937 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

I'm surprised how many True Believers are coming out of the woodwork... I subscribe to "Bad Writing Theory" myself.

Patrick Weekes wrote...

This was entirely the work of our lead and Casey himself, sitting in a room and going through draft after draft.

And honestly, it kind of shows.

Every other mission in the game had to be held up to the rest of the writing team, and the writing team then picked it apart and made suggestions and pointed out the parts that made no sense. This mission? Casey and our lead deciding that they didn’t need to be peer-reviewed

And again, it shows.

[Chardonney]

I never belived it for a second and never will. It's definitely not my cup of tea.

[Kingthlayer]

Initially I figured everything after Harbinger was a dream of sorts, because the whole thing just felt completely out of place.  But I never once believed Shepard was indoctrinated in any way, we've seen indoctrinated people through out the game, and if anything can be said for all of them is that they lost.  I refused to believe Shepard had lost.

 

Added to my belief that it was a dream was that I'm fairly certain Anderson, Hackett and the Catalyst all told Shepard to wake up, though I think those lines were cut out of the EC.

 

If they just laid out the ending presentation better I wouldn't have thought it was a dream, Anderson should have followed Shepard up, not say he did but clearly didn't.  And TIM should have been waiting at the console.  That would have made that scene look so much better, also of course they shouldn't have given TIM super powers but that's was just bad writing not bad presentation.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

As in topic. After the dust has settled and the last DLC is in the can, do people still believe the ending to ME3 was a hallucination cooked up by Shepard's indoctrination? Just curious.

 

 

Yes...

 

... despite the facts that: (1) pre-EC, the game ends with a datapad in the player's face saying Shepard becomes a legend for stopping the Reapers (regardless ending choice); (2) EC legitimizes the concept of the ending as reality, stomping out various IT talking points (how/why your squadmates end up back on the Normandy, how/why Hackett knows you're on the Citadel and talks to you...); (3) post-EC, a historically dishonest rep from BioWare's historically dishonest PR team says IT is still a valid interpretation despite EC showing otherwise (obvious attempt at save-face, funny how credulous IT'ers become when the evidence supports what they *want* to believe); (4) Word of God on the ending always plays to it being real, not IT; (5) Jessica Merizan says she plays ME3 with IT as headcanon (indicating it isn't canon); and (6) the leaked ME3 scripts had no IT subplot (despite some myths saying otherwise); IT still persists.

 

To quote a wise woman: many people fear change, and will fight it with every fiber of their being.

[Iakus]

 (3) post-EC, a historically dishonest rep from BioWare's historically dishonest PR team says IT is still a valid interpretation despite EC showing otherwise (obvious attempt at save-face, funny how credulous IT'ers become when the evidence supports what they *want* to believe);

 

...

(5) Jessica Merizan says she plays ME3 with IT as headcanon (indicating it isn't canon); and (6) the leaked ME3 scripts had no IT subplot (despite some myths saying otherwise); IT still persists.

 

Given this semi-permission to believe IT is valid, makes you wonder even more how MENext will handle things...

[Village_Idiot]

Whilst I do believe that ME3's ending chamber sequence uses a certain amount of allegory and isn't meant to be interpreted entirely literally, I don't support IT. Not that I can disprove it of course.

 

People can believe whatever they like. But personally, I view IT as a mixture of over-analysis, giving the writers too much credit, and a hint of denial.

[Perpetual Nirvana]

Yes...

 

... despite the facts that: (1) pre-EC, the game ends with a datapad in the player's face saying Shepard becomes a legend for stopping the Reapers (regardless ending choice); (2) EC legitimizes the concept of the ending as reality, stomping out various IT talking points (how/why your squadmates end up back on the Normandy, how/why Hackett knows you're on the Citadel and talks to you...); (3) post-EC, a historically dishonest rep from BioWare's historically dishonest PR team says IT is still a valid interpretation despite EC showing otherwise (obvious attempt at save-face, funny how credulous IT'ers become when the evidence supports what they *want* to believe); (4) Word of God on the ending always plays to it being real, not IT; (5) Jessica Merizan says she plays ME3 with IT as headcanon (indicating it isn't canon); and (6) the leaked ME3 scripts had no IT subplot (despite some myths saying otherwise); IT still persists.

 

To quote a wise woman: many people fear change, and will fight it with every fiber of their being.

 

Yes, this! All of this!

 

Sorry DoomsdayDevice but all you have are the white transitions which, by themselves, mean nothing. Not compared to all the evidence that proves the ending is taking place in reality.

 

IT Theory is what explains the ending the best. Otherwise it doesn't make sense one bit.

 

People always say that, ignoring that most of the IT itself makes no sense.

 

I mean look at this. Most ITers propose Harbingers beam that hit's Shepard is not a proper laser but some kind of "indoctrination beam". That's just preposterous. Why would the Reapers have such a thing? Why would they even need it given that all you need to be indoctrinated is to be in close proximity to a Reaper or their tech? And if they do possess such a device why do the Reapers never use it on anyone other than Shepard?

 

Most of the IT is based on fallacy. Like the idea that Harbinger doesn't attack the Normandy and misses Shepard during the beam run on purpose because he wants Shepard to live, ignoring the fact that Reapers have spent most of the game trying to kill Shepard.

[Cecilia L]

I must say I believe more in the "Bad Writing Theory" that DeinonSlayer mentioned, but I myself always choose to interpret the ending as IT=true even though that still leaves us without an ending.

 

IT makes so much more sense and is so much better than what we got. It's a bit like believing in Santa I guess, you're too old to still believe, but if he showed up one day and gave you a Mass Effect 4 that continued Shepard's story from the London rubble, that would be totally awesome.

[AlanC9]

 
Added to my belief that it was a dream was that I'm fairly certain Anderson, Hackett and the Catalyst all told Shepard to wake up, though I think those lines were cut out of the EC

Easy enough to check. There are plenty of pre-EC vids up.

[AlanC9]

 
IT makes so much more sense and is so much better than what we got. It's a bit like believing in Santa I guess, you're too old to still believe, but if he showed up one day and gave you a Mass Effect 4 that continued Shepard's story from the London rubble, that would be totally awesome.

Eww.

[Invisible Man]

Eww.

ditto.

[Toshiro M]

I stil believe in IT. For me it makes sense, it makes ending intelligible. But I do not believe that they will make this as canon ending. It is free interpretation of ending. I hate ending of ME3, everything after the beam makes no sense to me. After Harbinger hit it feels like it is not Mass Effect, like the Team who made whole series was changed. I hope that BioWare will make it clear in Mass Effect 4 and all debates  will end. For now it just lots of speculation for everyone, but it is my opinion.

[Steelcan]

why don't you ask them?

 

But not in the chatbox

 

http://indoctrinatio...rumotion.co.uk/

[CronoDragoon]

 I hope that BioWare will make it clear in Mass Effect 4 and all debates  will end.

 

Won't happen. ITers gonna IT. I bet even if BW canonized Control or Synthesis they'd find a way to spin it into their yarn.

 

Hell, BW flat out says in the Final Hours app " we were thinking of having an indoctrination section at the end but scrapped it" and people STILL believe in IT. Literally "it isn't in the game" didn't dissuade them.

[DoomsdayDevice]

 

I mean look at this. Most ITers propose Harbingers beam that hit's Shepard is not a proper laser but some kind of "indoctrination beam". That's just preposterous. Why would the Reapers have such a thing? Why would they even need it given that all you need to be indoctrinated is to be in close proximity to a Reaper or their tech? And if they do possess such a device why do the Reapers never use it on anyone other than Shepard?

 

Most of the IT is based on fallacy. Like the idea that Harbinger doesn't attack the Normandy and misses Shepard during the beam run on purpose because he wants Shepard to live, ignoring the fact that Reapers have spent most of the game trying to kill Shepard.

 

A lot of things people say about IT are misunderstandings or random ramblings by individuals that IT-ers generally don't believe in.

 

This 'indoctrination beam' is a good example.

 

A much simpler explanation would be that Harbinger simply fired a near miss to make it seem like he thinks he finished off Shepard. If we look at how Leviathan shows Shepard an illusion in which it seems like Shepard is in a different place than inside the mech, it's clear that the Leviathans do this not with a beam, but instantly. Maybe they use the fragments for it, but they don't need a beam. Now, as Leviathan explains "All Reapers possess the ability to influence organics, over the ages it was perfected and gave rise to indoctrination". So whatever it is that the Leviathans do, the Reapers can do it better. Then also remember that Shepard has extensive implants and synthetic parts that could be hacked, so a false sensory input could be sent to Shep's brain.

 

As for the Reapers trying to kill Shepard all the time... it wouldn't be much of a game if it was obvious that they let us go all the time, not to mention boring. Imagine having to fight the Rannoch Reaper without the thing making an actual attempt to kill you. Also, the Reapers have been observing Shepard, and like Leviathan they realize Shepard's victories are not just a product of chance. They know Shepard will prevail, and wait to strike at the opportune moment.

[ImaginaryMatter]

A lot of things people say about IT are misunderstandings or random ramblings by individuals that IT-ers generally don't believe in.

 

This 'indoctrination beam' is a good example.

 

A much simpler explanation would be that Harbinger simply fired a near miss to make it seem like he thinks he finished off Shepard. If we look at how Leviathan shows Shepard an illusion in which it seems like Shepard is in a different place than inside the mech, it's clear that the Leviathans do this not with a beam, but instantly. Maybe they use the fragments for it, but they don't need a beam. Now, as Leviathan explains "All Reapers possess the ability to influence organics, over the ages it was perfected and gave rise to indoctrination". So whatever it is that the Leviathans do, the Reapers can do it better. Then also remember that Shepard has extensive implants and synthetic parts that could be hacked, so a false sensory input could be sent to Shep's brain.

 

As for the Reapers trying to kill Shepard all the time... it wouldn't be much of a game if it was obvious that they let us go all the time, not to mention boring. Imagine having to fight the Rannoch Reaper without the thing making an actual attempt to kill you. Also, the Reapers have been observing Shepard, and like Leviathan they realize Shepard's victories are not just a product of chance. They know Shepard will prevail, and wait to strike at the opportune moment.

 

Well I think the simplest explanation is that the strength of Reaper beams vary greatly depending on the needs of the plot.

 

The Leviathan's method of control works completely differently than Indoctrination, the Leviathans use straight up mind control where as Indoctrination is more akin to psychological manipulation. I'm not exactly sure how you concluded that Reapers have an improved version of Leviathan mind control, that quote you gave just talked about the Reapers developing Indoctrination (which in most aspects pales in comparison to mind control).

 

I'm less sure where you are going with the last paragraph. Are you saying the Reapers let Shepard go on purpose? Implying that they could totally stop him at any time? That makes it seem like Shepard just wins because the Reapers are dumb. Like did the Rannoch Reaper not sweep the beam because it was throwing the fight?

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

A very long and interesting post....

 

I would be lying if I said this hadn't crossed my mind. If the breath scene is just there as a "glimmer of hope," and not as the cliff-hanger it would be in a movie, then it serves no purpose at all. If it is supposed to be a definitive "Shepard lives," then why didn't they clarify that in the EC when they clarified everything else? So it's either a cliff-hanger or it is bad writing.

 

In two of the endings, the reapers are still around. Was the plot twist that the reapers are actually the good guys saving the galaxy from itself? Ha ha.

 

I've watched Leviathan on Youtube, and it's sole purpose is to foreshadow the intelligence. Yet Shepard sees the kid in the vent that Anderson doesn't see; sees the kid that no one sees.... was BW going for symbolism here where that child represented all the people on Earth who died? Or was that Harbinger's avatar? Then Shepard has dreams of Harby's avatar. Then sees Harby's avatar in the end! "You don't want to kill us. Think of the child!" 

 

But BW banned everyone who believed in IT, so there is no IT, even if it's true.

[geth47]

"(1) pre-EC, the game ends with a datapad in the player's face"

 

It could be interpreted that not only sheppard was fooled, but the player as well. 

 

"EC legitimizes the concept of the ending as reality, stomping out various IT talking points (how/why your squad mates end up back on the Normandy"

 

The worst-written scene in the whole trilogy. The Normandy arrives in just a moment. I mean, during the first mission, even though the normandy can see that the dreadnought is going to be destroyed (in visual range of sheppard and anderson) it still takes them a lot of time to arrive at the port since anderson calls. 

 

How could harbinger let the evacuation take place? It had a perfect shot.

 

"how/why Hackett knows you're on the Citadel and talks to you"

 

One could say that this is sheppard´s expectation.

 

"(3) post-EC, a historically dishonest rep from BioWare's historically dishonest PR team says IT is still a valid interpretation despite EC showing otherwise"

 

It doesn´t get more official than this. If they say it´s valid, then eat it: It is still valid as a possible theory, but not an assured fact. it means that nothing in the EC invalidates the theory. 

 

And as for the evacuation, it was clearly an error in the ending that they felt needed fixing. It does not ruin the notion that the whole ending was a dream. It merely addresses what was a mistake in the first place. 

 

"Jessica Merizan says she plays ME3 with IT as headcanon (indicating it isn't canon)"

 

Hold on, pal. Not being canon does not mean that it´s false and should be disregarded. Not being canon should be understood as not being the officially recognized explanation. 

 

Take for instance names like HIKARU Sulu, NYOTA Uhura or James TIBERIUS Kirk from star trek. For a long time, they were not enforced as canon. It does not mean that they were wrong, or that the characters of Sulu and Uhura did not have first names. 

 

It is indeed wrong to take IT as an assured fact, but it´s also wrong to reject it as impossible, since even Bioware spokesmen´s say it´s valid as a possibility.

[geth47]

One interesting thing is that just prior to shooting at sheppard, the reaper harbing emits a strange sound. It does not make a sound like this one prior to any of the many shoots it directs against the troops and the makos. Maybe the sound was similar to leviathan powers, and everything that happened after that moment, including the laser, was just an illusion. 

 

The scene is really strange. One can say that it was for dramatic purposes, but indoctrination is related to hearing sounds and voices inside one´s own head. 

 

Also, to this day I still don´t get the first scene with the boy, in which he makes a magic entrance and then fades away. Sometimes I wonder if Sheppard is still dreaming about ME3 after the initial attack on Earth against the alliance base. . 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

One interesting thing is that just prior to shooting at sheppard, the reaper harbing emits a strange sound. It does not make a sound like this one prior to any of the many shoots it directs against the troops and the makos. Maybe the sound was similar to leviathan powers, and everything that happened after that moment, including the laser, was just an illusion. 

 

The scene is really strange. One can say that it was for dramatic purposes, but indoctrination is related to hearing sounds and voices inside one´s own head. 

 

Also, to this day I still don´t get the first scene with the boy, in which he makes a magic entrance and then fades away. Sometimes I wonder if Sheppard is still dreaming about ME3 after the initial attack on Earth against the alliance base. . 

 

 

Bioware gave that boy climbing skills like Spiderman. If you use the flycam you can see him scale the building. But how did he get there from the rooftop about 1/4 mile away? That's amazing. Unless... The second one is a husk and Harby is manipulating Shepard's mind to see it as a child. Yet the child survives in that vent. Amazing!

 

I think they put that stuff in the game to mess with people because they knew that people with PCs would look around. They knew their plot and writing was s***, full of ass pulls, plot holes the size of Texas, and stuff that just didn't make sense. So this stuff is there to mess with you. See normal people would be so concentrating on shooting husks that they'd miss the kid scaling the building. They'd be so in awe of the mere presence of Kai Leng that they would buy Thane just trying to be cool and failing, while Shepard just stands there and watches Kai Leng kill him.... "OMG! Kai Leng is killing Thane! Somebody do something!" I know that Shepard needs conflict for there to be a story, but does the conflict have to be Shepard's struggle against being stupid?

 

It's that scab. I've got to stop picking at it. I just can't stop.

[von uber]

Was it ever explained how TIM gets shepard to shoot Anderson?

[69_Gio_69]

I think the writers intended 'the final choice' as a ultimate 'boss battle'. As been referenced a 1000 times that Casey Hudson said that Bioware tried to incorporate a boss battle, but concluded that it did not coincide with what mass effect actually stands for. Mass Effect never was about shooting things, but about making choices. Therefore, a boss battle would be too video gamey. In all fairness I understood his point, because it would turn out as something like the Rannoch Reaper battle, or the boss battle of ME2. Which where both not that satisfying.  

 

When you brainstorm from the perspective that they wanted to have some kind of final battle within the themes of Mass Effect, a logical outcome would be a fight with Harbinger (or a ultimate reaper) translated in the form of a final choice. You fight the reapers and their ultimate weapon: Indoctrination. It makes perfect sense. 

 

Many people here have said that in their Final Hours App, Hudson explains how the IDEA for indoctrinating Shepard in the end had all been scrapped. This actually is not true. He states:

 

"And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped because the gamplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue aptions)." 

 

Facts that you can reduce from his statement are:

- Indoctrination was part of a brainstomerming idea for the endgame. 

- In the end of development they were still trying to incorporate a indoctrination mechanic while using dialogue. 

- The mechanic was experimented on by the gameplay team (so this concept was in development stage, not just brainstorming)

- The gameplay team gets its instructions from the writing team, so the writing team must have had ideas about using indoctrination in the final sequence in storyline perspective. 

- The writers wanted to let the gamer choose dialogue options while being under reaper control.

- The gameplay mechanic had been dropped (not necessarily the whole idea).

 

I think the biggest problem for them was that Shepard was indoctrinated, but you as a player still had control over his dialogue. In other words: Shepards body was indoctrinated, but his mind (the player) was not. Therefore it missed the essence of what indoctrination is: 'mindcontrol', not 'bodycontrol' and that's why it didn't work.   

We know that in this late stage of development they scrapped this mechanic. Now there are two options:

1. Choose a totally different concept for the end game without indoctrination.

2. Keep the concept of indoctrination, but remove the mechanic and try a different method.

 

Looking at indoctrination theory. Is the concept not exactly the same? We must make a final choice while being under reaper control. The only difference is: instead of indoctrinating just Shepard they tried to indoctrinate the player as well, so the mechanic wasn't needed anymore.  

[Farangbaa]

Omg a blue polygon that should've been red.

 

INDOCTRINATION!!!!!

[Lawrence0294]

Hang on just a second there - I'm sure you'll find people who continue to maintain that Bioware will release DLC revealing IT to be true next week.

[AlanC9]

Bioware gave that boy climbing skills like Spiderman. If you use the flycam you can see him scale the building.

Anyone got a vid of that? Plus a time code if you have to wade through a lot of IT blather to get to the scene, of course.

(Or is jUliA putting us on again? I can never tell with her)