heliosRAzi
Banned
If you really want to get into it: why didn't they shut down the relay network? Why didn't the Catalyst activate the Citadel in the first game?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mass Effect 3 Spoiler Thread |OT2| Taste the Rainbow
- Thread starter Patryn
- Start date
If you really want to get into it: why didn't they shut down the relay network? Why didn't the Catalyst activate the Citadel in the first game?
Again, that would kill the desired speculation and talking.
LightofRohan
Member
I agree. It's all dumb. Like I said, if the theory is true or not, doesn't take away from the insanity of it all. The ending is nonsensical with or without the indoc theory.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Well there's a lot of other stuff to speculate like the galactic dark age
RedRedSuit
Member
What's interesting is that all such plot hole-related questions, though entirely valid, would not be such a big deal if the ending were emotionally appropriate and conclusive. It's easy to find plot holes and silly things in both ME1 and ME2, but because we care and aren't made angry, most of us are able to just not look into it that deeply and enjoy it for what it is. On the other hand being given a shockingly vague and insultingly jarring conclusion like what's in ME3 only serves to make people question everything more.
Take Lost... a lot of people don't like that ending... but a lot of people are able to move on pretty quickly despite huge gaping questions after hours and hours of investment. Why? Because the ending provided closure and was emotionally and tonally appropriate to the series.
EDIT: Also, if I may ask a somewhat retro plot hole question... I was never in this type of thread before the ME3 debacle... but why is it so hard for Shepard to convince the Council that the Reapers are an existential threat? Did he not have a video camera in his helmet to record all the overwhelming evidence, such as the conversation with Sovereign? (AKA The X-Files Syndrome.)
It would have been fun if they ended the game with a true deus ex machina, in which an army of yet-more-powerful space-faring synthetics just shows up out of nowhere, tells Harbinger how stupid and wrong he is, and obliterates the entire Reaper fleet. The leader then says sup to Legion and they all dip back out.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
But for me to even consider the indoctrination theory at all, I need to get over the most important question of all to even begin considering it its validity. What's the motive? Why do it? Assuming the diverging point is after he's shot by the laser, that proves the Reapers wanted to kill Shepard so there's not a reason to indoctrinate him at all instead of shooting again.
If it diverges before, well, you could claim the whole game, previous game, entire series is indoctrination. How do you draw the line? Can you draw the line? I think arguing for indoctrination is as bad as the Matrix within Matrix theories, at a certain point the entire fiction breaks.
Lol. I was trying to think of so many clever things and I couldn't..
From that supposed cut content, Joker is supposed to come save the day. If they kept it in, perhaps he thinks he sees the Normandy saving everyone including Shepard and decides to chase it? Too bad they completely screwed up and now Harby just leaves the most important part of the war for nothing.
I was just thinking, it would be cool if Renegade Shep could take control of the Reapers and still just kill everyone just for shits n giggles anyway.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Most definitely. People can gloss over the flaws if it ends satisfyingly. A plot hole in ME1 is that Saren can just go into the Council area and activate whatever so that Sovereign can come in since he's a SPECTRE. But a lot of people (or me, at least) don't really care since it doesn't break the story.
LightofRohan
Member
I've already stated why they'd have motives to control Shepard. And how does Shepard being under indoctrination for 10 minutes break the entire series? How do you draw the line? Probably when your in slow motion, floating up in a magic elevator, talking to a glowing boy in space and then using space magic. That's a pretty clear line.
Yea basically. I'm not sure where this debate is going. But I'll totally shut up about it and concede. Cause I know how obnoxious religious debates are.
I H8 Memes
Member
The indoctrination theory is the dumbest ending of all. According to IT Shepard never even made it onto the Citadel. Thus he never opened the arms. Thus the device was never triggered and the Normandy never had to outrun anything. The Normandy never had to crash land on the planet and grandpa never told the story to the kid...
Actually that does sound just stupid enough for Bioware.
Actually that does sound just stupid enough for Bioware.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I could see some variation on this being a possible reason for having Joker fleeing the system through the Relays. If Harbinger thought that Shepard had activated/activating the Crucible and had somehow gotten on the Normandy, I could see him chasing after it to try to kill him as one last act of revenge before the Reapers were destroyed. I wonder if they had any way to explain the Normandy escapade at all but cut it, or whether it was just for no reason at all.
heliosRAzi
Banned
And the Shepard scissored Liara into an orgasmic ecstasy, my sweet.
Bioware, do not frame your game as a story being told to kid that involves violence and sex. It makes the Stargazer seem like a pedo.
RedRedSuit
Member
THAT'S ALL STILL A DREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!1!!!
EDIT: Also, if I may ask a somewhat retro plot hole question... I was never in this type of thread before the ME3 debacle... but why is it so hard for Shepard to convince the Council that the Reapers are an existential threat? Did he not have a video camera in his helmet to record all the overwhelming evidence, such as the conversation with Sovereign? (AKA The X-Files Syndrome.)
I H8 Memes
Member
Yeah I should have said creepy Grandpa. Sorry Buzz, but that was creepy.
Photolysis
Banned
Bioware can write great characters. They can create a well developed fictional universe. They can write very good side-stories and plot arcs. For whatever reason, the main problem they had with the ME series is developing the narrative that ties all this together.
And the main reason for that seems to be a combination of staff turnover and promotions beyond a person's competence level.
I don't think I've ever seen such variation in the quality of the writing anywhere else. Certain aspects of the writing might be done significantly better or worse than others, but the quality is reasonably consistent. With Bioware I've seen the quality turn from great to terrible in a single sentence. I've seen that they can write a great story, only to be shocked at how bad the next one is.
In Mass Effect 1, it was because Shepard didn't have any way of presenting evidence that the Reapers were real that didn't involve looking like a raving lunatic.
In Mass Effect 2, it was because the plot required that the Council be arrrrrgh stupid politicians ugh who stuck their heads in the sand and ignored a problem because it wasn't directly impacting them and they just wanted to keep doing ribbon-cutting ceremonies or whatever.
There should have been an ending that allowed you to use the crucible to hunt down every Reaper and kill them one by one. Put in the hippy "peace of love" ending too for those who prefer that. Oh, and not destroying the relays (and the franchise) would have been cool too.
RedRedSuit
Member
I assume you mean until the direct conversation with Sovereign, right? True, the moment that happens it's already too late.
Right... but I mean... video camera....
MrCompletely
Member
Unless.... unless.... Shepherd IS the catalyst and his submission/rejection of indoctrination determines the fate of the galaxy! Even though the interior Citadel moments happen in his mind, the results happen in reality.
Shepherd is the first organic that's proven that organics can represent order, not chaos. He's negates the point of the reapers existence.
I'm 100% convinced that everything inside the Citadel at the end is happening in Shepherds mind as he struggles with indoctrination. There's just too many clues to deny it.
LightofRohan
Member
Alright. Here's my new view on this whole thing and I'm going to agree/disagree with a lot of the points here.
Bioware has no idea what the ending is suppose to be.
But stating "It is what it is" is not correct. I think they designed it to allude to a lot of possibilities; indoctrination, reality, death, dream ect. ect. Because it takes a lot of pressure off of them by making the PLAYER decide what has happened, so they purposely designed it so it can have multiple meanings in the mind of the player. I'm guessing nobody there knows what it really means, but probably have a good idea of what it all COULD mean.
It is actually a really smart idea if pulled off. But it completely blew up in their face and they are now having to go back and figure out which possibility could have been the most possible.
So us arguing on "which is right" is just feeding into what they already wanted. So I'm going to concede with that the ending did not matter. I'm agnostic on the entire thing.
Bioware has no idea what the ending is suppose to be.
But stating "It is what it is" is not correct. I think they designed it to allude to a lot of possibilities; indoctrination, reality, death, dream ect. ect. Because it takes a lot of pressure off of them by making the PLAYER decide what has happened, so they purposely designed it so it can have multiple meanings in the mind of the player. I'm guessing nobody there knows what it really means, but probably have a good idea of what it all COULD mean.
It is actually a really smart idea if pulled off. But it completely blew up in their face and they are now having to go back and figure out which possibility could have been the most possible.
So us arguing on "which is right" is just feeding into what they already wanted. So I'm going to concede with that the ending did not matter. I'm agnostic on the entire thing.
heliosRAzi
Banned
ANy question pertaining to this series can be answered by one of three things: SPECULATION, space magic, or lolBioware.
For this question, it's lolBioware
Slightly off topic, but Mike Gamble replied in a thread on BSN concerning Bioware's PAX conference:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10773293/7
More PR talk, but the fact that he responded in a thread comprised mainly of doomsday scenarios about how the fans would go into meltdown mode if anything but a new ending is announced shows that Gamble at least understands the stakes of their PAX conference. It should be a very interesting Friday.
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10773293/7
Michael Gamble said:Folks,
I don't represent whether or not EA funds us for any DLC content. EA supports us, don't worry about that. I help to manage some of that budget, yes, but my primary goal is to work with Casey (the executive producer) and the other creative visionaries around BioWare and create something we are proud of.
I can understand how Producers get a bad reputation sometimes - but most of us care passionately about the product we are putting out. Of course, having a financially successful game is important - but making something we are proud of, and something that's a very high quality is even more important to me.
More soon...And see, we still do read the forums
More PR talk, but the fact that he responded in a thread comprised mainly of doomsday scenarios about how the fans would go into meltdown mode if anything but a new ending is announced shows that Gamble at least understands the stakes of their PAX conference. It should be a very interesting Friday.
heliosRAzi
Banned
It's going to happen tomorrow? When?
Next Friday.
heliosRAzi
Banned
Cool, I'll still be off
RedRedSuit
Member
Just to connect some dots... this is the man who said
and
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...s-effect-3-ending-will-make-some-people-angry
Just FYI.
I H8 Memes
Member
They should have just kept it simple and had the finale' be about gathering war assets for a big final battle. The same way ME2 was about gathering the crew necessary to go through the Omega 4 relay.
All they needed to do was have a big ass frantic battle play out in the end, using whatever assets you acquired during the game to affect the success or failure through the last level. Even resulting in squad members dying if you didn't acquire certain assets. Game could have ended with or without Shepard dying, but it needed to be action oriented and it needed to be big.
I think they ran into a wall when it came to pulling off that kind of scenario on consoles. I'm not blaming consoles here because this is a multi-platform game and I wouldn't have wanted them to try anything that couldn't be pulled off on all 3 platforms at playable framerates. But I cant see any other excuse for not trying to realize a massive fully realized battle for the ending. Asari and Turian ships flying overhead in battle, Krogan and Rachni fighting battles on either flank. Not necessarily fights we could be involved in but backdrops beyond the gameplay areas.
But there is no doubt that they couldn't pull off what needed to be done. Just look at any large area with crowds moving in the distance and you will see how laughably poor their execution is. Hardware, engine, or most likely a lack of the kind of technical talent working at Bioware that it would take to make this kind of thing run on consoles.
Interesting.
I hope the actual panel goes well and some actual info comes out.
You know, it's possible that it was their intent to wrap everything up. But, as they say, shit happens bro.
LightofRohan
Member
Fuck I have class. Kill me
Oh, I am fully aware of his numerous quotes. I sincerely hope the PAX audience keeps it civil but on point. I REALLY hope Gamble is asked point blank about his quotes concerning the ending if not just to see the extent of his doublespeak.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
Normally I would agree, especially given the "LOTS OF SPECULATION" napkin or whatever. But as we learned more about the process, the more it became apparent it was 1(2?) guys who just spearheaded their own idea for the ending come hell or high water. Had they been really trying to play up the "was it all a dream?" aspect, I don't think they made it nearly overt enough to be considered intentional and not unintentional. Though I absolutely agree they were aware of the idea, after all, they discarded an overt indoctrination style ending where you lose control of Shepard sometime during development.
That said, I can't remember whether early tweets indicated they did not indent IT or whether they said something like "That's interesting
", but that's post-release PR salvage work either way. Everything I've heard about the development process points to the ending speculation being not about the reality of the ending, but the implications, motivations, what the future holds type stuff.My take is they had a lot of ideas for how to end it, none of them really worked out that well, they were developed out to varying extents, they hit crunch, couldn't finalize, luckily got a delay, and then just had to crap something out in order to release the damn game.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Fixed.
Indoctrination theory? Again? Are we running in circles now?
The problem with the indoctrination theory is that it's poorly planned and executed. It's taking something that was hinted at (or sidelined) for most of the series but never fully explored.
For example, the indoctrination of TIM was (mildly) better, simply because we got to see its eventual progression and corruption. There's absolutely none of that with Shepard.
Even if the indoctrination theory was true, it'll rank amongst the worst plot twists in entertainment history. There's nothing subtle or profound about this scenario -- just a poorly written ending.
The problem with the indoctrination theory is that it's poorly planned and executed. It's taking something that was hinted at (or sidelined) for most of the series but never fully explored.
For example, the indoctrination of TIM was (mildly) better, simply because we got to see its eventual progression and corruption. There's absolutely none of that with Shepard.
Even if the indoctrination theory was true, it'll rank amongst the worst plot twists in entertainment history. There's nothing subtle or profound about this scenario -- just a poorly written ending.
Psychoward
Banned
Ha, Gamble, what a joke.
RedRedSuit
Member
True.
EA happens? BioWare happens? Space Vent Kid Literally The Destroyer of the Mass Effect Universe happens?
We'll never know what actually happened. I doubt anyone at Bioware was really happy with the ending. I mean, just digging deeper in the ending reveals a lot of issues.
It just comes down to time and/or Mac Walters and Casey Hudson not accepting input regarding the ending. But that just sounds so insane.
I know the Marauder Shields comics have been posted before, but I don't know if the link to the creator's site has been posted.
http://koobismo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Marauder Shields is the best thing to come out of the garbage ending.
http://koobismo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Marauder Shields is the best thing to come out of the garbage ending.
Ultimadrago
Member
Just beat the game, but I have one nagging question....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because
Please keep the topics to these three things:
- Indoctrination Theory
- Why ME3 is 99% good
- Why the ending sucks or why you defend it
Thanks.
The article was published February 2, a month before release. He knew what the final game contained.
LightofRohan
Member
Has there been anyone that's liked the ending/defended it? Besides 99% of Journalists?
Then, it's PR.
But really, there is not much else you can expect from any videogame developer.
Randolph Freelander
Member
With or without virals? Because that makes a difference.