Mass Effect 3 Ending Controversy

The.Bard

New member
Jan 7, 2011
402
0
0
I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

For starters, shame on you, Shamus. Not for having the opinion that you do, but for having it without even pretending to take a few minutes to contemplate what any of it could mean in the bigger picture. It's far too simplistic and dismissive to say "This ending makes no sense to me, therefore it must be stupid. Bioware sucks."

Bioware put several obvious & not-so-obvious hints into the ending sequence that should be MORE than enough to indicate something ain't quite right. Something that is at the very least worth consideration.

You, of all people, should be patient enough to do this. You continuously bemoan the dumbing down of video games, and yet, here you are, with a ginormous opportunity to jump into a massive pool of juicy potential and consider the questions... but NOPE! Why think about something that is clearly meant to be thought provoking when you can slap the "DUMB" label on it and call it a day? In much the same way you expect more out of video games, isn't it fair that we hold you up to those same expectations and demand more from you?

I shouldn't need these, but hey, I don't want to ruin anyone's day or prevent them from finding it out for themselves... here is some of the visual cues I picked up on that I think support the final moments of the game being indoctrination.

There are more than a few passing things that led me to this...

1) The final radio transmission says NOBODY made it to the beam. Odd seeing how both Anderson & Shepard seemed to.
2) All game long, James CONSTANTLY talks about hearing a strange hum in the shuttle deck when shepard is around.
3) The last dream before the final mission features Shepard watching the little boy run into a copy of him/herself, all evil looking, and then they both ignite in flames. Given the repetitive nature of the dreams, I think it very fair to read into this. Just a bit.
4) How did TIM control both Anderson AND Shepard? And everytime he tried to exert control, the black lines fade in on Shepard's face, like control of him/her is strengthening (or weakening!?).
5) We are told Shepard's entire team is killed, but they appear in the Normandy Synthesis ending (haven't played the others out yet). Given the subtle details everywhere else, I sincerely doubt this was an oversight on Bioware's part.




Me, I chose Synthesis, something I now regret. My Shepard was crushed that his love, Ashley, was dead. With nothing left to live for, he chose to sacrifice himself for the good of everyone... but isn't that EXACTLY what indoctrination is about? To trick you into THINKING you're doing the right thing? And after choosing it, I watched Shepard burn up into what looked shockingly like a Husk (complete with the illusive man eyes), I am now ABSOLUTELY convinced the entire ending is Reaper indoctrination and this has been part of Bioware's plan all along. To make us THINK these are the final endings. (It's a stretch, I'll grant you, but hot damn if the pieces don't FIT.)

Connected to that, I am also convinced the Husks are modeled off of ShepLoo's head. Seriously, look at this face:



I'm not sure how that fits into the big scheme of things, but I'm guessing it ties into Shep being "reborn" in ME2 and could be extrapolated upon in future DLC. Several mentions are made to (don't quote me on phrasing) "artificial husks" or "manufactured husks" or some such. Given that Miranda's father was involved (a man known for test tube daughter), it's quite possible Shepard died in ME1, and we've been playing as a sleeper Husk-Indoctrination Bomb since the start of ME2... ooh.

I then chatted with some people who directed me here, to an indoctrination-theory thread:
http://social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/9727423/1

The evidence is fairly staggering. I only caught a few things in my run, but there are a metric ton of observations. Do yourself a favor, all of you who despise the ending, give this a read through.

If you think these bad endings are laziness/stupidity on Bioware's part, then why are there SO MANY subtle comments and clues that fit together extremely well?

I'm not going to say this is absolutely what Bioware was planning. It's certainly possible incompetence/funding/EA led them to where they are currently at. But like any good film, there is evidence in plenty to - at the very minimum - warrant THOUGHT. CONSIDERATION. CONVERSATION.

I respect what you do, Shamus, but this article is a perfect example of why you make me sad. This ending is ripe for contemplation, even if it is largely conjecture on the player's part. There are visual / audio cues all over the place to suggest something more is going on. This is what you always wanted, isn't it? An opportunity to take a video game and get something more out of it. Something philosophical/intellectual... and you whiffed.
 

grigjd3

New member
Mar 4, 2011
541
0
0
mfeff said:
grigjd3 said:
Great video.
I may also add that Charles Dickens changed his stuff in response to critiques... and Mass Effect is a lot of things... but Dickens it ain't... ;)
Actually, most people would be shocked how much art is changed in response to feedback from clients. I think perhaps because of the nature of museums, people have gotten the idea that art is somehow permanent, which if anything, is a point art only serves to undermine.
 

OliverTwist72

New member
Nov 22, 2010
487
0
0
Excellent article! I find my feelings on the subject similar. I am OK with a sad/bittersweet ending as long as there is some sense of an explanation and/or closure. I played thru the ending and my reaction was something akin to: uhh what, but who, where? OK...whatever. The Normandy clip just seems so disjointed from EVERYTHING. Why is this happening this clip just seems tossed in here for no reason.

It just killed any excitement I had for the game/series. I don't even want to play my 2nd Shep that I've taken thru ME1 and 2. I understand that the storyline is the narrative that they wanted to deliver and I am OK if they want to stick to it. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

I think people fail to realize is that other media (film in particular) does sometimes pass thru test audiences to see how i will be received before its released. Does this tarnish the creative artistic side? Probably but because it isn't as public there isn't a huge uproar. Most of the time directors cuts will come out. So I think the topic of this being unprecedented is inaccurate.

To be honest I first thought this was a very aggressive projection of project 10 dollar. They purposefully give us a shit ending to charge us DLC for the real ones. Now that more is coming out I see that at least this wasn't purposefully done.
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
The.Bard said:
I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

For starters, shame on you, Shamus. Not for having the opinion that you do, but for having it without even pretending to take a few minutes to contemplate what any of it could mean in the bigger picture. It's far too simplistic and dismissive to say "This ending makes no sense to me, therefore it must be stupid. Bioware sucks."

Bioware put several obvious & not-so-obvious hints into the ending sequence that should be MORE than enough to indicate something ain't quite right. Something that is at the very least worth consideration.

You, of all people, should be patient enough to do this. You continuously bemoan the dumbing down of video games, and yet, here you are, with a ginormous opportunity to jump into a massive pool of juicy potential and consider the questions... but NOPE! Why think about something that is clearly meant to be thought provoking when you can slap the "DUMB" label on it and call it a day? In much the same way you expect more out of video games, isn't it fair that we hold you up to those same expectations and demand more from you?

I shouldn't need these, but hey, I don't want to ruin anyone's day or prevent them from finding it out for themselves... here is some of the visual cues I picked up on that I think support the final moments of the game being indoctrination.

There are more than a few passing things that led me to this...

1) The final radio transmission says NOBODY made it to the beam. Odd seeing how both Anderson & Shepard seemed to.
2) All game long, James CONSTANTLY talks about hearing a strange hum in the shuttle deck when shepard is around.
3) The last dream before the final mission features Shepard watching the little boy run into a copy of him/herself, all evil looking, and then they both ignite in flames. Given the repetitive nature of the dreams, I think it very fair to read into this. Just a bit.
4) How did TIM control both Anderson AND Shepard? And everytime he tried to exert control, the black lines fade in on Shepard's face, like control of him/her is strengthening (or weakening!?).
5) We are told Shepard's entire team is killed, but they appear in the Normandy Synthesis ending (haven't played the others out yet). Given the subtle details everywhere else, I sincerely doubt this was an oversight on Bioware's part.




Me, I chose Synthesis, something I now regret. My Shepard was crushed that his love, Ashley, was dead. With nothing left to live for, he chose to sacrifice himself for the good of everyone... but isn't that EXACTLY what indoctrination is about? To trick you into THINKING you're doing the right thing? And after choosing it, I watched Shepard burn up into what looked shockingly like a Husk (complete with the illusive man eyes), I am now ABSOLUTELY convinced the entire ending is Reaper indoctrination and this has been part of Bioware's plan all along. To make us THINK these are the final endings. (It's a stretch, I'll grant you, but hot damn if the pieces don't FIT.)

Connected to that, I am also convinced the Husks are modeled off of ShepLoo's head. Seriously, look at this face:



I'm not sure how that fits into the big scheme of things, but I'm guessing it ties into Shep being "reborn" in ME2 and could be extrapolated upon in future DLC. Several mentions are made to (don't quote me on phrasing) "artificial husks" or "manufactured husks" or some such. Given that Miranda's father was involved (a man known for test tube daughter), it's quite possible Shepard died in ME1, and we've been playing as a sleeper Husk-Indoctrination Bomb since the start of ME2... ooh.

I then chatted with some people who directed me here, to an indoctrination-theory thread:
http://social.bioware.com/forums/forum/1/topic/355/index/9727423/1

The evidence is fairly staggering. I only caught a few things in my run, but there are a metric ton of observations. Do yourself a favor, all of you who despise the ending, give this a read through.

If you think these bad endings are laziness/stupidity on Bioware's part, then why are there SO MANY subtle comments and clues that fit together extremely well?

I'm not going to say this is absolutely what Bioware was planning. It's certainly possible incompetence/funding/EA led them to where they are currently at. But like any good film, there is evidence in plenty to - at the very minimum - warrant THOUGHT. CONSIDERATION. CONVERSATION.

I respect what you do, Shamus, but this article is a perfect example of why you make me sad. This ending is ripe for contemplation, even if it is largely conjecture on the player's part. There are visual / audio cues all over the place to suggest something more is going on. This is what you always wanted, isn't it? An opportunity to take a video game and get something more out of it. Something philosophical/intellectual... and you whiffed.
http://squallsdead.com/
The ME fanbase isn't the first, nor will it be the last, to try to explain a game's ending/story in a way to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is.
 

Murmillos

Silly Deerthing
Feb 13, 2011
359
0
0
The.Bard said:
If you think these bad endings are laziness/stupidity on Bioware's part, then why are there SO MANY subtle comments and clues that fit together extremely well?
Because I think it was executed in the wrong manner, and they out-right lied on what the ending was going to be like.

Had they not promised non A-B-C endings and polished the ending better & provided some more clues towards the end, this ending would have gone down much much better.
 

mfeff

New member
Nov 8, 2010
284
0
0
The.Bard said:
I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

snippidy snip
Please if you have a moment, read this, and the comments. It's worth your time.

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/
 

JSDodd

New member
Jul 29, 2010
114
0
0
As much as i hated the ending, i don't feel that Bioware HAS to completely change it. All i want is a text scroll telling me what happened to the factions and people encountered along the way, i don't feel like that much actual closure is an unreasonable ask.
 

The.Bard

New member
Jan 7, 2011
402
0
0
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
http://squallsdead.com/
The ME fanbase isn't the first, nor will it be the last, to try to explain a game's ending/story in a way to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is.
Interesting site. As a big fan of FFVIII, I'll definitely go check that out.

The only bit I take particular exception to is this:

to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is

"Actually is"? No, no, the ending is precisely as good and as deep as the person viewing it believes it to be. It's the way of all art; the viewer receives pieces of information (visually, audibly, etc) and pieces it together as they see fit. Whether Bioware intended indoctrination is not the point if the pieces can seamlessly go together that way.

For me to believe indoctrination theory and make it fit within the ending, zero concessions have to be made. NONE.

BUT... to claim that everything that happens in the end is reality, several concessions DO have to be made. Whether they are chalked up to a sudden rampant case of excessively extreme stupidity by Bioware (to the point of one guy being shot and the OTHER guy bleeding), deliberate subterfuge by Bioware, or indoctrination is ultimately irrelevant.

For me, indoctrination IS the ending of the game. You may certainly think otherwise, but the evidence for me says that's what it is. That is the conclusion I drew, and everything I've seen on the replay supports it. What the artists' intent was no longer matters. How I interpret it is all there is.

And be it book or movie or whatever have you, this kind of discussability is generally looked upon as a GOOD THING. Which is why I think Shamus has - once again - let us down. Instead of DISCUSSING THIS as art, he is content to shake a finger and roll with the crowd, offering very few suggestions of how it COULD be interpreted, nothing in terms of how it could be better. Whether you believe it IS indoctrination or ISN'T, a case can absolutely be made for both sides. Both sides deserve discussion.

But Shamus seems content to roll with the "HERPA DERP, this is stooooopid!" crowd. And as someone who constantly complains that the industry treats us like morons, he needs to be held to a higher standard than constantly complaining that video games need to be better, and then completely avoiding all discussion of that meaning when it's perched atop on his nose.
 

The.Bard

New member
Jan 7, 2011
402
0
0
mfeff said:
The.Bard said:
I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

snippidy snip
Please if you have a moment, read this, and the comments. It's worth your time.

http://jmstevenson.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/all-that-matters-is-the-ending-part-2-mass-effect-3/
Great write up. I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes many excellent points. I did not read all of the comments yet, but I definitely will scope them out.

I have no evidence or fly-on-the-wall info to suggest what he hypothesizes about rushing the ending is on the money or out in left field, but I very much agree with him that - regardless of the shitestorm the endings caused - Bioware was going to be releasing more of an ending update at some point in the near future anyway. I just don't see all the DLC coming down the pike for this game to be separate missions unrelated to the Reapers. I think a lot of it will be focused on tying up the story. I know some people like Zeel would flip out at that prospect, but if they end up with 10-12 LotR-esque endings that culminate in a 2-3 hr mega-ending, I'm sure a lot of people would die of joy.
 

The.Bard

New member
Jan 7, 2011
402
0
0
Murmillos said:
The.Bard said:
If you think these bad endings are laziness/stupidity on Bioware's part, then why are there SO MANY subtle comments and clues that fit together extremely well?
Because I think it was executed in the wrong manner, and they out-right lied on what the ending was going to be like.

Had they not promised non A-B-C endings and polished the ending better & provided some more clues towards the end, this ending would have gone down much much better.
Well, at this point anything additional they release will be assumed to have been done at gunpoint by the fans, but I believe the intent was to roll out multiple pieces of endings over time so we could be left hanging a little and get a jammin' emotional punch when it hits.

With all of the emotion and time they've invested into this series, do you really think it was their intent to lie to you and purposefully undercut this? To what end?

I completely understand how one could come away from the ending dissatisfied. That's a valid emotional response. But I also think too many people are confusing "This ending didn't satisfy me" with "This is the stupidest thing ever and I have to retake this game from the artists who made it."

I guess I still have faith Bioware is gonna pull an ace and deliver an extended ending ($0 if they're smart), and it will flesh out a beautiful ending to this trilogy.
 

ThingInTheCoat

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6
0
0
The.Bard said:
I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

For starters... snip-snip
Bard, I can admire the idea of the Indoctrination theory. I really can. Hell, I even believed Shepard was being subjected to some sort of fishy Reaper control the instant Harbinger's beam blind-sided him. But that idea quickly fell apart as the ending continued, and I can't see any reason why we shouldn't just accept the ending at face value.

The truth is, nearly every point the Indoctrination theory sets forth can be Occam's Razored down to a much simpler, more obvious explanation, or else simple coincidence, or else sloppy writing. I'm going to give a brief run-down of every one you mention.

1) The final radio transmission says NOBODY made it to the beam. Odd seeing how both Anderson & Shepard seemed to.
2) All game long, James CONSTANTLY talks about hearing a strange hum in the shuttle deck when shepard is around.
3) The last dream before the final mission features Shepard watching the little boy run into a copy of him/herself, all evil looking, and then they both ignite in flames. Given the repetitive nature of the dreams, I think it very fair to read into this. Just a bit.
4) How did TIM control both Anderson AND Shepard? And everytime he tried to exert control, the black lines fade in on Shepard's face, like control of him/her is strengthening (or weakening!?).
5) We are told Shepard's entire team is killed, but they appear in the Normandy Synthesis ending (haven't played the others out yet). Given the subtle details everywhere else, I sincerely doubt this was an oversight on Bioware's part.

1) The final radio transmission was being sent out while Shepard was lying, apparently dead, on the ground, so Command would probably just chalk him up alongside the other casualties and turn their attention elsewhere to regroup. There's also the possibility that the destruction of his armor made his life-signs flat-line on their end. Anderson following you onto the Citadel is a little trickier to explain, although I guess you could dismiss it as him getting up from the rubble and following you after you got on, implausible as that may be. No idea on how to explain the "dark hallway" he claims to be in, since there are no other "dark hallways" between you and the control panel.

2) What do you mean about "all game long?" As far as I've noticed, he only mentioned it once. Keep in mind that Vega is standing in the docking bay of a space ship -- a docking bay, of course, which is beneath the giant thrumming engine core. Why is this a suspicious thing to say -- in idle dialogue before a battle, no less, when his nerves would be at their jumpiest. I'm pretty sure that is what the writers were attempting to convey: his nerves.

3) What made you think the copy of Shepard was evil-looking? My Shepard looked simply peaceful, even as the flames engulfed him. A more obvious explanation is that this was simply foreshadowing that Shepard would join in death those he couldn't protect -- a foreboding of potential failure to stop the Reapers. Bioware seems to have clearly been trying to humanize Shepard, and the dream sequences were one of their methods.

4) If the Illusive Man could control one man with Reaper tech, why is it odd that he control two? The black tendrils creeping in represented the "song of oily shadows" of Reaper control -- only in this case, it was Reaper control by way of the Illusive Man's tech.

5) No fucking idea. This is perhaps some of the more compelling evidence, I think, in support of the theory, but given the sloppy, rushed nature of the rest of the ending, it was probably just a case of reused art assets. They didn't want to make a separate cutscene to account for every squad configuration you took down to Earth with you, so they made one cutscene for each ending and you just happened to see one that had at least one of your squad members in it.

Now, fair's fair, my explanations may be simpler and, on their face, more plausible, but that's not to say they're certainly true; that's an assumption in itself. There are, however, much more damning evidence that runs contrary to the Indoctrination theory:

For instance, if the theory is correct, then why, if Shepard has low EMS, does only the "Destroy" option present itself? If the Reapers are trying to Indoctrinate Shepard's mind, then presenting only one option -- their destruction -- with no resistance seems a bit . . . dumb. This is especially dumb if you've chosen to destroy the Geth during the game, since there is now no reason to take that only option.

Furthermore, what is the point of the cutscenes after the choice on the Crucible? Why, after you choose anything, does Harbinger take the time to show you images of Reapers flying away or falling to the earth, Mass Relays exploding spectacularly, and the Normandy attempting to outrun the blastwave and crash landing on an alien world? What function does that serve? Building from that, why -- especially during the "Destroy" ending, where it appears after the scene of Shepard waking in the rubble -- does an epilogue appear? An epilogue which features, no less, the same alien sky the Normandy crashed beneath and which depicts an old man and grandchild presumably generations descended from the original survivors. Their dialogue even gives us the impression that humanity has been unable to reach the stars since the Mass Relays exploded, which pretty well implies that the events we saw at the end happened as we saw them. Why -- and how -- does Harbinger impart that little nugget into Shepard's brain after he breaks free?

Lastly, the Mass Effect series -- hell, all of Bioware's games -- have never been this oblique and psychological; they've always been purely straight-forward adventures -- adventures with mature and complex themes, to be certain, but always straight-forward in execution. So why now, in the last ten minutes, should I expect this change? Why should I suppose that Bioware has applied this level of sophistication and complexity, when nothing prior to this has even approached this level of subtlety?

To compound all of this, none of the released documents, interviews, and statements give any real indication that they have any ace up their sleeve or that this is not their honest-to-God, intended ending. They've always been frank about how this is the way the wanted it to end, and if they were planning something, why did it take a massive petition, a wave of Amazon returns, and review-bombing, for them to make the simple, small concession of planning "game content initiatives" to "add more closure." Why wouldn't Casey Hudson or someone just come out in the face of this controversy and say, "Hey, we know you're confused about all this, but don't worry -- we've got it covered. You wouldn't believe the shit we've got in store." It just doesn't add up.

I like the indoctrination theory. I really do. In fact, it shows a level of imagination in the fans that Bioware should be jealous of. But the fact is, there's just not as much going for it as people believe. It's mostly just boxing shadows on the wall, so you shouldn't really blame people for accepting what they see at face value. Personally, I find it bad writing on their part even if it is indoctrination, since there's so much conflicting evidence either way.

And you know what? Fuck it. Believe in it if you want, even if it doesn't totally make sense. It's a better idea than what Bioware tossed us, at any rate, so substitute their reality for your own.

RedEyesBlackGamer said:
http://squallsdead.com/
The ME fanbase isn't the first, nor will it be the last, to try to explain a game's ending/story in a way to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is.
Oh, man, I can't believe I forgot about that site. Thanks for bringing that up.

P.S. Goddamn, I didn't realize I wrote that much. Forgive the shit-brick of text.

P.P.S. During the writing of this, I watched the gameplay of the Crucible approach on Youtube to refresh my memory, and goddamn if that shit just doesn't jive. Bioware's writing team certainly couldn't have dropped the ball that much by accident, could they? It's just so fucking weird to take that sequence of events at face value, even though I doubt the Indoctrination theory.
 

RedEyesBlackGamer

The Killjoy Detective returns!
Jan 23, 2011
4,701
0
0
The.Bard said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
http://squallsdead.com/
The ME fanbase isn't the first, nor will it be the last, to try to explain a game's ending/story in a way to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is.
Interesting site. As a big fan of FFVIII, I'll definitely go check that out.

The only bit I take particular exception to is this:

to convince themselves that it is better/deeper than it actually is

"Actually is"? No, no, the ending is precisely as good and as deep as the person viewing it believes it to be. It's the way of all art; the viewer receives pieces of information (visually, audibly, etc) and pieces it together as they see fit. Whether Bioware intended indoctrination is not the point if the pieces can seamlessly go together that way.

For me to believe indoctrination theory and make it fit within the ending, zero concessions have to be made. NONE.

BUT... to claim that everything that happens in the end is reality, several concessions DO have to be made. Whether they are chalked up to a sudden rampant case of excessively extreme stupidity by Bioware (to the point of one guy being shot and the OTHER guy bleeding), deliberate subterfuge by Bioware, or indoctrination is ultimately irrelevant.

For me, indoctrination IS the ending of the game. You may certainly think otherwise, but the evidence for me says that's what it is. That is the conclusion I drew, and everything I've seen on the replay supports it. What the artists' intent was no longer matters. How I interpret it is all there is.

And be it book or movie or whatever have you, this kind of discussability is generally looked upon as a GOOD THING. Which is why I think Shamus has - once again - let us down. Instead of DISCUSSING THIS as art, he is content to shake a finger and roll with the crowd, offering very few suggestions of how it COULD be interpreted, nothing in terms of how it could be better. Whether you believe it IS indoctrination or ISN'T, a case can absolutely be made for both sides. Both sides deserve discussion.

But Shamus seems content to roll with the "HERPA DERP, this is stooooopid!" crowd. And as someone who constantly complains that the industry treats us like morons, he needs to be held to a higher standard than constantly complaining that video games need to be better, and then completely avoiding all discussion of that meaning when it's perched atop on his nose.
Sorry if I sounded condescending. :S
You have every right to believe that, but I don't want to see Bioware getting credit for something that they didn't put in the game. From my understanding, they scrapped the Indoctrination plan, but were lazy enough to leave the hints in. They created a horrible ending, some fans made it better than that.
 

Caverat

New member
Jun 11, 2010
204
0
0
I have to seriously ask: When was it promised that the ending of mass effect 3 wouldn't be a choose a, b, or c ending, that it would be a unique ending based on the choices made throughout the three games for the player?

I've read many times that Bioware "Lied, owes us a refund because the last 10 minutes of the third game didn't meet the standard the 100+ hrs of the series had met, translation: We are indisputably children, with entitlement issues."

I understand being unhappy with the ending, I've read books with endings I didn't like. But suddenly deciding I'm owed something because I didn't like the ending of a series I liked until that point? Yeah, at that point you need to grow up.
 

Volkov

New member
Dec 4, 2010
238
0
0
Caverat said:
I have to seriously ask: When was it promised that the ending of mass effect 3 wouldn't be a choose a, b, or c ending, that it would be a unique ending based on the choices made throughout the three games for the player?

I've read many times that Bioware "Lied, owes us a refund because the last 10 minutes of the third game didn't meet the standard the 100+ hrs of the series had met, translation: We are indisputably children, with entitlement issues."

I understand being unhappy with the ending, I've read books with endings I didn't like. But suddenly deciding I'm owed something because I didn't like the ending of a series I liked until that point? Yeah, at that point you need to grow up.
Just so you know, saying "I do not know what you base your points on, do not care to research, and yet am in a position to call you children" is laughably bad logic.

But here is a list of verifiable lies told by BioWare staff prior to release:

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/323/index/10204263/1

To answer your first question:
- Interviewer: [Regarding the numerous possible endings of Mass Effect 2] ?Is that same type of complexity built into the ending of Mass Effect 3??
- Casey Hudson: ?Yeah, and I?d say much more so, because we have the ability to build the endings out in a way that we don?t have to worry about eventually tying them back together somewhere. This story arc is coming to an end with this game. That means the endings can be a lot
more different. At this point we?re taking into account so many decisions that you?ve made as a player and reflecting a lot of that stuff. It?s not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C... The endings have a lot more sophistication and variety in them.?

This specific enough for you?
 

The.Bard

New member
Jan 7, 2011
402
0
0
ThingInTheCoat said:
The.Bard said:
I just beat the game at 1am last night and I can FINALLY join in on this discussion!

For starters... snip-snip
Bard, I can admire the idea of the Indoctrination theory. I really can. Hell, I even believed Shepard was being subjected to some sort of fishy Reaper control the instant Harbinger's beam blind-sided him. But that idea quickly fell apart as the ending continued, and I can't see any reason why we shouldn't just accept the ending at face value.

The truth is, nearly every point the Indoctrination theory sets forth can be Occam's Razored down to a much simpler, more obvious explanation, or else simple coincidence, or else sloppy writing. I'm going to give a brief run-down of every one you mention.

1) The final radio transmission says NOBODY made it to the beam. Odd seeing how both Anderson & Shepard seemed to.
2) All game long, James CONSTANTLY talks about hearing a strange hum in the shuttle deck when shepard is around.
3) The last dream before the final mission features Shepard watching the little boy run into a copy of him/herself, all evil looking, and then they both ignite in flames. Given the repetitive nature of the dreams, I think it very fair to read into this. Just a bit.
4) How did TIM control both Anderson AND Shepard? And everytime he tried to exert control, the black lines fade in on Shepard's face, like control of him/her is strengthening (or weakening!?).
5) We are told Shepard's entire team is killed, but they appear in the Normandy Synthesis ending (haven't played the others out yet). Given the subtle details everywhere else, I sincerely doubt this was an oversight on Bioware's part.

1) The final radio transmission was being sent out while Shepard was lying, apparently dead, on the ground, so Command would probably just chalk him up alongside the other casualties and turn their attention elsewhere to regroup. There's also the possibility that the destruction of his armor made his life-signs flat-line on their end. Anderson following you onto the Citadel is a little trickier to explain, although I guess you could dismiss it as him getting up from the rubble and following you after you got on, implausible as that may be. No idea on how to explain the "dark hallway" he claims to be in, since there are no other "dark hallways" between you and the control panel.

2) What do you mean about "all game long?" As far as I've noticed, he only mentioned it once. Keep in mind that Vega is standing in the docking bay of a space ship -- a docking bay, of course, which is beneath the giant thrumming engine core. Why is this a suspicious thing to say -- in idle dialogue before a battle, no less, when his nerves would be at their jumpiest. I'm pretty sure that is what the writers were attempting to convey: his nerves.

3) What made you think the copy of Shepard was evil-looking? My Shepard looked simply peaceful, even as the flames engulfed him. A more obvious explanation is that this was simply foreshadowing that Shepard would join in death those he couldn't protect -- a foreboding of potential failure to stop the Reapers. Bioware seems to have clearly been trying to humanize Shepard, and the dream sequences were one of their methods.

4) If the Illusive Man could control one man with Reaper tech, why is it odd that he control two? The black tendrils creeping in represented the "song of oily shadows" of Reaper control -- only in this case, it was Reaper control by way of the Illusive Man's tech.

5) No fucking idea. This is perhaps some of the more compelling evidence, I think, in support of the theory, but given the sloppy, rushed nature of the rest of the ending, it was probably just a case of reused art assets. They didn't want to make a separate cutscene to account for every squad configuration you took down to Earth with you, so they made one cutscene for each ending and you just happened to see one that had at least one of your squad members in it.

Now, fair's fair, my explanations may be simpler and, on their face, more plausible, but that's not to say they're certainly true; that's an assumption in itself. There are, however, much more damning evidence that runs contrary to the Indoctrination theory:

For instance, if the theory is correct, then why, if Shepard has low EMS, does only the "Destroy" option present itself? If the Reapers are trying to Indoctrinate Shepard's mind, then presenting only one option -- their destruction -- with no resistance seems a bit . . . dumb. This is especially dumb if you've chosen to destroy the Geth during the game, since there is now no reason to take that only option.

Furthermore, what is the point of the cutscenes after the choice on the Crucible? Why, after you choose anything, does Harbinger take the time to show you images of Reapers flying away or falling to the earth, Mass Relays exploding spectacularly, and the Normandy attempting to outrun the blastwave and crash landing on an alien world? What function does that serve? Building from that, why -- especially during the "Destroy" ending, where it appears after the scene of Shepard waking in the rubble -- does an epilogue appear? An epilogue which features, no less, the same alien sky the Normandy crashed beneath and which depicts an old man and grandchild presumably generations descended from the original survivors. Their dialogue even gives us the impression that humanity has been unable to reach the stars since the Mass Relays exploded, which pretty well implies that the events we saw at the end happened as we saw them. Why -- and how -- does Harbinger impart that little nugget into Shepard's brain after he breaks free?

Lastly, the Mass Effect series -- hell, all of Bioware's games -- have never been this oblique and psychological; they've always been purely straight-forward adventures -- adventures with mature and complex themes, to be certain, but always straight-forward in execution. So why now, in the last ten minutes, should I expect this change? Why should I suppose that Bioware has applied this level of sophistication and complexity, when nothing prior to this has even approached this level of subtlety?

To compound all of this, none of the released documents, interviews, and statements give any real indication that they have any ace up their sleeve or that this is not their honest-to-God, intended ending. They've always been frank about how this is the way the wanted it to end, and if they were planning something, why did it take a massive petition, a wave of Amazon returns, and review-bombing, for them to make the simple, small concession of planning "game content initiatives" to "add more closure." Why wouldn't Casey Hudson or someone just come out in the face of this controversy and say, "Hey, we know you're confused about all this, but don't worry -- we've got it covered. You wouldn't believe the shit we've got in store." It just doesn't add up.

I like the indoctrination theory. I really do. In fact, it shows a level of imagination in the fans that Bioware should be jealous of. But the fact is, there's just not as much going for it as people believe. It's mostly just boxing shadows on the wall, so you shouldn't really blame people for accepting what they see at face value. Personally, I find it bad writing on their part even if it is indoctrination, since there's so much conflicting evidence either way.

And you know what? Fuck it. Believe in it if you want, even if it doesn't totally make sense. It's a better idea than what Bioware tossed us, at any rate, so substitute their reality for your own.

P.S. Goddamn, I didn't realize I wrote that much. Forgive the shit-brick of text.

P.P.S. During the writing of this, I watched the gameplay of the Crucible approach on Youtube to refresh my memory, and goddamn if that shit just doesn't jive. Bioware's writing team certainly couldn't have dropped the ball that much by accident, could they? It's just so fucking weird to take that sequence of events at face value, even though I doubt the Indoctrination theory.
Dude, I was an English major. Not only did I read your entire shit-brick of text, but I salivated at reading it, because I'm dropping a shit-brick of text right back at you!!! XD To keep this SOMEWHAT readable, I've hidden much of the prior and current content in spoiler tags to keep it easier to swallow!

FINAL NOTE AS I COMPLETE THIS: I AM SO SO SORRY. THIS IS EVEN LONGER THAN THE LONG LONG THING I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DO SHAMUS' JOB FOR HIM. 8P

---------

ON REWRITES VS INTERPRETATIONS:
For starters, I want to differentiate between two concepts: "rewriting" and "interpretation." The difference between them is subtle, but notable. An interpretation is basically you soak in what you're given and come to a conclusion/reaction. Extensive thought may help you understand your interpretation, but it's not necessary. In no way are you actively changing the facts you are presented with - just interpreting them.

A mental rewrite, however, requires bending, ignoring, or changing facts in order to lead to a different conclusion. You are not following the path the storyteller created for you - you are hacking and exerting yourself to change it, and on subsequent views/readings, probably require notes and/or plugging your ears and lalalalalaing to keep up the facade.

For me, the ending of ME3 is an interpretation. The first time I beat it, indoctrination came into my mind. It all felt so very off, and not in a lazy, haphazard way. There are signs. Signs pointing to things. I tend to be an observant person, so I readily concede not everyone would pay attention or intrepret the signs like I did, but they are there, and they fit in place for me in such a way that my mind jumpted to indoctrination. What I'm saying is, this wasn't a conclusion I had to delude myself into reaching. It came to me readily, at which point I googled for more info and found the evidence threads with a chock ton of things I didn't see my first time through.

A mental rewrite to me would be PJ's Lord of the Rings films. I loooove Tolkien. I loved the first two LotR movies. I DESPISED Return of the King my first time through. To this day (much to my wife's dismay), the ONLY way I can watch the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy on film is by actively making shit up to fill in the MANY MANY holes that last movie has. Here's one example: Sam leaving Frodo. In the books, dude is a bro to the end. In the movie, he gets all sniffly when Frodo tells him to leave and he leaves. WTF?! He KNOWS Gollum will kill Frodo. WHY would he cry like a ninny and leave him to die? Jackson does NOTHING to tell us Sam had any other intent but to go home until he finds the llembas. So for me, I need to actively remind myself every time I see that movie that Sam ISN'T leaving. No, no, in MY REALITY, his intention from the start is to find the bread, and then track Frodo down.

You see the difference? I have to actively delude myself in a rewrite. Indoctrination theory - to me, at least - is smooth as butter. It just freaking fits.



ON "BIOWARE PLANNED THIS ALL ALONG" -vs- "BIOWARE ABANDONED THE IDEA AND THREW IN A LAST MINUTE HACK JOB ENDING":
Things in favor of "Indoctrination Plan From the Start":
- The many bits of in-game evidence (interpreted as tips of the hat to the player)
- In February, they said in big loud words: "HOLD ON TO YOUR ME3 SAVES!!!!" (Mayyybe they were talking about ME4 pulling some data over, but I think they mean (FREE) DLC)
- The quote (sue me, I can't find the exact phrasing) they tweeted a few weeks back to the effect of "If only people knew what was coming with the DLC, they wouldn't be so angry."
- They've been working on the game for TWO years, on an engine that was already established. It is difficult - almost implausible - to believe they "ran out of time" on the ending and rushed it.
- They had a two month extension to "polish" the game. If this is true, it's hard to believe the ending could have been rushed, given the level of detail everywhere else.

Thing in favor of the hack job:
- The many bits of in-game evidence (interpreted as incompetence / gaping plotholes by Bioware)
- To pull off the indoctrination plan, Bioware would have to intentionally sacrifice money and fan favor from angry people for the sake of keeping the 'real ending' quiet, which probably wouldn't float past EA.
- They had a two month extension to "polish" the game, but in reality were throwing shit together (I really don't believe this, but it's possible)


To your points in response to my points:

1)
I agree, the radio transmission about nobody making it to the beams COULD have been in reference to them thinking you're dead, but coupled with everything else, I still think it is evidence that something is off. Especially when time slows down. The game repeatedly uses time slowing down during dream states.

2)
James & the hum: I should point out that I am a borderline OCD gameplayer. My Mass Effect game completions hover on 60-70 hrs apiece. ME3 took me 71hrs 08minutes to beat. This comes into play specifically in regards to Vega. When I beat a mission, I talk to everyone on the Normandy. Then I go through every part of the citadel. Then I scan everything I can. Then I beat a mission and repeat the Normandy/Citadel/Scan steps.

Why is this important? Because if you talk to James once after EVERY mission, he will mention the hum at LEAST 10 times. Granted, the actual line is only one or two pieces of recorded audio repeated, but the normal James line for exhausting dialogue is "Hey." or "Commander."

Why would they have him every so often mention the strange hum? ESPECIALLY when the codex entry for indoctrination starts off with hearing a hum??

Taking this one step further, Kotaku reported a week or two ago that if you pause the game in the War Room, you can hear the "Vigil" song being played by the machinery. (http://kotaku.com/5895616/mass-effect-3s-musical-secret)

Shuffling our feet forward yet AGAIN, if you pause the game in the Shuttle Bay, the machinery plays something else... one of the geth combat songs from the first game. It's a synthy thing, but it's so there! I'll have to break out the soundtrack to grab its name.

This level of detail being implemented across the board is so strange when you consider the ending-as-is contains more holes than the back of Javik's head-piece-thing. Are we to believe that they put ALLLL of this effort into ALLL these tiny details, and then simply forgot or didn't care that Shepard shoots Anderson but Shepard is the one bleeding, or that they killled Ashley and then forgot about that when putting her on the Normandy? That is more ludicrous to me than believing the ending is indoctrination.

3)
I am afraid to load that save to check the last dream, as I'm afraid it will overwrite the "Restart Citadel" mission, but my Shepard was SOOOO evil looking in that dream. Maybe it's a Paragon / Renegade thing (I was a devout Paragon), but he was giving me the full on BroShep rapeface. There was nothing pleasant about it. Ok, I found it on youtube, but it's not exactly what I was hoping for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m_LOEeKdak

At 19 seconds, as Shep looks up, he has a slightly evil smirk, but I need to load up my save, because I swear the final look as he's burning was a wide full on evil grin. I openly admit it is possible I'm misremembering that final look, but I distinctly remember saying out loud "oooooooookayyyy, that wasn't tooo creepy." as it happened. I will let you know what I find after reloading it tonight. I'll take a picture if my memory is correct.

4)
TIM controlling Shep/Anderson with Reaper tech by itself isn't fishy. What IS fishy is that TIM is indoctrinated. If HE can control Shep/Anderson, then it would stand to reason that Shep/Anderson must be indoctrinate-able. In what world would the Reapers not be all over that like bears on honey? In fact, I was playing with a concept that TIM is actually the good guy, fighting to break Shepard out of Indoctrination since the start of ME2, but that might be stretching too far, and will require an extensive note-taking replay of ME2/3. If I ever do this, I will let you know my findings.


5)
The Crew. So I reloaded and did the Destruction ending last night, and I paid more attention to things. In addition to the Crew showing up on the Normandy, why is the Normandy fleeing the system to begin with? And why does Joker look like he just saw a ghost? These are massive holes, and the only way I can chalk it up to Bioware incompetence is to go back to the development looking like this:

- Spend two years designing ME3. Create exceptional "Indoctrination Ending" (Alternatively, ignore ending entirely until game is 99.9% finished - which again, seems highly unlikely given the polish everywhere else)
- Get extension from holidays to March. Pull out and destroy indoctrination ending. Create new, rushed ending that coincidentally fits lock-and-key into original indoctrination ending. (This seems as oddly paradoxical as the "we don't want you to die by synthetics, so we're sending in synthetics to kill you so that synthetics don't kill you!" premise)

I just can't wrap my head around any world in which the ending was rushed. The game is so well crafted, from start to finish. Whether we like every second of every hour or not, we can't deny time and energy were put into this game's construction. I absolutely refuse to believe they just stopped caring in the 11th hour and threw this together intending it to go as is. It takes more suspension of disbelief for me to swallow THAT then it does for me to accept the whole thing is Reaper indoctrination and the "real" finale is forthcoming (I hope).

AND... when you take the Destruction path, Shepard awakens in the rubble of London! I just don't see how the Citadel could have exploded with him on it and his armorless body somehow crashes back to earth in London - still moving. It makes so much more sense to me that the "awakening" is moments after being hit by Harbinger's insta-indoctrination beam and Shepard in fact never left Earth.

ON HAVING LOW EMS / ONLY DESTROY OPTION:
why, if Shepard has low EMS, does only the "Destroy" option present itself? If the Reapers are trying to Indoctrinate Shepard's mind, then presenting only one option -- their destruction -- with no resistance seems a bit . . . dumb. This is especially dumb if you've chosen to destroy the Geth during the game, since there is now no reason to take that only option.

That's a very good point. A low EMS only gives you Destroy as an option? I didn't know that. Hmmm. OK, let's think here. What would a low EMS score represent? A small threat, effectively, right? The Reapers "Don't Fear the Shepard" (haha!) in this case, as he's failed to bring a real threat to them. So perhaps - if this is indoctrination - they are testing his loyalty. If the bit about "we only destroy high level organics" is true (Javik knows of Asari/Salarians/Humans, so I'm guessing this is true and the low level organics were spared in the last culling), then perhaps a low EMS score means you are so unworthy they don't even care enough to find out if you would really destroy them or not. I'll have to think about this one more. That's not the tightest theory, by any means, but a higher EMS score represents a higher threat, so maybe they only get scared if you bring a high EMS, where they go all: "OOh, you got moxie, kid! Maybe we'll keep you around for your dna! Don't you wanna give up on this "kill us plan" and just give in to indoctrina... er, no, Synthesis. Yea, yea, definitely not indoctrination. *ahem* Forget I ever said that word."

ON POST CRUCIBLE CUTSCENES:
Furthermore, what is the point of the cutscenes after the choice on the Crucible? Why, after you choose anything, does Harbinger take the time to show you images of Reapers flying away or falling to the earth, Mass Relays exploding spectacularly, and the Normandy attempting to outrun the blastwave and crash landing on an alien world? What function does that serve? Building from that, why -- especially during the "Destroy" ending, where it appears after the scene of Shepard waking in the rubble -- does an epilogue appear? An epilogue which features, no less, the same alien sky the Normandy crashed beneath and which depicts an old man and grandchild presumably generations descended from the original survivors. Their dialogue even gives us the impression that humanity has been unable to reach the stars since the Mass Relays exploded, which pretty well implies that the events we saw at the end happened as we saw them. Why -- and how -- does Harbinger impart that little nugget into Shepard's brain after he breaks free?

You're making me work for this! I like it!

For starters, I was bummed that the credits spoiled Buzz Aldrin for me. I was like "BUZZ ALDRIN WAS IN THIS GAME?!?! WHERE WAS THAT?!" and then they showed him to me minutes later. Jerks.

I haven't entirely wrapped my head around the post-Crucible cutscenes. Here are some possibilities I've narrowed it down to:

A)
Indoctrination propaganda. Why? In the case of Synthesis or Control, it's a way to placate Shepard and KEEP him indoctrinated. "Look, Shepard, YOUR FRIENDS survived, and they ARE HAPPY with your choice of Control/Synthesis! GOOD BOY!" In the case of Destroy, they might want to give you a false sense of victory, but I feel that Destroy is actually Shepard breaking free of the indoc (thus going back to him in London).

(Do they just show the squad mate you brought with you exiting Normandy, or is it always your love interest? I brought Ashley on the final mission, and she is also my love interest, so I honestly don't know if they differentiate between the two.)

B)
Shepard hallucinating. We've seen indoctrinated people frequently, and the thing they all exhibit is a propensity to freak the fudge out when confronted with things that indicate their choice to help the Reapers is bad. Saren, TIM, and Dr. Amanda Kenson ALL wig out when Shepard throws the "Dude, you are so totally screwing over all organic life right now" in their faces. Indoctri-Shep would be completely incapable of coming to terms with the fact that he just killed all his friends and every living being in the universe. He would very easily write it off: "No, no, no they totallysurvived! The woman I love survived, my shipmates surived! Everyone survived! Praise be the Reapers!"

C)
They are messing with time on us. Normandy really DOES crash and land on that planet, but they only show (for me at least) Joker/Edi/Ashley exiting it, or Joker/Ashley/Javik. The soon-to-come "real ending" would be a flashback to what happens in between Shepard's decision and the Normandy's fate. (I won't call this one likely, per se, but a large gap of time would explain how the squadmates got to the ship and bugged the hell out.) Imagine if we find out that Destroy-Shep is on the Normandy with them, too... you just don't know it yet!

As far as the Stargazer and his son, this is sooooo open to interpretation. Maybe it happened years later. Maybe it happened centuries later. Maybe it's cycles. Maybe they just wanted a philosophic wrap-up to fuck with us. I'm not sure, but I didn't take it as a direct tie-in, as much as a spiritual one. Sort of like... I can't even think of a comparable ending at the moment. It felt more like an epilogue to the fans, more than the story. Especially - holy shit, this just hit me - the kid says "Tell me another story about the Shepard!" and Buzz replies with "Well, ok, ONE MORE!" Shit, I didn't even think about that before. If WE are the kid and Bioware is Buzz Aldrin, then there is ONE MORE story coming! ... I'm actually shocked I didn't realize this earlier. Don't you see? They totally said One. More. Story. But we haven't gotten it yet! That was the message! That is the point of that cinematic! That is the proof! AHAHAHAHAH! I AM SO AWESOME! WOOOOO!!!

ON BIOWARE'S NON-USE OF THIS IN OTHER GAMES:
Lastly, the Mass Effect series -- hell, all of Bioware's games -- have never been this oblique and psychological; they've always been purely straight-forward adventures -- adventures with mature and complex themes, to be certain, but always straight-forward in execution. So why now, in the last ten minutes, should I expect this change? Why should I suppose that Bioware has applied this level of sophistication and complexity, when nothing prior to this has even approached this level of subtlety?
It all depends how deeply you want to look. I would argue that they have used it more-than-sporadically in several of their games, (would need time/research to pull up legit examples) but it usually is under the surface and easily ignored if you so choose. ME2 used subtle Biblical references in several of Legion's quests (heck, even his name is a Bible reference). They use subtle music & audio cues (as mentioned above) to psychologically impact us... I don't see it being THAT out of character for them, especially considering how easy it is to jump from "We should indoctrinate Shepard." ---> "No... we should indoctrinate the PLAYER!"

IN CLOSING:
I like the indoctrination theory. I really do. In fact, it shows a level of imagination in the fans that Bioware should be jealous of. But the fact is, there's just not as much going for it as people believe. It's mostly just boxing shadows on the wall, so you shouldn't really blame people for accepting what they see at face value. Personally, I find it bad writing on their part even if it is indoctrination, since there's so much conflicting evidence either way.
Well, I 100% respect the people who think the ending is legit and hate it. There is no definitive all-powerful evidence anywhere, so ultimately, this is all up for grabs. My only gripe with people who hate the ending are those who refuse to concede there is ANY room for interpretation, when there clearly is.


Do me a favor. Read the codex description for indoctrination (boldiness by moi!), then watch the entire ending again. I just really at the end of the day can't fathom this being an accident:

Reaper "indoctrination" is an insidious means of corrupting organic minds, "reprogramming" the brain through physical and psychological conditioning using electromagnetic fields, infrasonic and ultrasonic noise, and other subliminal methods. The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions.

Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes, they have feelings of "being watched" and hallucinations of "ghostly" presences. Ultimately, the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim's body to amplify its signals, manifesting as "alien" voices in the mind.

Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations.


I'm not going to pretend any of this is conclusive evidence, but it's more than an imaginative fan base rewriting the ending for Bioware. Ultimately, it's up to each of us to decide what's happening. I can happily choose indoctrination without feeling like I'm lying to myself. And unlike Return of the King, which pains me because I DO have to lie to myself, this is an easy ending for me to accept in the slim chance Bioware doesn't release ANY clarifying endgame content. I just wish more people were open to at least talking about it. You clearly are, and for that, you Thing in the Coat, I applaud you.

Thank you again for engaging me in conversation on this. I have been DYING to discuss the ending with someone, and most of my friends at this point haven't beaten the game yet, or, like my brother-in-law, just want to spout on about how much the ending is a PoS, no room for any other interpretation. You have really made my day! XD
 

The.Bard

New member
Jan 7, 2011
402
0
0
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Sorry if I sounded condescending. :S
You have every right to believe that, but I don't want to see Bioware getting credit for something that they didn't put in the game. From my understanding, they scrapped the Indoctrination plan, but were lazy enough to leave the hints in. They created a horrible ending, some fans made it better than that.
Oh no, you didn't come off as condescending at all. When I said I took exception to it, I just meant I disagreed. You voiced your opinion quite well.

I just wrote a mega-uber-long reply about the potential of them scrapping the ending and being lazy, so I won't repeat my uber long windedness. Feel free to read the post if you have trouble falling asleep tonight, though:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.355500.14163480
 

The.Bard

New member
Jan 7, 2011
402
0
0
ThingInTheCoat said:
P.P.S. During the writing of this, I watched the gameplay of the Crucible approach on Youtube to refresh my memory, and goddamn if that shit just doesn't jive. Bioware's writing team certainly couldn't have dropped the ball that much by accident, could they? It's just so fucking weird to take that sequence of events at face value, even though I doubt the Indoctrination theory.
Ok, if you haven't already read my last uber duber mega post, don't bother. Everything I said can be summed up far more effectively by going here and devoting 20 mins of your time to a VERY worthy eye-opener:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck

I take back what I said about no conclusive evidence. This -IS- as close to conclusive evidence as you can possibly find. It's one thing to play the game and think to yourself, "OH, this looks like indoctrination!" But hearing the voices of Sovereign, Shepard, & Harbinger over the course of the entire series SPELL IT OUT as each part of the ending flies by? That is a whole new level of eye-opening. There isn't one part of that video that does not fit together LOCK and KEY.

Occam's Razor, baby:

1) Bioware wrote a final confrontation of Shepard's internal struggle against indoctrination. Anderson and TIM are competing facets of Shepard's mind, and the entire ending choices are ultimately nothing but the fight for control of Shepard. (Logic Gaps: None)

- OR -

2) Bioware willfully defied EVERYTHING ELSE they did within the game, creating 15-20 plot holes the size of the Titanic. They were all drunk off their asses when the ending went through the wire, and they intentionally shit upon their own work in a myriad of ways. There is no feasible universe in which this level of ineptitude goes through unless they did it ON PURPOSE. Otherwise, we are to believe Shepard shoots Anderson and they forgot who was supposed to bleed? They "rushed" the ending by creating extra vocal files of Fem/BroShep speaking the Reaper Child's lines? We are supposed to believe nobody was fact checking any of this? Exploding relays that don't explode like they did in Arrival? Everyone at Bioware missed ALL OF THIS?? (Several logic gaps need massive amounts of filling for this to work.)

I'm sorry, #1 wins. Every. Damn. Time. It is more probable, and requires ONLY the information Bioware has previously submitted about indoctrination. It just... DAMN.



Bioware, congratulations. You created an ending so brilliant, so amazingly resoundingly full of awesome, that your entire fanbase not only missed the point, but missed the point by so much that they think you guys are mentally challenged.

I think I'm tearing up.


HO-LEE MOLEE.

------------
EDIT: Hmmm, after thinking more, retract statement of missing the point.. Fanbase not missing point. Intent is to make feelings... uncomfortable. Logical for Reaper indoctrination to have loopholes in logic. Therefore, fan reaction appropriate. Correctly identifying somerthing wrong. Anger is not misplaced. BIoware knew this in advance? Predicted accuracy of fan rage to... 79.43%. Did not account for misidentification of cause, however. Hmmm. Need to run more tests.
 

decay0815

New member
Mar 28, 2012
2
0
0
I *loved* the endings of Mass Effect 3!
But the authors of the game received so much criticism.
Show the authors of Mass Effect 3 your appreciation of their art by joing the facebook group and share this post to spread the news!
http://www.facebook.com/groups/362681940443797/