can anybody tell me why citadel was brought on sol system and particularity near earth (mass effect 3) ! and how exactly breaking from indoctrination which happens within Shepard's mind make any difference ! i mean neither it destroys reaper or end the cycle !
(according to the indoctrination theory)
The Citadel was brought to earth because the Reapers used a wizard and flying pink elephant's to tow it there. As to why the the reapers wanted the Citadel at earth, they were apparently going to use the Citadel to melt down humans in order to build another Reaper because humans are special for some reason, and the Citadel can apparently build reapers.
The assumption is, ad the indoctrination theory been true then the end of Me3 would had been a battle raging in Shepard's head. If Shepard had failed then he/she would have become indoctrinated and that would mark the end to the story, but if Shepard had succeeded in fighting indoctrination then the story would have led into an epilogue dlc in which Shepard would have woke up in the rubble in London to finish the fight.
The final breath scene in the high ems destroy ending shows Shepard seemingly taking a breath in what looks like the ruins of London.
And then we have this go through his head the entire time he limps to the beam again.
I have looked into indoctrination theory and had a similar question. How can the game be over if it all happened in Shep's head? I reckon the theory is unlikely as it would have required too much thought on the part of the game makers. The poor ending with so many holes has led people to try to find deeper meanings in poor graphics, reuse of old images and in-game glitches. The furor over the bad endings also seems to have led bioware to neither confirm or deny the theory. It nicely gets them off the hook. Making them looking clever, instead of rushed and careless. I liked the games. Hated the Origin interface, and made due with the extended cut. I doubt I will bother with Andromeda or any other of their titles. What started as a grand adventure in character development devolved into a franchise devoted to selling DLC and add ons for multiplayer.
Wasn´t part of the theory that the ending DLC will be the real end?
Wasn´t part of the theory that the ending DLC will be the real end?
Yep, I was really hoping for that one. 
can anybody tell me why citadel was brought on sol system and particularity near earth (mass effect 3) ! and how exactly breaking from indoctrination which happens within Shepard's mind make any difference ! i mean neither it destroys reaper or end the cycle !
(according to the indoctrination theory)
To the first part: because TAKE BACK EARTH!!!
To the second...I dunno "Art" seems to be a universal answer to nonsense 
It was taken to Earth to protect it. All the reapers had to do was send a bunch of them to surround the Citadel leaving it where it was. With the arms closed, there would be no way for Shepard to get on the Citadel. The only two ways, if possible, would be to get hold of someone on the Citadel to find a way to open the arms or have Shepard go back to Ilos to see if there was a way to use the conduit again.
Another reason is that not only to protect it, but to start making a reaper. I would not be surprised if the reapers moved the Citadel to each homeworld in the previous cycles to make a reaper.
The only logical way I think anything regarding the IT could work is if defeating the Reapers via Shepard's mind was due to the Protheans adding their own parts to the Crucible and since they were known for using their thoughts for many things, Shepard choosing to break free of indoctrination by destroying the machine or controlling it or jumping into the beam would be a sort of mind power that activated the Crucible.
Javik seems to hint this at Shepard during random convos with him on the Normandy.
So IT is still a thing huh?
Cit was brought to Earth because that was the planet being hit the hardest by Reapers. It is also the home of Shepard thus would ensure it would lure him and his alliance to them for the slaughter.
Wasn´t part of the theory that the ending DLC will be the real end?
Wouldn't make sense though, because it relies on the player picking destroy to access it. So everyone who picked control, synthesis, etc wouldn't be able to play it. Shepard is dead, and all DLC for these games requires Shepard to be alive.
It's easier to implement access to DLC, say before Cronos or after the Citadel coup, because everyone can play it. Not with this.
There's more than one interpretation to IT though. Perhaps the one where Shepard wakes up and finishes the fight was incorrect. It didn't happen like that.
and how exactly breaking from indoctrination which happens within Shepard's mind make any difference ! i mean neither it destroys reaper or end the cycle !
Sure it does. The Geth server level is kind of foreshadowing for the ending. So that's how it happened.
You make the choice from within the server, and you see the outcome from the outside. Shepard is still unconscious when it happens. Replay the level and watch.
Much like Shepard is with the ending. When he wakes up, the Reapers have been destroyed.
Well, it´s not my theory, I wasn´t there when people cooked it up. Perhaps they thought, you would get a critical mission failure, when you choose Control or Synthesis with the the DLC implemented?
Well, it´s not my theory, I wasn´t there when people cooked it up. Perhaps they thought, you would get a critical mission failure, when you choose Control or Synthesis with the the DLC implemented?
Nope. I think that would make people mad even more. They were already upset because of the ending, so doing that would just be adding more fuel to the fire. Remember, at the time Bioware was in damage control mode. So creating that kind of DLC would not be the best idea.
Yeah ok, but the general idea was that Shep gets indoctrinated and the whole end sequence is an ilusion, a battle in Shepard´s mind.
The choice is a lie.Doesn´t matter that it wouldn´t be the best idea for BW to releases something like this, when you are already that far. Even after the EC you get gems like this:
Now the post decision scenes are shown which are continued fabrications of Shepard's mind. The EC just goes into detail on these choices; still Reaper hallucinations.
- If Shepard chooses Control or Synthesis, he gets nothing (original ending). In the EC, he believes he made the best choice for the galaxy, with unrealistic consequences. These two choices, regardless of outcome, go against everything he has been fighting for the whole series.
- If you choose Destroy, you get dead Reapers and no real benefits. EMS score changes this; low makes everyone die and high makes the infamous 'breath scene' be shown right before the credits. Shepard was stessed because he knew he would fail (low) or breaths his first or last breath (high).
I have looked into indoctrination theory and had a similar question. How can the game be over if it all happened in Shep's head?
Remember stargazer?
"one more story"
Yeah ok, but the general idea was that Shep gets indoctrinated and the whole end sequence is an ilusion, a battle in Shepard´s mind.
The choice is a lie.Doesn´t matter that it wouldn´t be the best idea for BW to releases something like this, when you are already that far. Even after the EC you get gems like this:
You have to look at it from a business perspective, not a consumer perspective. Releasing a DLC that says game over to an already angry customer base isn't a smart idea. Which is why they didn't do it.
That, and they've already told people numerous times that there is no canon ending. So there won't be a DLC released telling people which ending is correct.
Kind of like this:
Bioware gave its customers plenty of choice: but to keep these choices relevant, the game had to be devoid of a “Golden Ending”: the conclusion had to remain open to interpretation, otherwise everyone who could would have deliberately ignored any moral dilemma encountered, only asking themselves “which choice brings me to the best ending”.
You have to look at it from a business perspective, not a consumer perspective. Releasing a DLC that says game over to an already angry customer base isn't a smart idea. Which is why they didn't do it.
True and it was really too good to hope for in our day and age (and business culture) but it would have been a really gutsy move and it would have secured the ME franchise an immortal place in the history of interactive story telling. But since it wasn't BW's original intention anyway (which is what the theory really was about) it's idle talk these days anyway.
True and it was really too good to hope for in our day and age (and business culture) but it would have been a really gutsy move and it would have secured the ME franchise an immortal place in the history of interactive story telling. But since it wasn't BW's original intention anyway (which is what the theory really was about) it's idle talk these days anyway.
I seem to remember Bethsada studio attempting to do that. Were once you got to the final level it was game over. Players threw an absolute **** fit over it. So Broken Steel DLC pulled the whole j/k your not actually dead.
I seem to remember Bethsada studio attempting to do that. Were once you got to the final level it was game over. Players threw an absolute **** fit over it. So Broken Steel DLC pulled the whole j/k your not actually dead.
I never made it all the way through FO3, so I am not sure how exactly it compares but from what I read, I don't think it's the same really (at least not in the sense that I mean but as I said, not sure).
The whole thing wouldn't have been so much about the ending change per se but more about the fact that BW would have managed to really involve the player choice into a part of the narrative (i.e. the indoctrination angle) itself. That would have been something truly exclusive to interactive media (you couldn't do this in a book or movie) and it would have really emphasized the whole choice aspect of the game by subverting it into a narrative mechanic instead of a gameplay mechanic (I tried to explain it in a bit more detail here). Sure, it would have upset a lot of people but (or maybe rather because of this) it would have been brilliant (IMO).
I dunno if retconning it to be true would count as the same kind of brilliance. Brilliant opportunism, maybe...... if it ended up being popular.
Yes, agreed. That's why I wrote this:
But since it wasn't BW's original intention anyway (which is what the theory really was about) it's idle talk these days anyway.
I never made it all the way through FO3, so I am not sure how exactly it compares but from what I read, I don't think it's the same really (at least not in the sense that I mean but as I said, not sure).
The whole thing wouldn't have been so much about the ending change per se but more about the fact that BW would have managed to really involve the player choice into a part of the narrative (i.e. the indoctrination angle) itself. That would have been something truly exclusive to interactive media (you couldn't do this in a book or movie) and it would have really emphasized the whole choice aspect of the game by subverting it into a narrative mechanic instead of a gameplay mechanic (I tried to explain it in a bit more detail here). Sure, it would have upset a lot of people but (or maybe rather because of this) it would have been brilliant (IMO).
Basically at the end of the game you are left with only one choice to go into a radioactive area and die to save or sabotage something. (keeping if vauge if you or others don't want spoilers) At that point you die and game is over.
Players when presented with this threw a fit over Bethesda's set up. Demanding they be able to sent followers who wouldn't die from radiation like Robot or Super Mutant. And demanded they alter it so once the choice was made and the epilogue played that they couldn't play anymore. As in once they beat the game the game was done. They couldn't go back and do more things after that. Players threw a fit and is a key point of issue with quite a number of FO players. This was even brought up to me in another thread here about poor choices developers make.
You have to look at it from a business perspective, not a consumer perspective. Releasing a DLC that says game over to an already angry customer base isn't a smart idea. Which is why they didn't do it.
It´s about what quite a lot of IT supporters at that time thought or hoped would be in the announced DLC. My question was: Before the extended cut, weren´t IT people expecting that the ending DLC BW announced, to be the confirmation that the pre EC ending is an illusion?
Your answer to the guy who said, that it´s not his theory and who asked what people who were into IT were thinking, 3-4 years ago, is: It doesn´t make sense fom a business perspective.
Thanks for your input, but BW´s stance at that time was irrelvant for the question. That´s like answering the question:
"Hey Mr.Fob what ending do you prefer? You specifically, no one else."
with
Rossler: "BW said all three endings are valid and equal."
Nice to know but I still don´t know Mr.Fobs preferred ending.
That, and they've already told people numerous times that there is no canon ending. So there won't be a DLC released telling people which ending is correct.
I was talking about the expectations/hopes of some consumers for the announced ending DLC, now known as the extended cut before its release 3 years ago.
Good god.
It´s about what quite a lot of IT supporters at that time thought or hoped would be in the announced DLC. My question was: Before the extended cut, weren´t IT people expecting that the ending DLC BW announced, to be the confirmation that the pre EC ending is an illusion?
Your answer to the guy who said, that it´s not his theory and who asked what people who were into IT were thinking, 3-4 years ago, is: It doesn´t make sense fom a business perspective.
It's pretty clear Bioware took a different route than what the fans' wanted.
Bioware doesn't release DLCs just to confirm things as fact. They've even said that they make the content with most of their own ideas and very little fan input. It's not a design by committee thing. People here think it is.
Retour en haut
