same situation an indoctrinated individual is in. Their desires have been manipulated in an attempt to get them to believe in 2 of the very concepts we've thematically been driven to oppose for over 100 hours of gameplay and storytelling. 

Yes! Yes! One hundred times yes!

Thanks. :happy: Feel free to copy/paste it if you like. I'll be saving it too, as I'm sure the subject will be coming up a lot in the coming weeks/months. 

[insomniak9]

Also, proof that you don't need Synthesis.

EDI is alive!

[dreamgazer]

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

In fairness, this doesn't really mean anything in regards to the validity of IT. You can not believe in IT and think there are non-literal interpretations to other things in-game

Such as?

Shepard was knocked out on London, the decision chamber happens in Shepard's head in real-time due to his/her proximity to the beam, and the catalyst took its form form because it's a boy that Shepard watched die.  That doesn't have to mean indoctrination is present. In my mind, it does to a degree; the Reapers are manipulating Shepard, period, and the dreams in the game act as a cipher  But it doesn't have to. Hence, interpretation, which runs parallel to a literal outlook. 

And there are other, philosophically-driven explanations as well.  Delivering on the full sprawl of the theory will kill those, too.

[BansheeOwnage]

HellishFiend wrote...

legaldinho wrote...

There is no doubt that the end is a clusterfrack. It doesn't mean indoctrination can't exist. I think this is something both literalists and ITers miss. It's a very very poor ending to a great series.

It's the LOTR equivalent of finding out at the very end that "So, Saruman was right after all" and that Sauron really just has everone's best interests at heart, and will give Frodo the opportunity to take his place as the new Dark Lord. 

That would suuuuuuuck.  Good thing they didn't to that. LOTR had an great ending to an awesome trilogy. A shame the same can't be said about ME.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:28 .

[HellishFiend]

Bill Casey wrote...

More white circles...

White Circle in Control

White Circle in Synthesis 1
White Circle in Synthesis 2

No additional white circles in Destroy or Refuse EC...

Nice finds! I hadnt considered to look for that. 

[paxxton]

insomniak9 wrote...

Also, proof that you don't need Synthesis.

EDI is alive!

Being alive and feeling alive are a long shot from each other.

Modifié par paxxton, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:30 .

[Ryzaki]

*creeps in*

Yeah...I'm leaning towards IT now.

Be gentle?

[Turbo_J]

By the way, for those interested, the FemShep Double Take of Choose Wisely is now live.

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Turbo_J, 02 juillet 2012 - 09:33 .