937 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

Indoctrination Theory was fun while it lasted. The EC took about 75% away, and Leviathan took away the rest.

 

I like to think of them as the This Is Literal You Goons DLC.

[Farangbaa]

At least the Reapers are nice. They give you a full-blown epilogue ascerting your win if you pick the wrong answers.

You guys!! I just realized something here.

 

THE REAPERS = BIOWARE

 

OMG!!!

[Hadeedak]

Indoctrination Theory was fun while it lasted. The EC took about 75% away, and Leviathan took away the rest.

 

I have fond memories of the hype train. And Aquaman gifs.

 

Though I really, really like Leviathan. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

I have fond memories of the hype train. And Aquaman gifs.

 

Though I really, really like Leviathan. 

 

I like the Leviathan DLC, it restores that open feel of strange alien worlds that I think ME3 lacked. And the adventure feel of the story makes it exciting to play and search for Leviathan. Unfortunately for me, Leviathan, like the main game, has a disappointing ending; mainly because it tries to retroactively justify the ME3 ending and then proceeds to have an almost nil effect on the story, which is surprising because the revelation of the Leviathans is perhaps one of the biggest game changers in the story.

[Hadeedak]

I really like Leviathan for a lot of reasons -- the mystery, cool imagery, the jokes, and the squad dialogue (harmigar, the squad dialogue... way better than the silent squad of ME2's DLC). It's limited in its impact because it's DLC.

 

And if I was Queen of the Universe, I would have made Thessia DLC and put Leviathan in its place, and provided Cerberus something else to fiendishly steal while twirling their mustaches. Since Levi was DLC, though, it did have to be limited in impact.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I really like Leviathan for a lot of reasons -- the mystery, cool imagery, the jokes, and the squad dialogue (harmigar, the squad dialogue... way better than the silent squad of ME2's DLC). It's limited in its impact because it's DLC.

 

And if I was Queen of the Universe, I would have made Thessia DLC and put Leviathan in its place, and provided Cerberus something else to fiendishly steal while twirling their mustaches. Since Levi was DLC, though, it did have to be limited in impact.

 

That is true. But from a story perspective one would think the revelation of obtaining mind-controlling aliens who built the Reapers as allies (and that whole reassert themselves as the dominate race thing) would have major impacts on the war and at least the dialogue.

 

Their introduction and subsequent absence from the story and epilogue makes me suspect they will in fact be the next big bad in ME4.

[SwobyJ]

I'm not sure about 'big bad', but it's possible.

 

The gist I'm getting (and its hard to describe or prove, so yeah I could be 100% wrong), is that we may be venturing into far more 'factional' warfare, with many more moral greys at play.

Most of the conflicts and decisions of ME1-3 (at least without DLCs) are still pretty clearcut. Yea ME2 adds some more subjectivity, and ME3 adds ambiguity, but overall, we know where decisions stand and what's at stake.

 

But I can see things being much more complex (in implications, actions, enemies, themes, etc) later on. Maybe that's thinking too highly of BW, but I still think that's where they're going, instead of "Here's the overwhelming bad guy. Shoot it."

 

And Leviathan may be the start of that story focus. If we take their origin story as truth..:

-This is a species that seems to have some 'care' for its subjects, but we can't tell whether that's more akin to how the Thorian preferred less to die if it could help it, because they serve it

-This is a species that may (MAY) have manipulated organics for a longgg time (at least according to some theories), but it's seemingly done for the sake of destroying machine problems and keeping matters simplified

-When it finally DID make its own machine, it turned on them and considered it part of the problem. Who do we agree with? Do we even care about their issues? And at the same time, the machine doesn't take the effort to exterminate all Leviathans ("we welcome their involvement"), which is somewhat reminiscent of the Geth/Quarian deal

 

Imagine that we're somehow in a post-IT victorious ending. We don't kill all Reapers, but we kill a most of them and push them out of Earth.

Now imagine that we're given increasingly grey/positive information about the Reapers, and how even though they're a bad solution, they were at least A solution to a huge problem that the Leviathans wanted dealt with.

 

If the story then forced a decision between:

-assisting the Leviathans, though it'll just imply the resurgence of machines over and over and deaths upon deaths, without end and without advancement

-assisting the Reapers, though they put everyone through the Cycle system and Reapings, even if it mitigated the numbers of deaths overall and then might (I dunno) copy/preserve the memories of the civilizations within the new Reapers

-maybe other factions?

 

What might you pick then? Don't answer this, because its rhetorical and vauge, but still..

 

That's how I see the next game - at least as long as we're keeping with more current lore standards, and not just wiping most of it away (like I know some here VERY much want).

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Ah yes, perhaps Levi should have been part of the game, and Thessia been DLC. Hmmmm... Cerberus could have stolen EDI's sexbot back for a while, and write EDI too dumb to release control of it. Thus Cerberus is able to re-shackle her, and begin feeding the Normandy false information. This forces Shepard to pull the plug on EDI's blue box after a brutal face-off with the sexbot in on the Crew Deck. This breaks Joker's heart, and TIM twirls his mustache.

 

Oh and for old times.... The Mass Effect 3 Ending:

 

[ZerebusPrime]

What do you feel are the wrong answers, and why?

I was referring to the ending choices.  My money is behind Destroy being "right".  But again, I'm not sure it actually matters.  I would reference any number of giant threads about how Control and Synthesis rub certain posters the wrong way.  They all got locked for turning into flame wars, IIRC.  I hope this thread doesn't end up like that.  

 

Before the EC: when presented with two forms of obvious suicide with unlikely promised results and one path that looks unlikely but has you stick to your gun, I choose to stick to my gun.  As Javik would say:  "Vengeance is the goal, suicide is not."

 

After the EC, with the inclusion of Refuse: things are more muddled.  Control, Synthesis, and Destroy have not changed, but Refuse offers an out for someone who does not trust anything the Catalyst says.  If there's anything that Destroy has over Refuse, it's that Shepard believes he is up there on the Citadel to let the Crucible dock and fire.  Completing that mission requires you to make a choice that activates the Crucible, IMHO.  Again, stick to your gun.  Pull the trigger. 

 

Now say Shepard isn't actually up on the Citadel.  Say he's lying there in the rubble of London with Harbinger towering over him and tightbeaming an Indoctrination ray beam into his cerebellum.  Do the ending choices matter?  Wellllllllll... quite possibly yes.  If the decision chamber sequence isn't literal, then it's at least symbolic.  If you die, your consciousness is dispersed.  If you shoot the nonsensical tube, you're at least still fighting.  And if you refuse, you shut down.

 

 

 

Regarding low EMS outcomes: "You need a bigger Hammer." - Shep to Clone Shep 

 

Low EMS Control: considering how I view Control in general, I view this as a game over: you lose.  The Reapers now own you.

 

Low EMS Destroy: I sincerely doubt this even works.  I think Reapers have given up on indoctrinating you and are profoundly disappointed in you.  I also doubt that a low EMS Crucible can literally do the job it's supposed to do due to sustained damage.  I view this ending as the false hallucination of a dying Shepard.  Failing that, you've blown up Earth and caused the Reapers an annoying amount of damage but not fully destroyed them.  Try again.

Why does this hinge on the Collector Base?  Under War Assets, the difference between the two is itemized as either getting a Reaper Heart or a Reaper Brain installed into the Crucible.  In low EMS Control I think the Reapers are "thanking" you for installing one of their brains into your secret weapon.  "Implications... unpleasant."

 

Now, why does Synthesis only appear on high EMS endings?  In my interpretation, it is because you've done so well that the Reapers want you and believe you need a seductive third option.  They also can't erase Destroy as an option in such an ending because Shepard's willpower has proven to be too strong to accept it not being there (I remember hearing someone call Effective Military Strength "Effective Mental Strength"; that would explain why someone like Grunt has more points than entire Turian armies).

[von uber]

So the Catalyst is more able to subvert the Crucible if the Crucible's functioning better? Then why are the Reapers shooting at it?

@ Hadeedak: oh, what the hell. Might as well play.

 

Because they win either way? Destroy the crucible = win. Activate the crucible and hope Shep doesn't choose Box #1 which is horrible and smelly = win.

But as I say, this is all speculation, which is what Bioware wanted..

[SwobyJ]

The problem with the idea of Shepard never reaching the beam is that Shepard also has to imagine Hackett being notified of someone reaching the station, and aside from that, someone else opens the arms to allow the Crucible to dock. Did Shepard imagine someone else tapping the controls? Did TIM do it? Anderson? A husk?

 

By now I headcanon/imagine:

 

1)Shepard being on the Citadel, but the details that we saw, plus the entire Crucible sequence, is illusory

2)The Citadel breaking apart in a future scene (details of which I won't get into here)

3)Shepard's body falling down to Earth

4)Allies search in rubble for him, have to help him

 

To everything else, my answer would be too long to type and I don't feel like it (I'm eating)

[KaiserShep]

3)Shepard's body falling down to Earth

Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of Shepard as he fell was "Oh no, not again".

[Iakus]

Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of Shepard as he fell was "Oh no, not again".

 

What is sad, is, thanks to Alchera, that's not just a Hitchhiker reference...

[AlanC9]

By now I headcanon/imagine:
2)The Citadel breaking apart in a future scene (details of which I won't get into here)
3)Shepard's body falling down to Earth

Even if the Citadel broke up, why would the pieces fall out of orbit?

Also note that we have re-entry problems here that we didn't have with Alchera. Falling from space is one thing, decelerating from orbital velocity is quite another.

[AlanC9]

Because they win either way? Destroy the crucible = win. Activate the crucible and hope Shep doesn't choose Box #1 which is horrible and smelly = win.

Or damage the Crucible just enough so they lose because Shepard can't do anything but pick Destroy.

This is nonsense, and you know it.

[SwobyJ]

Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of Shepard as he fell was "Oh no, not again".

 

lololol

 

Well that's where I got it from

 

The whole 'falling down to Earth after being in 'Heaven'' concept too. Or Purgatory. Or Afterlife. Or whatever.

 

 

It would also damage him enough to:

-get pulled out of the rubble (good for symbolism, after first getting out by himself with others watching in ME1, then assisting others out of rubble in ME2; also well, look at Citadel DLC dialogue with characters like Jack)

-BUT also not be able to do anything in the immediate aftermath. He may need a combination of medical and synthetic upgrades/treatment in order to be back to fighting shape. Not as crazy as Lazarus Project even, but significant enough that 'Commander Shepard', as a main story concept, is long gone (unless Breath Destroy, but even then, ITers would be forced to see another protagonist rise from this, when it comes down to it)

 

What does N7 mean to you?

 

*breathe* *wake up*

[SwobyJ]

Even if the Citadel broke up, why would the pieces fall out of orbit?

Also note that we have re-entry problems here that we didn't have with Alchera. Falling from space is one thing, decelerating from orbital velocity is quite another.

 

The Citadel experiment is over and the slate needs to be wiped clean.

 

Not sure about orbit. It would be up to BW to answer in this hypothetical, not me.

 

But yes, falling directly down to Earth has its own problems. He'd need protection around him to make it in any form, at least.

 

This comes to mind though (and I don't consider it proof of anything at all, for obvious reasons - just interesting):

 

 

 

 

Yes I know they could mean 2012 End of World and just Reaper troop meteors, but I also imagine them as developer cues to something else (especially if ME3 isn't quite real, which is something I think more about than ITers). Keyword - imagine; so don't think many of what I say is being asserted as fact

[AlanC9]

It's up to you to answer it. You're the one making up Shepard falling to Earth.

[von uber]

Or damage the Crucible just enough so they lose because Shepard can't do anything but pick Destroy.

This is nonsense, and you know it.

That can be explained by the amount of war assets that... no, no, you are right, the whole makes no sense. Including why there are the three options there in the first place. Who built them?

[ImaginaryMatter]

That can be explained by the amount of war assets that... no, no, you are right, the whole makes no sense. Including why there are the three options there in the first place. Who built them?

 

I always wondered what was on the other two pylons located on the other side of the beam.

[SwobyJ]

It's up to you to answer it. You're the one making up Shepard falling to Earth.

 

Nah.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Until then, I am open to all interpretations of the ending but the Indoctrination Theory spectrum strikes me as the most plausible. Some of the variations are crazy, mind you, and I see a lot of people pointing to the fringes to discredit the whole concept.

 
Actually, the whole (core) concept of IT is flawed, not to mention pretentious and altogether preposterous.
 
IT assumes to know the player's motivations for choosing any option given option at the end of the game. Here, you've assumed that those who choose Destroy "paid attention" (to whatever single, arbitrary message you took away from a work of fiction) better than those who didn't (and you're not the first IT'er to make this charge). On the previous page, the assumption was made that choosing Destroy means your resolve is intact ... which means the rest are just weak, weak children. However, this is flawed logic at the end of the day: the only thing one can safely deduce from one's decision is that he/she thought it was the best course of action in that scenario. Anything -- and I mean anything -- else other than that is an invalid conclusion.
 
Do counter-arguments exist to invalidate the argument? Yes: post-EC, shooting the Catalyst, after agreeing to enact any one solution, triggers Refuse ending ... which IT calls a "wrong answer." Not only are you demonstrating hostile/uncooperative action towards the Reaper voice inside your head (or whatever IT thinks he "really" is) leads to Shepard seeing rocks fall. Explain that, and how "paying attention" would have prevented this failure? Or, Pre-EC, one can feasibly believe Control is a working loophole to destroy the Reapers without any more casualties. Not the kind of motives of a Reaper slave.

 

What happens when you assume? Hint: it makes a(n) ___ out of u and me.
 

For the record, I daresay I paid attention to the story better than any IT'er. I'm pretty much the lorekeeper on this thing. In fact, my understanding of this story is expressly why I reject IT (I've already covered just about all the out-of-game reasons to not believe it, I'd love to list off the in-game ones).
 

I will say this: the ending of ME3 is less abrupt on repeat playthroughs when one looks for foreshadowing elements in seemingly unrelated material.  For me, the Decision Chamber sequence is sort of a pop quiz asking Have you been paying attention?  Refuse to take the test?  Automatic failure of that test.  Wrong answer?  Also failure.  Right answer?  We'll have to get back to you on that.

 
Again, to understand IT, look no further than the fact it declares its followers' favorite ending to be the only right one (with odd exceptions).
 
If the final datapad and all the empirical evidence against Blue and Green being "wrong answers" somehow don't count, than Red showing you victory cannot (at least, it should not, if there were any concern for consistency here) be counted either. Who's to say that Refuse/Yellow isn't the only real ending, that everyone dies in this cycle and nothing Shepard does in his hallucination does anything but doom the galaxy (while Refuse just shows it without the deception/indoctrination)? I mean, that would actually be half-way compelling, since it's actually reconcilable with both the first ending and the EC (unlike IT).

 

IT logic is so backwards that you could even twist Destroy into an indoctrinated ending with some effort (as I did above, and on the previous page), but again, it's immune from this logic bomb because IT'ers want it to be -- it's their favorite ending (save for the odd Refuse!IT'er). In truth, this idea that choosing Destroy somehow entails something special that others do not have in them (never mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of Mass Effect players choose it over the other options) just seems like they're trying to convince themselves of something in an unending crisis-of-faith.

 

Some people get so mad when they're told they chose the wrong answer.

 
I think "mad" is not the right word, but "offended." And what do you expect? Your belief system, at its core, is offensive.
 
As I showed above, you hold to the beliefs that you are an exceptional people, in some way superior to those who don't subscribe to your dogma.
 
If you're going to hold that position, well, get used to people finding you pretentious and unpalatable.

[KaiserShep]

I imagine that if BioWare were to have a conclusion that was basically a Shepard-was-indoctrinated ending, it would at least try to lead the player through the mindf*ck somehow by having your perception of things continually change to make you question what's real and what's a trick. Thinking back on the Cerberus team studying the derelict reaper, that's kind of what was happening. People saw things move or disappear, shared memories and so forth. I'm not even sure how the team would properly do this in the gameplay. Would it be like a mix between Dragon Age's fade sequence and Project Overlord? I don't know. But whatever the case, BioWare would most likely be very explicit with what they intend for their ending, not drop tiny hints in the background that we can't interact with, unless they decided to take tips from JJ Abrams and create purposefully confounding details that ultimately go nowhere.

[ZerebusPrime]

HYR 2.0, you raise valid points (hence I "liked" your post).  I was trying to gently touch on the fact that many people find IT to be offensive.  I, obviously, am not one of them but once again I try to remain open to other interpretations of the ending (including literal ones).  If I have failed to clearly minimize my previous posts to be stating my own opinion on what I find to be plausible within the thread topic as opposed to telling you or others what you must believe, then that is my fault and I apologize. 

[SwobyJ]

I imagine that if BioWare were to have a conclusion that was basically a Shepard-was-indoctrinated ending, it would at least try to lead the player through the mindf*ck somehow by having your perception of things continually change to make you question what's real and what's a trick. Thinking back on the Cerberus team studying the derelict reaper, that's kind of what was happening. People saw things move or disappear, shared memories and so forth. I'm not even sure how the team would properly do this in the gameplay. Would it be like a mix between Dragon Age's fade sequence and Project Overlord? I don't know. But whatever the case, BioWare would most likely be very explicit with what they intend for their ending, not drop tiny hints in the background that we can't interact with, unless they decided to take tips from JJ Abrams and create purposefully confounding details that ultimately go nowhere.

 

Cerberus Scientist: That thing that just… gray thing! It disappeared when I looked straight at it. Came out of the damn wall! Where we took off that panel.

 

That said, my view is that indoctrination is present, but not everything going on. I think of it as one significant layer, but one that Shepard mostly 'defeats' in his TIM 'confrontation'.

 

Indoc also isn't explicit in peoples' minds that aren't being rapidly changed by it (rapid indoc would be the only apparent indoc, if anything). I don't think Shepard's indoc is rapid in ME3, nor do I think it's done with the goal to make him an utter tool. I DO think that it was the goal of the Reapers pre-ME3, but that the situation changes so much that the 'Intelligence' eventually reaches outright accord with Shepard (even if its still in a manipulating fashion).

 

And having a mystery for one game, or even one trilogy, doesn't mean that more context cannot be provided in a later installment. I wish I had the source for this (I've tried to recover it), but there was the one livestream with a ME3 producer (now not at Bioware) describing the plan for ME3 DLC as 'puzzle pieces'. Now, Leviathan could be easily understood as that, and maybe From Ashes, but Omega? Citadel? (but yes, Citadel might have been planned out post ME3's launch, so it might not count)

 

HYR 2.0, you raise valid points (hence I "liked" your post).  I was trying to gently touch on the fact that many people find IT to be offensive.  I, obviously, am not one of them but once again I try to remain open to other interpretations of the ending (including literal ones).  If I have failed to clearly minimize my previous posts to be stating my own opinion on what I find to be plausible within the thread topic as opposed to telling you or others what you must believe, then that is my fault and I apologize. 

 

I think I might be one of HYR's 'odd exceptions'? haha

 

Anyway, I consider Destroy to be the only route to victory, in its more literal definition.

But I also by now don't buy Control and Synth as not forms of 'winning'.

And I alsooo think that even if ME3 may be slanted towards Destroy in my ideas about it, that doesn't mean that 'Red/Renegade' is the main way to go in all Mass Effect, past and potentially future. I see Paragon/DestroyBase in ME2 to be the way to go for the writing in ME3 (exception being seeing the Reaper apparently intact in Cronos Station I suppose), and I see the future of the Mass franchise to actually be less 'Red' and more 'Blue', with an emphasis on constructing, fixing, improving, aiding, and forming relationships, compared to even all of ME1-3.

 

I don't think it's good RP to just be given the choice of 'you lose entirely' vs 'you win entirely'. It's one of my main disagreements with IT.

First off, it doesn't follow Bioware's pattern with major plot decisions, whether we like that aspect of their games or not.

Secondly, it stifles RP. I don't have a problem with indoctrination happening, and in fact love the concept, but it's almosttt *boring* to have Shepard's story only come down to that without any other details or contributing information or customization about it. I mean really, just have it between Control and Destroy in that case.

Thirdly, it doesn't set a good precedent imo. To just 'test' the player in this fashion strikes me as almost outright malicious towards the playerbase. I don't have a problem with people being tricked, but in this way? To this extent as IT says? Eh...

 

So yeah, I prefer to think that there's simply a more complex story and lore to be told, but we were just restricted by Shepard's perception, and that the future of Mass Effect will provide more perceptions, more range, and more possibilities than what most players currently can know. And in a way that doesn't eliminate the rationale for picking Destroy (heck, it'll even bolster it in ways, just less than ME1-3 were focused about it), but instead gives retroactive story reasoning to picking Control or Synth in future playthroughs.

 

I recognize my own position on this is almost purely speculative as well though, so I don't get too fussed about it . We'll see what happens anyway.