-
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
BabeSlayer
Member
When someone who believes in indoctrination (which is the textbook definition of jumping to conclusions) calls another's logic "bad reasoning," it's hard not to get offended on some level.
And to answer your other question, an art is open to personal interpretation on some level. Different works can speak to different people in different ways. Sometimes what message an artist planned to convey isn't always effectively communicated, and sometimes it is "lost" on his audience. That's why, if we want to know what the artist PERSONALLY intended, we look to the artist's prior history, because they are a product of their own experiences and environment. I don't think this is illogical.
Thanks! There was more in-game stuff I thought about adding, but if I welcome people expanded on it and using it for their own purposes.
LightofRohan
Member
Well in reality, I have absolutely no clue. And I'd actually concede to your views and agree that it isn't Indoc. I'm sure you are a better judge of this whole thing then I am, my mind was convinced that the REAL ending was waiting in the wings ready to release for free when this is all said in done. So I'll agree with you... I got to stop thinking about it anyways. Haha.
No, and it didn't happen nearly as fast. It took months for that to boil over, like a slow awakening for people.
Haha okay, no hard feelings. I like spirited debate.
LightofRohan
Member
I agree with that. This whole thing is a mess, it is definitely an interesting experience though... I look forward on looking back on it w/ a clearer head. If it ever ends.
Lol If only that game ended with Snake killing himself instead of the "everything is cool, everything is okay" epilogue. The impact that game could have had...
Apophenia Overload
Member
Raiden was a bishie Mary Sue in MGS 2 main playable character and was really hated. He got turned into a cybernetic ninja in MGS 4 who you can't play as and he is now loved.
Hypothesis: Turn Kai Leng into a bishie Mary Sue main character of ME 4 and let the good times roll.
Hypothesis: Turn Kai Leng into a bishie Mary Sue main character of ME 4 and let the good times roll.
Not generally, but specifically on gaf the backlash grew intense because it was once GAF GOTY.
First of all, thanks for being the "voice of reason" of this cycle. The problem here is that most people view your question as: What is harder to believe? That one for your favorite developers (which should be the case if you're invested in the series) just took a dump on your face and your many hours of gameplay, or that they were secretly clever and that taste of shit is just a dream?
The indocs. videos are really well done, and even bring up some interesting coincidences, and even I would like to believe. But in the end, they are just interpretations, and usually put too much weight in things like reusing game assets or common screen effects. You place this with all the external evidence and there's no way I can see how it would be Bioware intention.
That... and the fact that it would mean they sold a "incomplete" ending on purpose.
But of course, we will be having this same conversation next cycle... again.
I'm glad we didn't get a parade in ME3, and that the Mass Relays were part of the weapon to stop the Reapers and were destroyed, leaving us with a very different ME universe. All they really need to do is clear up all the holes in their story. Not release happy ending DLC.
Bottled it.
Bottled it.
Metroidvania
People called Romanes they go the house?
Man, having to press the trigger like you did at the end of MGS3: Snake Eater would have been ballsy as fuck. But Kojima got tread on by the fans of Snake on the team, and (gasp) changed his artistic vision.
I seem to have a last post on the page phenomenon, so I'll repost this cause I'm actually interested.
What do people think all of the endings concluding the trilogy with Shep's death, only to concede to some force and leave the destroy ending with a teaser of Shep still alive? And why only destroy?
The way I see it, it was either meant to point to ending DLC of some sort, a mere throwaway to give hope to all those angry fans, or hints for ME4.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
I'm more disappointed in the things that were in Patrick Weekes' forum post over on Penny Arcade. How none of the other writers were invited to the Ending Party, and how Walters just shot down any and all dissent about the ending. It really does go along with the picture I have in my head of this guy that just took over and rewrote the entire trilogy just because he thought his dick was bigger than the last guys.
I really, really would have liked to have seen the reactive ending that Weekes wanted, various scenarios that played out differently depending on who you recruited during the game. The Krogan vs. Rachni scene sounded especially awesome. While I have no issue with the Crucible/Catalyst Reveal as a concept, the execution was horrid.
It's understandable that BioWare wants to protect what Walters and Hudson did, but what I find really, really weird is how they are acting like they are a company where everyone just agrees all the fucking time.
Well said.
I think the fundamental problem here is the distinction between "what I interpret/got/want out of the ending" and "what the developers- judging from the context of the games' development, prior history, and what is plainly presented in the game itself - intended with the ending." There seems to be too much blurring of the two for my tastes.
Rodney McKay
Member
But you are calling the indoctrination people's logic "jumping to conclusions," which is also hard not to get offended on some level.
I actually agree that it's probably jumping to conclusions, especially now that Bioware is going to be doing SOMETHING about the ending. But if the game was never going to be changed from how it is right now, I think that there is plenty of stuff in ME3 to give the theory some believability, just as there is plenty of stuff to discount it and have the literal endings be correct.
In my personal opinion, I think Bioware just put this stuff in the game to stir up this kind of debate among the fans. I think the "evidence" for the theory is extremely difficult for people to pick up on, but it's not the kind of stuff that would take a complete genius writer to put into the game.
I'm theorizing that Bioware fucked up in trying to make this ambiguity in the ending which led to the plot holes and the shitty conclusion, and they ended up with a (justified) shitstorm from the fans because of it.
Oh course we'll probably never know either way. I doubt Bioware would admit to being inept (look at Dragon Age 2 as proof of that), and the stuff they're going to add is probably going to make things a lot more clear either way.
Right now, I think the indoctrination theory is a fun thing to think about, but now that Bioware is doing something to the ending there really isn't a point in seriously debating it untill Bioware puts the "real" ending into the game.
For $14.99
The main thing with the Indoctrination theory is that it's unfair for people that support it to ask stuff like "why aren't there any counter arguments?" when everything is pure speculation. You CAN'T argue with the theory because it's obviously including stuff that work with it. If there was a scene that showed someone else acknowledging the kids existence, then the theory would just remove that point and it'd still have enough other stuff going for it.
That said, there is clearly a lot of potential there and bioware would be able to work with it, intended or not.
Yeah, it really makes no sense to have an ending sequence being explained as basically "you die, but ____" then have one of the options show him surviving.
That said, there is clearly a lot of potential there and bioware would be able to work with it, intended or not.
Yeah, it really makes no sense to have an ending sequence being explained as basically "you die, but ____" then have one of the options show him surviving.
But you are calling the indoctrination people's logic "jumping to conclusions," which is also hard not to get offended on some level.
I actually agree that it's probably jumping to conclusions, especially now that Bioware is going to be doing SOMETHING about the ending. But if the game was never going to be changed from how it is right now, I think that there is plenty of stuff in ME3 to give the theory some believability, just as there is plenty of stuff to discount it and have the literal endings be correct.
Haha, I did realize the irony of my post, but then I also think that, to believe in the IT, you have to take a sort of leap of faith and ignore the possibility the game was playing it straight. So I stand by the fact that it's a jump to conclusion of sorts, but maybe that wasn't my best word choice.
Then again, even you agreed!
Thank you for putting that to words. It's been on the tip of my tongue (or keyboard) this entire time. That's why conspiracy theories are so hard to kill, because they have self-protective, circular logic. It's, like, the counterargument is "I take what the game tells me at face value." But somehow that isn't evidence, when speculation is.
Rodney McKay
Member
Haha, I did realize the irony of my post, but then I also think that, to believe in the IT, you have to take a sort of leap of faith and ignore the possibility the game was playing it straight. So I stand by the fact that it's a jump to conclusion of sorts, but maybe that wasn't my best word choice.
Then again, even you agreed!
Well, now that Bioware is changing the ending (or whatever they're doing), it's premature at this point to consider ANY theory about it really.
Had this ending shitstorm not occurred I think it's well within reason to for the Indoc Theory interpretations to start up.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
It's pretty insipid work practice for a creative project, if true, to have someone basically go "No, this is mine, I'm doing it" and lock off the rest of the team.
As I said earlier, the response from fans in regards to the ending is really just a group multiplication of how the team apparently felt, aka: they didn't like the ending. This is what happens when you assume the very people who you hire to work on your project, and who have an understanding of the property, are wrong. The fan reaction is exactly as the team, only instead of a handful of people bitching, you've now got thousands.
LightofRohan
Member
Yea we will never know for certain I think. Even if the DLC discounts the Indoc theory entirely, we can't know if they just scrapped it for the sake of fixing or if it goes with the Indoc theory, we don't know if they just sort of went with it to make it seem like they were clever all along.
Who cares at this point.. wake me up in April.
Playing devil's advocate, though, there are situations where too many cooks in the kitchen can produce a muddled, unsatisfying script too. Look at any number of Hollywood films where script by committee killed the particular voice and message of a movie.
(It isn't like the choice has to be binary, but I'm just giving Walters his only free-pass of the year.)
I love when a theory is so strong. It's unfair. Yes, it's really clear one side has more points then the other. Way more.
No it's unfair because you are allowed to introduce speculation as admissible evidence, but our evidence - which is what the game directly TELLS US - is seemingly inadmissible. It doesn't make any sense from a logic perspective.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I agree. I think the main difference with something like this, is a person in a lead position has the acting authority, but because they're trusted to keep things on track. They're the ones who can reel a bickering team back in and, if the need be, override a disagreement with his/her chosen direction.
Walters and Hudson annexing themselves from the team is really baffling. Even if Walters wanted the authority to say "Okay, these are the ending thematics, this is the twist, etc", having team input allows you to get a a second, third, fourth and more pair of eyes going over your dialogue, your premise, your pacing, and so on, and offering criticism where necessary.
Funny thing about creative work: the longer you work on something, the more of a haze it becomes, and the harder it gets to draw the line between finished/unfinished good/bad. I've experienced it, and friends of mine in creative industries always experience it. Meticulously crafting something creative bit by bit is a tremendous amount of work, and it's extremely valuable to, at times, sit back and let another person or two look at what your doing. Doing it alone, you get so caught up in your own head space that you lose sight of the project. It's easier to make mistakes.
Walters and Hudson did what pretty much anybody on a creative projects of this scale should never, ever do.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
It's real disheartening how it seems like the company atmosphere at BioWare is "we're untouchable". They are too busy trying to be Rock Gods that they let this stuff in.
I can see that, but to this extreme...seems weird as hell. Especially after reading stuff from the other bioware writers that specifically say if they were writing for a character that they were collaborating with some other writers for the scenarios they appeared in and characters they interacted with. It gives off the impression that they really cared about the characters themselves and took pride in their work. If Mac and Casey really had an ego trip and didn't let anyone change what they had for the ending, what would it prove? If the ending didn't end up as a colossal failure would they have made remarks about how they did it themselves? It seems completely idiotic.
I think you nailed it. The process was way too insular for its own good; they needed some constructive criticism to guide this ending, which could have been salvageable, to safer waters.
I wish the indoctrination theory had evidence where the game directly TELLS US something to support it. Like a codex or something...Guess you got me there...
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
I'd like to read that, since we never hear about any of the other ME writers.
Unless they write posts on online forums.
I'm really interested to know why they thought it was so important to lock the ending. If it was something as simple as the Genophage or Tali dying, I could sort of understand. But the ending is just weird. I mean, it's basically them telling EVERYONE that had been on the ME team since Day One to go fuck themselves.
Well yeah, Theories exist to be tested. Of course 'there'd still be enough evidence to support it' because as far as in game logic goes, it's a fairly sound theory. I'm not sure what your point is because everything in this paragraph seems to be an ironic defense of the Indoctrination theory... Like, if the theory could be dis-proven by in game logic wouldn't still be around. There are counter arguments to the theory that hold water, but not enough to discredit it.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Also: this just may be how it works in the games industry, but BioWare honestly seems like it gives its writers way too much authority over every other aspect of development.
have my duckbabies please
It IS unfair, it's asking for an argument of the impossible. You just said it yourself, one side has way more points than the other. Can you explain how you can have a point against the theory?
The theory is built upon a lot of pieces. If you take some of those pieces out, the theory still holds. That 20 minute video shows stuff like there being bushes and trees from the dream sequence after you get hit by the beam. Let's say that after the beam hit, that didn't happen. What does this prove? Nothing. You don't need elements from the dream sequence to have that part show up meant as a different reality, so the same argument applies without the evidence. So if someone finds ways to disprove something that is a part of the theory right now, it will amount to nothing, because that point will just get scrapped and the other speculative pieces will still exist. There's always going to be some little hook that someone can cling to, like the way the kid shows up at the end being a potential hallucination. The ending already suffers from being rushed to hell with stuff like squad members teleporting to the normandy, so you aren't going to see the end game evidence discredited because there is quite simply no basis to argue on what the hell is going on with anything beyond "shitty writing", which is very likely as well.
Right, you can't fully discredit the theory because no matter what people will find a piece to cling to. For the record I actually back the theory, my only point with that was that asking others to argue against it is pointless, yet I see a lot of people asking for it.
Shake Appeal
Member
The problem with the indoctrination theory is its difficult to outright falsify on the basis of anything in the game because evidence that seems to make it contradictory only strengthens it (exactly because it is founded on seeming contradictions).
That's why people point out all the 'external' stuff -- the remarks (or lack thereof) from Bioware, the Final Hours app, any kind of information we have about the game being rushed through and badly planned -- because that stuff can't be explained away by saying, "Well, it's all in Shepard's head, isn't it?"
That's why people point out all the 'external' stuff -- the remarks (or lack thereof) from Bioware, the Final Hours app, any kind of information we have about the game being rushed through and badly planned -- because that stuff can't be explained away by saying, "Well, it's all in Shepard's head, isn't it?"
Photolysis
Banned
Does anyone know what Walters has actually written for the ME series, aside from the shitty abomination of an ending, and throwing out the dark energy plot which would have validated a lot of ME2's plot?
Because based on these two things alone, it doesn't seem like he has any writing ability whatsoever.
Because based on these two things alone, it doesn't seem like he has any writing ability whatsoever.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I think only a small portion of the ME3 team were ME1 originals, including Walters. Maybe that was the reason. Maybe he felt his authority and guidance on the project was too important and, given his work with Drew on the original game, felt fit to see it through by himself.
I don't know. I still think a lot of ego played a part. Hudson and Walters seemed very insistent on leaving the franchise on a big note, like they wanted people to remember it for big, surprising reasons. This has happened, but certainly not in the way they intended.
End of the day, this really just seems like a textbook case of too much authority and control backfiring. They took a collaborative, creative work and tried to steer it themselves. So many minds normally working together, building together, and they decided to just use their own.
I can kinda understand why they did it (all for the wrong reasons). I guess I'm more interested in how they feel now. If the ego has died down, humility has kicked it, and maybe they realise doing this was a huge mistake. That annexing themselves from the traditionally collaborative creative process does more harm than good and, despite how they feel about the ending, their vision and reputed talent isn't agreeable by all.
Normally I'd say Keighley's next entry of The Final Hours would give insight into this, but I'm expecting it to be a bit more damage control than anything else.
Walters has been on the Mass Effect team since the very first game, as far as I'm aware. After Drew stepped down from lead on the first game he took over for the second and third.
And yeah, his work on the comics is pretty awful. The comics are in that realm of "oh god I need more lore" crap that I know is bad, but I can deal with it. Except Evolution. That comic in particular was the big warning sign that that Walters has a very poor grasp of the lore. The others? They're crap, but typically comic slosh crap. Evolution? Single handedly shits over what I assume everyone thought of the First Contact War. It alone makes no sense and is full of "what the fuck is happening" kind of ludicrous crap that Mass Effect 3's ending was.
Like, the Turians and Humans are talking to one another, somehow. And TIM takes a trip to Illum, the first human to, and nobody seems to care that there's this completely unknown alien walking around.
Wasn't he the lead writer on ME2?
Exactly. The indoctrination theory bulletproofs itself because of its circular logic.
EDIT:
Guaranteed. They aren't going to make the mistake of revealing anything significant that can be used against them, not after all the flak "lots of speculation" received from the web. It'll be PR-filtered nonsense.
Nobody really knows what happened in ME2 with the whole deal as if I remember correctly Drew is credited as a lead writer in the credits for ME2. All that can really be said is that Drew stepped down from lead in ME2 but definitely worked on the game to some extent.
Walters wrote Wrex and Garrus in ME1 I believe. He wrote Aria and TIM in ME2. He also wrote Garrus's mission and story arc in ME2. Weekes wrote Garrus's dialogue on the Normandy. In ME3 he wrote the intro level, most of TIM's dialogue, Vega, and the final ending segment.
I'm sure he wrote more but that's all I'm aware of.
Edit: Errors apparently
He gets fried with the other two options, or loses his body. Why shooting at whatever Shepard was shooting at destroys the Reapers and all synthetic life in the galaxy is something to be explained.
Those are some of the worst part of ME3. Just from the dialogues themselves: "Either we fight or we die", "Don't get in my way, Shepard", "What's up Loco?", and of course "My sweet".
Not only that, since we are talking about dreams and hallucinations, it's all subjective. I can't see a good reason why the hell Shepard would dream of the Normandy crew stranded on a planet, but someone responded to me that Garrus told him about retiring on a tropical planet (nevermind the rest of the crew, including your LI).
So.... should I buy the Final Hours app for PC to have a high-resolution "Lot's of Speculation from Everyone" (app appears to be double the size of iOS one) and remind me never to pre-order from Bioware again?
HarryHengst
Member
The ending and beginning were written by the same dude. :lol
Here's what I think happened. At one point Shepherd's indoctrination was way more explicit. Lack of time got the better of them and they created a more vague ending where Shepherd's indoctrination is more of a subtext. Now that the final game is out, Bioware's options are: make DLC that will make indoctrination more explicit again or they will let fans speculate about it forever.
On that note, I just realized that there is a need to pressure Bioware to protect Weekes' decision to speak up about this. If it's true, I imagine the guy is under hot water but he should not even be under hot water for being honest. If anyone should be under hot water, it should be Mac Walters and Casey Hudson for letting those garbage ending to be on the final disc in the first place.
Photolysis
Banned
Thanks for the responses.
Can't comment on the ME1 stuff because I'm not familiar enough with it at that level of detail, but it's definitely sounding like most of what he did is actually some of the worst writing in the series.
The Garrus mission/story in ME2 was not too bad though, if my memory serves me.
I'm glad he spoke up (though aren't there claims going around that it wasn't him?), and it'll be a great shame if something happens as a result. Especially given that he's a much more talented writer than his boss.
Can't comment on the ME1 stuff because I'm not familiar enough with it at that level of detail, but it's definitely sounding like most of what he did is actually some of the worst writing in the series.
The Garrus mission/story in ME2 was not too bad though, if my memory serves me.
I'm glad he spoke up (though aren't there claims going around that it wasn't him?), and it'll be a great shame if something happens as a result. Especially given that he's a much more talented writer than his boss.
I hope not considering Weekes is definitely one of the better writers there.
Exactly. If he ever gets any shit for being honest, let's just say Bioware will have more problem coming their way.