120 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

The N7 day "pressie" with FemShep narrating.

I don't see how one draws the conclusion that meant more Shepard without a crapload of wishful thinking.

[Jawsomebob]

The N7 day "pressie" with FemShep narrating.

 

Yes this is a hint for sure.

[AresKeith]

Yes this is a hint for sure.

 

No, it's reading too much into it
 

[Ajensis]

Yes this is a hint for sure.

 

It was a last homage to Shepard and his/her story, which Bioware knows we've bonded strongly to. Threads like this prove it.

 

Seriously, think about it. In Control and Synthesis (and Refuse), how would Shepard return? How could Bioware make it work without it being ridiculously ham-fisted? Forget about the Lazarus project, bringing Shepard back from any other ending than Destroy would blow any kind of tension and pretend-realism out of either galaxy. We'd never be able to take Mass Effect seriously again. Alternatively, they could make Destroy canon, but that would upset a lot of people, probably some of the Destroy-pickers too, and it would kinda ruin the whole point of bringing "your" Shepard back if they're just gonna ignore two thirds (arguably 75 %) of the possible endings.

 

To echo Kathic earlier in the thread: apply some logic here. Bringing Shepard back just doesn't make sense if they want to deliver a quality story.

 

You're not the first one hoping for Bioware's marketing to be deceptive - many believed fervently in the Indoctrination Theory (and might still do). Of course, both IT and Shepard as Andromeda's protagonist are technically possible, but, you know, Occam's Razor.

[Gothfather]

Yeah, but when you think about it, GoT is starting to be like comic books in a way as people just don't stay dead.  Despite the book and show's reputation,

Spoiler

Lady Stoneheart/Catlyn Stark, Berric Dondarrion, Robert Strong/The Mountain, Bloodraven, potentially the Hound, potentially (though not likely) Aegon VI, and Jon Snow

have managed to not stay dead, and who know how many more will be revealed.

 

It's like what they used to say, the only people to stay dead in comics were Uncle Ben, Bucky Barnes, and Jason Todd (I think you can see the problem there).  At this point, I honestly wouldn't be too surprised to see Sean Bean back on the GoT set.  Mass Effect on the other hand tends to keep people dead once we see them die, well, except for that kid, and I think we can all agree we'd rather he stayed dead.

 

And even then Bucky Barnes never stayed dead lol.

 

Winter soldier baby.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And even then Bucky Barnes never stayed dead lol.

 

Winter soldier baby.

And Jason Todd, who did die but then got better and became Red Hood. 

[Jawsomebob]

It was a last homage to Shepard and his/her story, which Bioware knows we've bonded strongly to. Threads like this prove it.

 

Seriously, think about it. In Control and Synthesis (and Refuse), how would Shepard return? How could Bioware make it work without it being ridiculously ham-fisted? Forget about the Lazarus project, bringing Shepard back from any other ending than Destroy would blow any kind of tension and pretend-realism out of either galaxy. We'd never be able to take Mass Effect seriously again. Alternatively, they could make Destroy canon, but that would upset a lot of people, probably some of the Destroy-pickers too, and it would kinda ruin the whole point of bringing "your" Shepard back if they're just gonna ignore two thirds (arguably 75 %) of the possible endings.

 

To echo Kathic earlier in the thread: apply some logic here. Bringing Shepard back just doesn't make sense if they want to deliver a quality story.

 

You're not the first one hoping for Bioware's marketing to be deceptive - many believed fervently in the Indoctrination Theory (and might still do). Of course, both IT and Shepard as Andromeda's protagonist are technically possible, but, you know, Occam's Razor.

 

Shepards indoctrination was not ever covered from a story standpoint at all in the first two games. Everyone was succumbing to the Reapers around Shepard but not anyone in Shepards party at all. It was like they were immune from it the first two games.

It makes sense for them to cover it in ME3.

 

With as much detail as they put into the Dragons age universe and with as much detail as they included in ME1 & ME2 and portions of ME3 as well as the codex including the indoctrination which not only lists the symptoms of the it but its effects.

 

Is anyone reading this thread an MD?

Other than extreme PTSD Shepard's experience in the third game closely matches the source material provided by the developers on Indoctronation.

 

The fact that Bioware would just forget how to compose a decent narrative at the ending given their other history makes no sense.

 

The reasons why Shepard will matter no matter what ending you choose is because Destroy means Shepard remains good and might talk to the new protagonist in some part of the game as an ally. Control and Synthesis mean that Shepard is more a negative influence that exists somewhere somehow...

 

And as for any statements Bioware has made that deny the Indoctrination Theory. I refer back to what HBO and Kit Harrington are doing with Jon Snow.

 

I am calling it: Shepard will play a role in the next game....even if it is just to the effect the "The hero of Ferelden" played in DA2 and DA Inquisition.

 

Even if IT is not true...Andromeda could take place sometime during the events of ME1 2 or 3. A N7 Marine goes out under Alliance orders to do something? Shepard is aware of the mission.

 

Perhaps a discovery is made in Andromeda that pulls you the player deeper into that world. The new protagonist gets sucked in the universe but involved in it's narrative all the while the other galaxy is still under reaper attack.

 

That would make it kind of like DA2. Starting before the end of ME3.

[Gileadan]

IT is BS. Its supposed effects on Shepard don't match anything told by NPCs who have actually been subjected to it (Rana Thanoptis, Matriarch Benezia). It's straw-grabbing at its finest. In short: indoctrination makes you serve the reapers - as in removing any other choices. It does not try to mess you up with hallucinations and then hopes you won't press the f*** you-button.

 

"This is Commander Shepard, signing off."

 

That was the end of the teaser trailer. I've bolded the important part. It was the final goodbye to the fans.

[animedreamer]

Why hold on to Shepard so hard? As much as I liked my Shepard, Im okay with moving on to a new protag as Shepard's story would become even more convoluted should s/he somehow survive ME3 only to become the hero in ME:A.

 

 

Besides ME3 did happen, so there would have been no point in which Shepard could have left for Andromeda. 

[Ajensis]

Shepards indoctrination was not ever covered from a story standpoint at all in the first two games. (...)

 

Oh, so this is an IT thread? I didn't realise. On one hand I'd ask you to specify that earlier, as it changes the entire perspective of your argument, but on the other I understand that you can't really mention IT without suffering a barrage of posts from other members ridiculing you.

 

In short, I like IT in principle and would be intrigued if it played a role in Andromeda... but also very cautious. I think implementing IT is more likely to fail horribly than work well. But I'm open to the possibility. However, I think there's a very small chance that Bioware ever intended to do anything with it.

 

As for the specific points in your posts: I like how much you and other IT'ers have thought about it, but I think you're giving Bioware too much credit and reading too much into their work. I'll leave it at that, as we cannot possibly find out one way or another until Andromeda arrives I'm as convinced that we won't see Shepard as you probably are that we will and neither of us are likely able to change the other's mind (and maybe we shouldn't, anyway).

[KaiserShep]

Yeah I would be happy if indoctrination is dead and buried and left entirely to the annals of the Milky Way's sordid history. I don't want radiating space cooties in the new Mass Effect game.

[Lucca_de_Neon]

As much as i liked the IT (and still do), i think it's irrelevant to ME:A. I don't think this game will cover what happened at the end of ME3. I think ME:A will be like the quarian flotilla for a time until we get a new planet (or several, considering the number of species). The Milky Way is gone..for better or for worse. I would be surprised if this doesn't happen but it's going to be quite the challenge for Bioware.

[ACika011]

Actually as i heard from a person who read all the books, John Snow does come back but his character and personality is completely different the same can be said about his mother.

Isn't it confirmed the game is going to take place 30 years after ME:3 and if so its really possible we might see Liara . After the launch of ME:A we will see if the IT was just a theory or something more.

[Pressedcat]

Actually as i heard from a person who read all the books, Jon Snow does come back but his character and personality is completely different the same can be said about his mother.
Isn't it confirmed the game is going to take place 30 years after ME:3 and if so its really possible we might see Liara . After the launch of ME:A we will see if the IT was just a theory or something more.

Unless this person is proofreading for GRRM (or possibly Martin in a wig), they're telling you porkies. The books and tv series are about level now in the timeline, with the tv series likely to overtake within the next few months.

What they said was perfectly feasible speculation, but that's probably all it is.

[Fredward]

If Jonnie comes back in the same within the same magical framework others have been brought back (which is very likely if he IS dead) then yeah, he'll have a very different personality. Which is another bonus for ASOIAF, people who come back don't just come back because they faked their death or never died, it's a relatively rigid structure in the mythology that greenlights resurrection.

[FERMi27]

Holy lol, I can't believe the indoctrination theory thing hasn't been forgotten after so many years. Last time I remember the massive, infernal holywars taking place at the old Bioware social forums.

 

I'm still an adept too btw. Has anything new popped up over the years? Any bits or pieces of confirmation maybe? Or is Marauder Shields the true archnemesis of Commander Shepard until this day?

[Eryri]

Shepards indoctrination was not ever covered from a story standpoint at all in the first two games. Everyone was succumbing to the Reapers around Shepard but not anyone in Shepards party at all. It was like they were immune from it the first two games.

Indeed. Before ME3 came out I actually half expected Shepard to have some sort of struggle with the Reaper's influence. The fact that this never came up seems like such a wasted dramatic opportunity. Who invents an antagonist that is defined by its ability to control minds, and then never have it use that signature ability on the protagonist?

As for Shepard turning up in Andromeda, I don't hold out much hope, although I would be personally delighted. Not because I am especially attached to Shepard any more, or because I want to play as Shepard again, but because his/her mere survival would make almost all the RGB endings from the Crucible null and void. And I loathe the Crucible and everything connected to it. To use an comparison with Star Wars...

Spoiler

it makes Starkiller Base, a weapon that can swallow Suns whole and then spit them out at planets in a whole other star system, seem like the hardest sci-fi of Arthur C Clarke.

The Mass Effect universe may be be pretty soft sci-fi in things like its explanation of Biotics, but it still deserves better than to contain that piece of nonsense. Hell, the bloody Reapers deserve a better end than the one they were given. Nothing would please me more (in a perverse, horrible, grim-dark way) than the revelation that the Crucible plans were planted by Reapers as a massive practical joke to trick those witless organics into building a power source for the manufacture of the new Reaper. Or, by the Leviathans to enthrall everyone in the galaxy at once. At least those, horrible, outcomes would be more consistent with the lore, tone and themes of the story.

I suspect that Bioware wish to put the whole thing behind them though. Which would probably be the most sensible course of action on their part, though not very satisfying for mine.

[SwobyJ]

Commander Shepard is dead.

 

Long live The Shepard.

[ACika011]

Holy lol, I can't believe the indoctrination theory thing hasn't been forgotten after so many years. Last time I remember the massive, infernal holywars taking place at the old Bioware social forums.

 

I'm still an adept too btw. Has anything new popped up over the years? Any bits or pieces of confirmation maybe? Or is Marauder Shields the true archnemesis of Commander Shepard until this day?

Why would it be forgotten? To be honest you can't blame people who believe in it. There are a lot of little pieces and even large ones that support it. The most convincing one is Shepard surviving at the end if you choose the destroy ending which is literally IMPOSSIBLE if you were on the Citadel, there is no way Shepard could have survived the explosion on the Citadel and then the re-entry to earth atmosphere and the impact and surviving so long without a breathing helmet. I personally don't understand people who just refuse to even think about it, if you ask me the IT shouldn't be called a theory there are so many things going for it and even things that the devs said at conventions. Maybe im just a fan that refuses to accept the ending, and maybe im a person who refuses to believe the writers who made a amazing universe, characters, story and lore would be so sloppy at the end. From personal experience i would never allow myself to end something so badly after working on it for almost 10 years. I guess only time will tell, and i sincerely hope the IT wasn't just a theory.

[Master Warder Z_]

Why would it be forgotten? To be honest you can't blame people who believe in it.

 

Despite Bioware point blank saying that wasn't the case?

 

Its people deliberately ignoring what the folks who write the game have to say on the issue to have their fanfiction.

[saladinbob]

Commander Shepard is dead.

 

Long live The Shepard.

 

Yes, Commander Shepard is dead but he/she has probably been promoted to Captain by now

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Listen.

 

HBO flat out said Jon Snow was dead and not coming back. This has pretty much been proven false and everyone is expecting to see Kit Harrington back next season.

 

This means that Bioware can lie about Shepard all they want.

 

Heck even indoctrination theory might even prove to be true in Andromedia.

 

Never trust what developers say that is not explicitly in the source material if they are making a sequel. If they were not planning a sequel what they say about things would be more true.

 

But the fact of the matter is if they have an upcoming game they will outright lie just like HBO did.

 

 

The IT is as bad if not even worst than the original pre-DLC endings did, because it makes even less sense all it does it reset the damn thing back to London and nothing is resolved. Give it rest.

 

The ONLY way that Shepard can be in ME:A that makes any sense IMHO is that we learn that there is another clone buried deep on the ship going to the Andromeda Galaxy.   

[SwobyJ]

Despite Bioware point blank saying that wasn't the case?

 

Its people deliberately ignoring what the folks who write the game have to say on the issue to have their fanfiction.

 

Source.

[AlanC9]

he most convincing one is Shepard surviving at the end if you choose the destroy ending which is literally IMPOSSIBLE if you were on the Citadel, there is no way Shepard could have survived the explosion on the Citadel and then the re-entry to earth atmosphere and the impact and surviving so long without a breathing helmet.

Bio's already said that scene was on the Citadel. Where'd you guys ever get the idea that Shepard would magically re-enter Earth's atmosphere,anyway? The Citadel was in orbit, and would stay in orbit.

I personally don't understand people who just refuse to even think about it,

Oh, we've thought about it, all right.

Anyway, the real problem with IT isn't so much that Bio never intended it, or even that it's nonsense. Bio can retcon it into being true even if it is nonsense, so this isn't an obstacle. The problem is that IT is hated.

[Eryri]

Bio's already said that scene was on the Citadel. Where'd you guys ever get the idea that Shepard would magically re-enter Earth's atmosphere,anyway? The Citadel was in orbit, and would stay in orbit.Oh, we've thought about it, all right.
Anyway, the real problem with IT isn't so much that Bio never intended it, or even that it's nonsense. Bio can retcon it into being true even if it is nonsense, so this isn't an obstacle. The problem is that IT is hated.

By none more so than you Alan, to be fair. It's not hated by everyone. And let's face it, the vanilla endings as they stand are unlikely to make many people's top ten list of greatest endings ever.