19 réponses à ce sujet

[FERMi27]

Imagine you're Bioware. You've decided to develop and release Mass Effect 3. You did well enough 99% of the game, but you've screwed up badly with the ending. And I mean REAL bad, so bad that even after 2 years after the game's release, members of The Fanbase still visit your official forums, taking the time and hassle of registering their game code on the account etc., only to remind you and reproach you, how REALLY bad you screwed up.

Nevertheless, by now you, being a smart game developer, realize that there is a way to make it right. Your Fanbase has done it right for you, all that remains to be done by you is to dedicate some additional resources into the sequel you've already planned and codenamed "Mass Effect 4". You've sent your community experts into the forums and they found that the Indoctrination Theory is something that is potentially able to fix everrthing that was wrong with ME3's ending. It's a flawless solution for every living person, there are virtually no downsides to it... Except that materializing this theory in your new trilogy would automatically mean that the problems and the main theme of the previous one had not been solved. Furthermore, your hero failed. He succumbed to something he thought he'd be immune to... But he's just a man(or woman). Can you really blame him for being human?

It's a tough choice, buy you have experience. Hell, the way I put it, anyone will see the obvious choice. Unless you're fed up with the Reaper threat and you want to try something else, like, say, a parallel universe of some kind... Where the Reapers never existed, or were defeated conventionally.

Your community experts remain confident though: the new engine, new gameplay, new mechanics and new characters are more than enough. There's absolutely no need to change the setting or the main theme. Continuing it will be just fine. Your team just needs to deal with the fact that will make it blatant: Shepard has failed.

Modifié par FERMi27, 12 février 2014 - 01:30 .

[Prizrak232]

I would not worry about it because Mass Effect 3 is like 3 years old. To still care about the ending is just strange......

[katamuro]

While I am not a fan of Indoctrination Theory I would not object if ME4 would pick up at the end of ME3. I would probably like a different way out, something like canonizing destroy with a few alterations. Maybe even rewriting the whole ending completely so that there are new choices.

They could make a Genesis thing again at the start that gives you the new choices. Or Even include the whole ending sequence that has of course been modified. The possibilities of fixing it are there but it just has to be taken and done well.

[Beerfish]

No need to make that change now. ME4 is going to have very little if any connection to the Shepherd games and their conclusion (and there are a number of ways they can do this which have been discussed).

[SwobyJ]

Why do people think that Bioware 'has to do' something?

Maybe it was the plan all along?

[AlexMBrennan]

If what you said was true, then your conclusions would be correct. Too bad it isn't.

Further, going with IT carries substantial risk: You admit shipping an intentionally incomplete game - like a book with the final act missing - with the intent of selling the real ending as DLC/sequel. Do you really want to give critics of Bioware's business practises more ammunition (e.g. Javik is found on the shipped disk and can be unlocked by changing one line c.bin)

Plus, why stop there? Your decision to believe that everything after Priority: London is completely arbitrary, so Bioware could keep releasing a never-ending stream of "Shepard waking up from yet another layer of indoctrination" DLCs... but I'm sure even you would admit that that's silly.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 12 février 2014 - 09:42 .

[katamuro]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If what you said was true, then your conclusions would be correct. Too bad it isn't.

Further, going with IT carries substantial risk: You admit shipping an intentionally incomplete game - like a book with the final act missing - with the intent of selling the real ending as DLC/sequel. Do you really want to give critics of Bioware's business practises more ammunition (e.g. Javik is found on the shipped disk and can be unlocked by changing one line c.bin)

Plus, why stop there? Your decision to believe that everything after Priority: London is completely arbitrary, so Bioware could keep releasing a never-ending stream of "Shepard waking up from yet another layer of indoctrination" DLCs... but I'm sure even you would admit that that's silly.

I have to agree with you there, if it was planned or viable to do so they would have done so by EC, since they did not and did that instead I am quite sure that they wont do the IT. Plus from both the BioWare and EA it would be a disaster to do so considering how much they have stood up for their "artistic vision" and making another game with IT at the start would prove so many of the vocal opposition right that they will never do it. 

Also while IT has been kinda popular and had its fair share of press it also presents several problems that while fixing some problems would expose others and that is not something anyone wants. So yeah OP while IT "can" be used to fix ME3 it is not viable to do so. Its like building a house on a swamp, it is certainly possible to do so but it is not advisable.

[FERMi27]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

<snip>

Lol @ your sig. You probably think I'm another fan of IT, but I'm not a fan of anything. I'm realist. And realistically, irregardless of what you might or want to think, the fact of Shepard getting indoctrinated as the game progresses was Bioware's intention all along. Even if they didn't want to reveal that. If you think otherwise, even given all the dream sequences and the catalyst boy in the vent, then you should probably watch some IMDB 7.5+ sci-fi movies. That's what Bioware was aiming at, to turn ME3 into a movie. Conceptually it was a huge mistake. But to deny IT at all and think that all the hints are just random, well... I really think I wouldn't be able to convince you otherwise. Judging by your avatar(heh) and your "Too bad it isn't", you seem like the type of guy who won't even admit the thought he might be confused or wrong.

Modifié par FERMi27, 12 février 2014 - 11:13 .

[katamuro]

And why do you assume that he is wrong or that IT is right? Currently there is no concrete proof that it was being included and the "hints" could be coincidental. After all considering that Crucible just pops up at a convenient moment to be constructed and used I dont think the creators of the ME3 designed it to have such a secret just so that they could reveal it later.

[Ithurael]

FERMi27 wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

<snip>

Lol @ your sig. You probably think I'm another fan of IT, but I'm not a fan of anything. I'm realist. And realistically, irregardless of what you might or want to think, the fact of Shepard getting indoctrinated as the game progresses was Bioware's intention all along. Even if they didn't want to reveal that. If you think otherwise, even given all the dream sequences and the catalyst boy in the vent, then you should probably watch some IMDB 7.5+ sci-fi movies. That's what Bioware was aiming at, to turn ME3 into a movie. Conceptually it was a huge mistake. But to deny IT at all and think that all the hints are just random, well... I really think I wouldn't be able to convince you otherwise. Judging by your avatar(heh) and your "Too bad it isn't", you seem like the type of guy who won't even admit the thought he might be confused or wrong.

While I will admit I liked IT at first it is now more an escape than the current intention of Bioware. Bioware outright said they planned for some kind of indoctrination attempt of sorts but dropped the concept because it was too hard to implement (and no doubt because they did not have enough time to do so but that is a bit too much speculation for me). If you haven't, I suggest watching the final hours. It is pretty informative (or talk to Troxa he/she has plenty of info on it lol)

Anywho, IT is a fan interpretaion (ableit a valid one as all interpretations are valid) but still it rests with the fans in the end and it is not, nor does it seem to be, Bioware's intention.

Modifié par Ithurael, 13 février 2014 - 01:18 .

[SwobyJ]

They dropped it as a *gameplay mechanic*. Nothing else was stated other than things like "IT is a valid interpretation of events" and community managers affirming 'Yeah I totally do playthroughs where IT is happening!' (paraphrase).

I have Final Hours.

And not all interpretations are valid. If someone interpreted the ending as Shepard having a dream while hitting his head falling in the shower, that's not valid. And things like Intoxication Theory are jokes.

[Ithurael]

SwobyJ wrote...

If someone interpreted the ending as Shepard having a dream while hitting his head falling in the shower, that's not valid..

How do you know?

If it is a dream you cannot prove it? How do you know that if, in ME2, after drinking at the citadel bar and passing out (or at the Omega bar) the whole rest of ME2 and ME3 was a dream? Point in fact, how do you know that the whole trilogy was not a dream after the beacon in ME1?

[AlexMBrennan]

Even if they didn't want to reveal that. If you think otherwise, even given all the dream sequences and the catalyst boy in the vent, then you should probably watch some IMDB 7.5+ sci-fi movies

Thing is, you go from incredibly non-specific stuff (Shepard seeing the boy could mean damn near anything, from a visualisation of his deteriorating mental state to hostile mind control effects) and jump to an incredibly specific conclusion: WHEN the indoctrination begins and reality ends; the beam run has been used but you could just as easily go back further ( e.g. To the Eden Prime beacon in ME1) or the other way (e.g. Shepard made it to the Citadel but lost consciousness after getting shot by TIM and this are his dying visions).

As a result, you confidently asserting that the point in time you picked is the only correct one? If you can't give me a reason to pick your ideas over any one of the others then what's the merit of any of them.

I really think I wouldn't be able to convince you otherwise. Judging by your avatar(heh) and your "Too bad it isn't", you seem like the type of guy who won't even admit the thought he might be confused or wrong.

My sig should have given you a hint: I get irrationally annoyed by people misusing the word theory because I know what it means. So until such a time that you come up with a falsifiable hypothesis I'm not going to be impressed.

[Iakus]

I never believed in IT. I never thought it was intended. It's all just wishful thinking, a desperate hope that somehow the ending wasn't as bad as it appeared.

That being said, if Bioware had decided to adopt that path, I could have rolled with it. But at this point, it's not going to happen.

[Mr.House]

Poorly disguised IT ****** thread detected.

[Br3admax]

Or maybe the ending really was that bad, so they're moving on like everyone else should.

[Mr.House]

Br3ad wrote...

Or maybe the ending really was that bad, so they're moving on like everyone else should.

You're speaking logic my boy.

[Sebby]

FERMi27 wrote...

Imagine you're Bioware. You've decided to develop and release Mass Effect 3. You did well enough 99% of the game, but you've screwed up badly with the ending. And I mean REAL bad, so bad that even after 2 years after the game's release, members of The Fanbase still visit your official forums, taking the time and hassle of registering their game code on the account etc., only to remind you and reproach you, how REALLY bad you screwed up.

They did well enough in making a linear railroaded Gears knock off where choices are cosmetic fluff and introducing idiotic plot elements like the crucible and Cerberus Sith Empire.

Nevertheless, by now you, being a smart game developer, realize that there is a way to make it right. Your Fanbase has done it right for you, all that remains to be done by you is to dedicate some additional resources into the sequel you've already planned and codenamed "Mass Effect 4". You've sent your community experts into the forums and they found that the Indoctrination Theory is something that is potentially able to fix everrthing that was wrong with ME3's ending. It's a flawless solution for every living person, there are virtually no downsides to it... Except that materializing this theory in your new trilogy would automatically mean that the problems and the main theme of the previous one had not been solved. Furthermore, your hero failed. He succumbed to something he thought he'd be immune to... But he's just a man(or woman). Can you really blame him for being human?

Besides it failing to address the root causes of the ending being the trilogy being a poorly written mess that BW winged without any kind of vision post ME1, yes It's "flawless".

I'd also get into why the IT is mind boggingly moronic from a business standpoint but Mr. Brennan covered that already.

Modifié par Seboist, 13 février 2014 - 03:52 .

[SwobyJ]

Ithurael wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

If someone interpreted the ending as Shepard having a dream while hitting his head falling in the shower, that's not valid..

How do you know?

If it is a dream you cannot prove it? How do you know that if, in ME2, after drinking at the citadel bar and passing out (or at the Omega bar) the whole rest of ME2 and ME3 was a dream? Point in fact, how do you know that the whole trilogy was not a dream after the beacon in ME1?

Absurdities are not valid interpretations. They are still
interpretations, but they don't hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny
or questioning.

"Point in fact, how do you know that the whole trilogy was not a dream after the beacon in ME1?"
^Actually this one is something. It's not one I believe even in the slightest, but it would at least be a valid enough interpretation to let it go.

Falling in the shower isn't one.

Passing out at a bar isn't one.

It's really simple. If you don't get it at this point, it's on you.


EDIT: To be clear, while I'm of personal belief that IT is valid, and at least generally applicable, I also think it's only one piece of something much, much larger.
I'm crazy like that. But at least everything I have works with the existing story elements.
Falling in the shower is not. Passing out at a bar is not.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 13 février 2014 - 06:17 .

[SwobyJ]

I think one of the biggest issues I have when processing IT (and by god, I've processed it plenty), is the 'Control = indoc = game over' and 'Synthesis = indoc = game over' part.

Nothing I've seen suggests that. At least, I mean, the game over part.

Why would a story have to end terribly because of a major final choice. Really, that doesn't sound at all like Bioware.

I'm inclined to think that if there's any continuation, even if indoc is involved (and I think it is, but also much more), even Control and Synthesis will have some good outcomes attached to them.

Maybe it's not a physical Shepard rising out of the rubble, gun in hand to kill Reapers with the greatest individual power (compared to other choices), but it'd at least be something good in some way.

IT seems to disagree.