324 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

Entire ME3 plot is utterly retarded, lore-butchering, and intelligence-insulting . Every character involved in that plot temporarily(Shepard, Udina) or permanently(Hackett) loses like 100 iq.
Endings, of course, perfectly matches ME3 in a level of stupidity, unscientificness, and lore-butchering, but does that on a whole different level.

[Obadiah]

Marauder_Pilot wrote...

Don't get too worked-up over what seems like a mountain of ****s complaining about the endings. If there's one thing the internet collectively loves, it's getting all bent out of shape over stupid little ****.

I liked the endings. Didn't love them, really wanted a way to save both Shepard and synthetics, but, hey, hard choices build character.

Sadly, there are small, out-of-shape. socially inept legions of people ready to e-blast your opinions for not being the same as their opinions (Which, since theirs contain more vitriol, are clearly correct).

Yup. The internet is not yet the the place for civil discussion. Always someone trying to firebomb.

[Marauder_Pilot]

As proven by our witty and insightful companion at the top of this page.

[Maxster_]

Marauder_Pilot wrote...

Don't get too worked-up over what seems like a mountain of ****s complaining about the endings. If there's one thing the internet collectively loves, it's getting all bent out of shape over stupid little ****.

I liked the endings. Didn't love them, really wanted a way to save both Shepard and synthetics, but, hey, hard choices build character.

Sadly, there are small, out-of-shape. socially inept legions of people ready to e-blast your opinions for not being the same as their opinions (Which, since theirs contain more vitriol, are clearly correct).

And what are you doing on forums of a game development company?
Especially when you can't stand opinions that differ from your own, and trying(that was a pathetic try btw ) to indirectly insult people that posted those opinions?
Hypocrisy ftw.

Modifié par Maxster_, 03 octobre 2012 - 11:08 .

[iTallaNT]

Davik Kang wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...
I have trouble assembling a similar narrative for Destroy that allows me to make sense of the journey. I don't need to be preached to, but I do need that third level, that stuff of which you can write essays; something which I feel Destroy lacks because of the inherent contradiction in the motivation behind choosing it and what actually happens.

Obviously, I am not saying you need to agree with the above interpretations of Control and Synthesis. I only want to show that these interpretations exist in a way I believe they do not in Destroy. But please, if someone would like to make sense of Destroy for me, I want to be at peace with it.

You made some great points about Control and Synthesis.  I'll have a go at giving a decent position for Destroy.  

When I was watching the Star Chamber scene, I was taking the Kid's suggestions at face value.  The genius bit was when Shepard says "So the Illusive Man was right all along."  I was stunned, and was thinking, "Huh... really?  Damn..."

And I listened to the rationale behind Control and Synthesis given by the StarKid.  Shepard had said TIM was right, so I guess it's true... right?  But there was something uncomfortable about the scenarios that StarKid was proposing.  I thought about it for a while... the problem is that the Kid is asking to you become a God.  Or make the decisions of a God.  Asking you to control the Reapers.  Or re-engineer all sentient life.

And I thought about Destroy, and I thought about TIM, and that's when it hit me... that the Kid's trying to indoctrinate me.  And that even if I'm wrong about that, I'd rather proceed to Destroy the Reapers, than risk the consequences of choosing the other options if indoctrination is happening.  Because, in the end, Shepard is a soldier.  Not a politician, and not a God.  Just a soldier.  Doing the best she can to help the Alliance win and beat the Reapers.

That's really what I felt the theme of ME was, and the theme that fits Destroy.  But that's not to say that Control or Synthesis are wrong - if you decide that Shepard is like a "chosen one" leading the galaxy into a new era of hope, then you would decide that the Kid is not indoctrinating you at all, and in this case, Con / Syn are clearly preferable options.

CronoDragoon wrote...
Indoctrination would have been terrific and one of the greatest endings of all time....had it been implemented from the start. I just don't think it fits with the game as currently constructed.

I have to disagree.  Indoctrination attempts were present right through ME2, maybe even before.  Harbinger's voice in ME2 is an attempt at indoctrination, trying to scare her into accepting the inevitable.  It's fairly feeble after the events of ME1&2, and because of Shepard's personality; but when Reapers were just a myth, this kind of indoctrination would be really effective, as it was on Saren.  To suddenly be confronted with a Reaper, a mythical space Devil form the past, explaining that the rumours were true and that civilisations would be wiped out one by one by the Reapers as had happened so many times before.

And in ME3, it is foreshadowed by the dreams.  I'm not going to specualte on whether the kid at the start is really there or not.  It's just that, the implication of indoctrination at the end is strongly hinted at by two things:

- the presence of TIM on the Citadel, arguing that he's not indoctrinated, even though he believes the Reapers can be controlled; and
- the resemblance of the StarKid to the ghost in your dreams.

IMO the final sequence in the Decision Chamber is a hallucination, but all (or most) stuff before that is not.  I think the final choices are actually happening.  But the point about indoctrination here, is that the ending is meant to involve the idea of indoctrination, even if you don't think that the Kid is actually trying to indoctrinate you.  In other words, I think that one of the things you have to decide in that decision chamber is whether or not you are being indoctrinated.  That is open to interpretation.   But IMO it is pretty clear that you are at least meant to consider that you might be the victim of an indoctrination attempt, even if you didn't see it on your first playthrough.  Doesn't mean that it is an indoctrination attempt.  You have to decide.

I really like the points you made about destroy, because that's exactly how I felt. Every fiber of my being wanted to rid the galaxy of those monsters. But in the end the sacrifice of a friend and the genocide of an entire race was too much of a trade off, especially since that was the only ending where shep survived. It would be a heavy burden to live with.

As for the indoctrination, it's an interesting theory and if it is true then it is one of the biggest troll moves in gaming history. xD Especially since it means that everything you thought you were fighting for, all the decisions you made, were all the work of the catalyst/reapers. How bonechilling. '9w9

[CmdrShep80]

Ditto for me too

[AsheraII]

Haters gonna hate and whiners gonna whine. And with Bioware now being owned by EA, a lot more haters and whiners started complaining about Bioware as well.
Still, ME3 is a very good game in my opinion. The last 5-10 minutes might not've been as great as the rest of the game, but even those weren't actually bad.

And even for the complaints about the ending, where people whine that Starchild is giving them only 3 (4 now) options: sorry, you're an idiot if you believe that.

Option 1: Destroy. This is NOT an option given by Star Child. This is what your intention was al along. This is actually a direct order you got from Anderson. Total defeat of the Reapers and their ideology.

Option 2: Control. Again, this is NOT an option given to you by Star Child, though Star Child does hold it preferrable over destroy. This option was first presented by TIM. It's not ideal to the Reapers, but better than nothing. With a force like the Reapers and a warning against artificial intelligence, it'd make the controlled Reaper force too easy a tool to use when synthetics might become a risk to not use it. And they will be used, rather than investigate other solutions It's a conditional surrender on the Reapers' side, that has the smell of indoctrination all over it. If you can't beat them: join them, and change them from within. The Reapers survive, their doctrine survives, they're just not the ones in direct control anymore, but for the rest nothing changed.

3) Synthesis. This is the only option actually given by Star Child, and this is basically a surrender on the Human side. Merging Reapers and humans, it's what they wanted to do all along, and Shepard is the key to get that on a silver platter. The framework in which the merge takes place might've had an update, in that you don't have to be processed into pink slime for the merge anymore, but it's still the merge they were aiming for.

4) Refuse? Well, that's not really an option. And also certainly not one given by Star Child. The Crucible caused a stalemate in the fight, and refuse is basically taking that cause out of the equation again. Do I have to remind you that the Reapers were overal winning? When you refuse, the Reapers will win. It might take several centuries, but they'll win.

So Star Child doesn't give you three options. He only gives you one option, and includes two other options that you already knew about before you met him. The fourth option isn't a real option, it was only thrown in for ridicule, and you know it.

Modifié par AsheraII, 04 octobre 2012 - 02:32 .

[Morty Smith]

*munch munch, pocorn crunch*

Please, more.

[Hsien]

ME3 ending was terrible. The EC made it barely bearable.......

[Marauder_Pilot]

Maxster_ wrote...

Marauder_Pilot wrote...

Don't get too worked-up over what seems like a mountain of ****s complaining about the endings. If there's one thing the internet collectively loves, it's getting all bent out of shape over stupid little ****.

I liked the endings. Didn't love them, really wanted a way to save both Shepard and synthetics, but, hey, hard choices build character.

Sadly, there are small, out-of-shape. socially inept legions of people ready to e-blast your opinions for not being the same as their opinions (Which, since theirs contain more vitriol, are clearly correct).

And what are you doing on forums of a game development company?
Especially when you can't stand opinions that differ from your own, and trying(that was a pathetic try btw ) to indirectly insult people that posted those opinions?
Hypocrisy ftw.

Hey, I just signed up here looking for MP builds originally. 

People can hold whatever opinions they want. I could care less if someone disliked the endings. I just find all the backlash hilariously unreasonable. 

[Maxster_]

Marauder_Pilot wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Marauder_Pilot wrote...

Don't get too worked-up over what seems like a mountain of ****s complaining about the endings. If there's one thing the internet collectively loves, it's getting all bent out of shape over stupid little ****.

I liked the endings. Didn't love them, really wanted a way to save both Shepard and synthetics, but, hey, hard choices build character.

Sadly, there are small, out-of-shape. socially inept legions of people ready to e-blast your opinions for not being the same as their opinions (Which, since theirs contain more vitriol, are clearly correct).

And what are you doing on forums of a game development company?
Especially when you can't stand opinions that differ from your own, and trying(that was a pathetic try btw ) to indirectly insult people that posted those opinions?
Hypocrisy ftw.

Hey, I just signed up here looking for MP builds originally. 

People can hold whatever opinions they want. I could care less if someone disliked the endings. I just find all the backlash hilariously unreasonable. 

Yeah, sure, that's why you came to a story&campaing discussion forum, and starting to indirectly insult anyone, who you disagree with.
Plausible, indeed

[CmdrShep80]

Kroitz wrote...

*munch munch, pocorn crunch*

Please, more.

passes Salarian made popcorn* care to try?  It goes quick but the flavor wow!  

Modifié par CmdrShep80, 04 octobre 2012 - 04:39 .

[Marauder_Pilot]

Maxster_ wrote...
Plausible, indeed

I'm glad you think so. 

[Obadiah]

CronoDragoon wrote...
...
Obviously, I am not saying you need to agree with the above interpretations of Control and Synthesis. I only want to show that these interpretations exist in a way I believe they do not in Destroy. But please, if someone would like to make sense of Destroy for me, I want to be at peace with it.

I'll give this a shot.

The Destroy option seems to me the one that most epitomizes hard, difficult, and distasteful decisions that have to be made.

The other two options, Synthesis and Control, are a compromise with the Reapers in which everyone survives (well, except Shepard). Destroy is the only one in which Shepard has to actively sacrifice people in order to achieve his goal. It is not a glorious sacrifice, such as one where the heroes are ordered against impossible odds and go down fighting, but one where Shepard is asked to perform a mass execution via collateral damage.

It is the type of decision that we players have been fighting against for three games.

In Mass Effect 1 the Council essentially decides to sacrifice the human colony of Eden Prime (and other colonies Saren could potentially attack) to ensure peace with the Terminus systems. In Mass Effect 2 they again ignore the disappearance of human colonies in the name of maintaining the status quo. In Mass Effect 3 the Councilors' first response to the Reaper attack is to sacrifice Earth so they can strengthen their own systems.

There are other examples of hard choices of course in Mass Effect's lore:
- The complete extermination of the Rachni
- The Genophage
- The Quarian's repeated attempted extermination of the Geth

Of course, then there a the villains Saren and the Illusive Man - antagonists willing to sacrifice millions in order to achieve what they perceive as the greater good.

Whenever Shepard encountered others who have made such a choice, we players were invited to judge without consequence. Some would judge those that make those decisions insane. Saren and the Illusive Man hint at the kind of brutal rationale that goes into such decisions. Mordin provides an example of the kind of moral and ethical turmoil that making such a decision demands.

There is a short story in Mass Effect 1 of a Turian general who simply disappeared at the end of the Krogan rebellions, and whose wreckage was found later on some remote moon. I suspect the decision to deploy the Genophage had something to do with his self-imposed exile.

Throughout the game, whenever Shepard had to make such a decision, there was always a path which did not involve sacrificing some ideal. The Feros colonists could in fact be saved with only some added risk. The Rachni queen could simply be released with no consequence. The council could be saved during Sovereign's attack for the sake of galactic unity. In this way the narrative provided a certain amount of moral comfort.

But there is not always another path, and with Destroy Shepard is finally faced with a hard, difficult, and truly distasteful choice - solve the Reaper problem permanently, or tolerate their continued existence in some form with the potential risk for them to run amok again.

What type of person should be trusted to make that type of decision? Someone like the Councilors who have grown comfortable making such decisions? It seems to me that someone like Shepard, who has been neck deep in the fallout from these decisions for three games, would be the most appropriate person.

[Mcfly616]

currently playing ME3.....


Awesome as always...

[Davik Kang]

iTallaNT wrote...
As for the indoctrination, it's an interesting theory and if it is true then it is one of the biggest troll moves in gaming history. xD Especially since it means that everything you thought you were fighting for, all the decisions you made, were all the work of the catalyst/reapers. How bonechilling. '9w9

Sorry I don't follow.  How does it mean that all your decisions were the work of the Reapers?

Obadiah wrote...
snip

Interesting what you said about Destroy and the dubious moral ground where it resides, because it makes it seem more like a Council choice than an Anderson choice.  Reminds me even more of the Deus Ex:Invisible war finale.

[XqctaX]

i dissagree with this thread the op and everyone supporting it.
personally i hated the ending from every aspect possible.

But im glad someone enjoyed it.
im also not happy about someone enjoying it acually has the possebility
of making bioware think this kind of halfassed bs mediocre writing
and 180 degree change of narrative and themes is okay last minute of a triology.

but im still glad someone liked it emotionally.
anyways im leaving this thread. before i write something offencive.

[iTallaNT]

Davik Kang wrote...

iTallaNT wrote...
As for the indoctrination, it's an interesting theory and if it is true then it is one of the biggest troll moves in gaming history. xD Especially since it means that everything you thought you were fighting for, all the decisions you made, were all the work of the catalyst/reapers. How bonechilling. '9w9

Sorry I don't follow.  How does it mean that all your decisions were the work of the Reapers?

And woops I didn't mean all per say but a large portion in the third game, sorry '^^

Here watch these, It would be faster and more in depth then if I tried to type it all lol
www.youtube.com/watch - one of the original vids
www.youtube.com/watch - a secondary vid that covers a lot of the same stuff with some additional info

www.youtube.com/watch - The best explanaition and in depth analysis, it's a full on documentary that not only provides evidence but also debunks several arguments for the theory
www.youtube.com/watch - part 2 of the documentary

I know it's a lot of vid to watch but it is deffinitly interesting and worth checking out :3

EDIT: Woops forgot to add the third part which covers the EC DLC, the first 2 were made prior
www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par iTallaNT, 04 octobre 2012 - 10:17 .

[Obadiah]

Davik Kang wrote...
Interesting what you said about Destroy and the dubious moral ground where it resides, because it makes it seem more like a Council choice than an Anderson choice.  Reminds me even more of the Deus Ex:Invisible war finale.

The way I see it, there is just no way Anderson would pick Destroy knowing it would kill an entire race - if it was just EDI perhaps. I also believe that if you had been given the option to ask EDI or the Geth they would advocate for Destroy.

It is very much the kind of decision the Councilors would make, and that some upstart hero, safe in the environment it created, would criticise or second guess on principle. I like the position that it puts Shepard in.

[CronoDragoon]

Obadiah wrote...
snip

I like your post, but at the risk of being reductionist, this swims along the same line of thought as I was talking about with Davik, in that it boils down to "in war you have to make hard choices" or "there's not always a way out."

I don't find that particularly compelling since it's pretty much a truism. It doesn't tell me anything I don't already know, and it provides a narrative for the Mass Effect journey that just doesn't mesh well for me. The effect seems to be: no matter how hard you work to break the cycle of violence (even picking a choice that represents your believe that you CAN break the cycle), you can't do it. Inherent in the final act to bring peace is violence, both against your enemies and your allies.

Perhaps I simply need to come to terms with the idea that for anyone who picked Destroy because it represented the stance that the cycle is not needed and that organics and synthetics can come to peace on their own, the final consequence will be disconnected from this idea developed during 2.9 games on my Paragon, and that it will simply be a bitter aftertaste. My only other choice would be to interpet it as a refutation of what brought me there.

But again, this is why it is important for me to know WHY the Crucible works this way. There are two possibilities I see if BW decides to delve into the Crucible:

1. It targets Reaper code.
2. It was built by an organic race originally to destroy all synthetic life.

Although 1 seems to be a tempting explanation, it confuses me why BW didn't simply say this in the EC when they had ample opportunity. Additionally, the Catalyst's wording - he doesn't say all synthetics with Reaper code but all synthetics simpliciter - makes me doubt this.

2 may present something we can work with. If 2 is correct, then the Crucible represents the past wars and sins of organics and synthetics, the inherent distrust and mental gap between them. It is already the product of a grand synthetic/organic cycle of violence, so this characterization of the Crucible can fit.

It may be tempting, based on this, to conclude that the Crucible's destruction of synthetics represents the philosophy of cyclical history; that people do not learn from their mistakes, and that the weight of the past can simply be too great for those trying to survive the present. There is some merit to this interpretation, however ultimately this sounds remarkably like the ending message to a tragedy which, as defined by the Greeks, ends in failure because of some core flaw in the protagonist/good guys.

But you don't lose, you win, and that is important. The past does not triumph over the present. Yet nevertheless it exists, always, as a part of the present, effecting it and defining the limits of what you can do. And although I usually cringe at Jesus metaphors, perhaps the philosophy behind the Crucifixon is applicable here. The world could not wash away its sins on its own as the story goes; it ultimately sacrificed an innocent who bore the burden of the past on his shoulders. Maybe the geth and EDI were those who assimilated the last of the old hatred, bearing it to their graves so the future would be rid of it.

The response would be that such an act would necessarily cause future conflict between synthetics and organics, being that the organics chose to kill the synthetics to save themselves. So you aren't really giving the future a fresh start so much as perpetuating the cycle of violence. I'll have to think of an analysis on that going forward.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 04 octobre 2012 - 11:39 .

[CmdrShep80]

iTallaNT wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

iTallaNT wrote...
As for the indoctrination, it's an interesting theory and if it is true then it is one of the biggest troll moves in gaming history. xD Especially since it means that everything you thought you were fighting for, all the decisions you made, were all the work of the catalyst/reapers. How bonechilling. '9w9

Sorry I don't follow.  How does it mean that all your decisions were the work of the Reapers?

And woops I didn't mean all per say but a large portion in the third game, sorry '^^

Here watch these, It would be faster and more in depth then if I tried to type it all lol
www.youtube.com/watch - one of the original vids
www.youtube.com/watch - a secondary vid that covers a lot of the same stuff with some additional info

www.youtube.com/watch - The best explanaition and in depth analysis, it's a full on documentary that not only provides evidence but also debunks several arguments for the theory
www.youtube.com/watch - part 2 of the documentary

I know it's a lot of vid to watch but it is deffinitly interesting and worth checking out :3

EDIT: Woops forgot to add the third part which covers the EC DLC, the first 2 were made prior
www.youtube.com/watch

OMG I'm so glad you posted the videos.  Ok all I did was watch the 1st one but really had the ending been like this with the extra voice overs and the codex thing too (minus all the detailed explanations) seriously I would have made a different choice than the Synthesis choice

What really did it for me was hearing Seren's words again that I had completely forgotten, the whole, "My way is the only way that any of us will survive.  I'm forging an Alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines and in doing so I will have saved more lives than have ever existed.  Once I understood this, I joined Sovereign..."  That whole line reminded me of what happened with what the Catalyst said and how I chose Synthesis for the reasons I said earlier which was I wanted to save the Geth and Edi.  I still wanted to destroy the Reapers but I didn't want to destroy them if it meant losing the Geth who I spent several games building a lasting peace.

Of course BioWare says:  Apparently Bioware hadn't intended the Indoctrination Theory all along. Although the IT with its many arguments makes perfectly sense (also within the lore), Bioware tells us that it is all merely coincidence... they want us to take the endings at face value. Which makes sense because if they told us, they would have spoiled the ending (assuming this is all true).

Strangely enough I got that there was indoctrination going on but I didn't think it was happening to Shepard but the first video really tells you why and really has all the pieces of the puzzle on the board and you can really get it after that.

Rehearing the Codex entry on it over and over on what indoctrination is, really hit me then OMG. (so this feeling I'm getting is what BioWare wants us to all have instead of spoiling it?).  I suppose I'm going to wait for the Omega dlc to replay the end (I don't want to do it again then do it weeks later)

[CmdrShep80]

Just by the video alone, then realizing that there's a multiplayer component about the war (even though the game's technically over) and having saw the video on Mass Effect 3 Retaliation mp dlc I said OMG, the war's not over yet, we just did what the video said, either indoctrinated ourselves or freed ourselves from indoctrination.  Does that mean Mass Effect 4 will actually have the epic crecendo to the conclusion?

Just by the video, I have several questions:

1)  Is Anderson still alive?

2)  Is the Illusive Man still alive?

3)  Is the Geth still alive?

4)  Is Edi still alive?

5)  Is the Citadel still alive?

My answer right now just from the video alone, is yes all of them are

New questions comes up

Is there really a beam transporter to the Citadel or is the backdoor on Ilos the only true way in when the Citadel is shut?

Did Joker actually abandon you/leave you?

Did your squad leave you?

Can the Citadel actually travel FTL via mass effect relays?

I have to say no to all of them.  The Citadel is one big Mass Relay and besides it's size dwarfs the Mass Relay itself so in theory it must still be sitting in the Serpent's Nebula.

I could go on and on right now but I think I just got it all.  To take a reference from another game:

 

The point of the whole game (according to GLaDOS) is to pass tests which will utimately kill you (which she fails to mention) one way or another but the real ending is not taking the cake, it's doing everything opposite hence the cake being the lie becuase the way to win is to defeat GLaDOS not succumb to treats because it's what GLaDOS wants

Modifié par CmdrShep80, 05 octobre 2012 - 02:54 .

[iTallaNT]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

iTallaNT wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

iTallaNT wrote...
As for the indoctrination, it's an interesting theory and if it is true then it is one of the biggest troll moves in gaming history. xD Especially since it means that everything you thought you were fighting for, all the decisions you made, were all the work of the catalyst/reapers. How bonechilling. '9w9

Sorry I don't follow.  How does it mean that all your decisions were the work of the Reapers?

And woops I didn't mean all per say but a large portion in the third game, sorry '^^

Here watch these, It would be faster and more in depth then if I tried to type it all lol
www.youtube.com/watch - one of the original vids
www.youtube.com/watch - a secondary vid that covers a lot of the same stuff with some additional info

www.youtube.com/watch - The best explanaition and in depth analysis, it's a full on documentary that not only provides evidence but also debunks several arguments for the theory
www.youtube.com/watch - part 2 of the documentary

I know it's a lot of vid to watch but it is deffinitly interesting and worth checking out :3

EDIT: Woops forgot to add the third part which covers the EC DLC, the first 2 were made prior
www.youtube.com/watch

OMG I'm so glad you posted the videos.  Ok all I did was watch the 1st one but really had the ending been like this with the extra voice overs and the codex thing too (minus all the detailed explanations) seriously I would have made a different choice than the Synthesis choice

What really did it for me was hearing Seren's words again that I had completely forgotten, the whole, "My way is the only way that any of us will survive.  I'm forging an Alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines and in doing so I will have saved more lives than have ever existed.  Once I understood this, I joined Sovereign..."  That whole line reminded me of what happened with what the Catalyst said and how I chose Synthesis for the reasons I said earlier which was I wanted to save the Geth and Edi.  I still wanted to destroy the Reapers but I didn't want to destroy them if it meant losing the Geth who I spent several games building a lasting peace.

Of course BioWare says:  Apparently Bioware hadn't intended the Indoctrination Theory all along. Although the IT with its many arguments makes perfectly sense (also within the lore), Bioware tells us that it is all merely coincidence... they want us to take the endings at face value. Which makes sense because if they told us, they would have spoiled the ending (assuming this is all true).

Strangely enough I got that there was indoctrination going on but I didn't think it was happening to Shepard but the first video really tells you why and really has all the pieces of the puzzle on the board and you can really get it after that.

Rehearing the Codex entry on it over and over on what indoctrination is, really hit me then OMG. (so this feeling I'm getting is what BioWare wants us to all have instead of spoiling it?).  I suppose I'm going to wait for the Omega dlc to replay the end (I don't want to do it again then do it weeks later)

I know right!? Before I thought the indoctrination theory was interesting but never really knew the full extent of it. After watching the full on documentary for more then 4 hrs straight it was taken to a whole new level and makes so much freaken sense! Also if you couple this theory with the newer puzzle theory suggesting that we haven't seen the full extent of the game since there is still single player DLC and multiplayer missions to take into account then it makes it all the more plausable. Especially when you consider the fact that the ending never creates a solid save, game finished, congradulations you hit this point. It just loops you back to the last save prior to the start of the final earth battles/senes with the decision. I mean why would they do that at all? Unless there was something that still needed to be added and therefore and unfinished ending was needed. Some people might argue against this, saying they do this in all the games, but the case in point is that they don't. They Always give you an option before the freeroam to import your Complete save file after you finished the ending into a new game that starts at the beginning, yet they don't do that here. With the third game, unless you pysically go in and start a new game yourself and import your ME3 character, the option is never automatically presented to you.

And I mean, even if this wasn't Biowares original intention, do you think they would really pass up this chance to make a claim that this was their idea from the beginning? Especially when by doing so they would accend into one of the greatest plot twists of all gaming history?

[iTallaNT]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Just by the video alone, then realizing that there's a multiplayer component about the war (even though the game's technically over) and having saw the video on Mass Effect 3 Retaliation mp dlc I said OMG, the war's not over yet, we just did what the video said, either indoctrinated ourselves or freed ourselves from indoctrination.  Does that mean Mass Effect 4 will actually have the epic crecendo to the conclusion?

Just by the video, I have several questions:

1)  Is Anderson still alive?

2)  Is the Illusive Man still alive?

3)  Is the Geth still alive?

4)  Is Edi still alive?

5)  Is the Citadel still alive?

My answer right now just from the video alone, is yes all of them are

New questions comes up

Is there really a beam transporter to the Citadel or is the backdoor on Ilos the only true way in when the Citadel is shut?

Did Joker actually abandon you/leave you?

Did your squad leave you?

Can the Citadel actually travel FTL via mass effect relays?

I have to say no to all of them.  The Citadel is one big Mass Relay and besides it's size dwarfs the Mass Relay itself so in theory it must still be sitting in the Serpent's Nebula.

I could go on and on right now but I think I just got it all.  To take a reference from another game:


The point of the whole game (according to GLaDOS) is to pass tests which will utimately kill you (which she fails to mention) one way or another but the real ending is not taking the cake, it's doing everything opposite hence the cake being the lie becuase the way to win is to defeat GLaDOS not succumb to treats because it's what GLaDOS wants

Oh yeah I forgot to mention this but I redid my endings to test out the extent of the truth in the god-child's statements for the destroy option and found quite a few things to be false. I say this because somehow amongst all my mixing and matching I got a destroy ending where shepard lived, the reapers were destroyed, the relays weren't fully destroyed just damaged, and lastly the most important part of all EDI WALKED OFF THE SHIP UNHARMED IN THE CRASHLANDING SCENE! Which also implies that the Geth too were still alive. 

Modifié par iTallaNT, 05 octobre 2012 - 02:45 .

[CmdrShep80]

iTallaNT wrote...


Oh yeah I forgot to mention this but I redid my endings to test out the extent of the truth in the god-child's statements for the destroy option and found quite a few things to be false. I say this because somehow amongst all my mixing and matching I got a destroy ending where shepard lived, the reapers were destroyed, the relays weren't fully destroyed just damaged, and lastly the most important part of all EDI WALKED OFF THE SHIP UNHARMED IN THE CRASHLANDING SCENE! Which also implies that the Geth too were still alive. 

What did you do to get all this?  You mean with the statements with the catalyst?