![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Mass Effect 3 SPOILERS THREAD
- Thread starter TheOneKnownAsMe
- Start date
What significance does Pax have?
they have a panel at PAX east
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 9,762
I'm very intrigued myself. I'm starting to believe indoctrination was much earlier on...
How much earlier?
soulsavior
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2011
- Messages
- 200
PAX is the Penny Arcade Expo. BioWare has already said they have some sort of plans to announce at PAX.
Pax is also a word originated from Latin, meaning Peace
Solitude
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,566
lol grasping here probably, but pax is on the east side of the chart.
I'm telling you, Bioware is gonna blow our minds.
People are upset. Nobody seemed to be upset about that little boy in the beginning of the game though. Nobody even seems to notice him AT ALL but Shepard....PTSD? I say Indoctrination.
I'm telling you, Bioware is gonna blow our minds.
People are upset. Nobody seemed to be upset about that little boy in the beginning of the game though. Nobody even seems to notice him AT ALL but Shepard....PTSD? I say Indoctrination.
I was put off by the kid, the first time he appeared subsequent to the intro. And when the first dream sequence imposed itself on me, I was wondering WTF game was I playing.
To sum up, in science fiction, especially in a visual medium, I subscribe to: "No Cute Kids, No Cute Robots. Ever!" 99 times out of 100, such characters detract from the story, rather than add to it.
It doesn't matter if they blow our minds, all they had to say was "We're sorry,we didn't have time to finish the real ending for our game and series, but a real ending is coming." Instead they spun and lied, and told us not to be mean to them. So at best, their rep may be eligible for partial redemption.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,677
I think even JMS would support introducing the kid and then killing him.
Oh, look at that, he did the same thing to make a different point.
Solitude
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,566
there is no little kid imo. just in shepards mind.
what is the significance of this distinction I don't get it... there's no logical reason anyone should have known about the boy besides shepard, whether or not he was real is irrelevant, since there was no one around during those 2 brief appearances to imply that he represented anything more than what was given. it was a completely shallow and straightforward vehicle to me, with zero reason to take beyond face value. why do this to yourself?
What do you mean there was no one around? Granted it was just Shepard and Anderson the first time, but the second time you see him when he boards the shuttle there are plenty of people around.
You'd have to ignore or try to counter all the really good points and explanations people are coming up with for the indoctrination theory. It would be one hell of a coincidence.
a boy boards a shuttle and dies, no one cares about him besides shepard, the end. what "theories"? all I see are desperate people struggling to string random details together, that form no coherent message whatsoever. caution signs around dangerous objects, really? wow that's pretty crazy, for someone to put caution signs, around dangerous objects. it must totally mean something else, other than the danger, around this object.
omfg there's caution signs all over our shuttle on the normandy! does this mean cortez is trying to indoctrinate my entire crew??? I knew there was something different about that guy. he must be part of some hidden plot element, around all those caution signs.
omfg there's caution signs all over our shuttle on the normandy! does this mean cortez is trying to indoctrinate my entire crew??? I knew there was something different about that guy. he must be part of some hidden plot element, around all those caution signs.
Maplehamwich
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,539
I'm confused at your confusion.
The child is present in the natural world.
The child is present in Shepard's dreams.
The child is present in the hallucination-esque ending.
Theories of the indoctrination ending point to the hallucinogenic child being a reaper presence. Those theories then point to child in Shepard's dream being a reaper indoctrination presence/representation that Shepard's mind is dealing with. Indoctrination theory points to a reaper scream in the first encounter with the child in the natural world as the cue to his disappearance. This reaper scream event then suggests the child as an indoctrination attempt by the reapers.
Similarly, the second encounter with the child in the natural world is a reaper indoctrination like event as he seems to be ignored by those around him, suggesting the reapers wish to prey on Shepard's feelings of defeat due to seeing said child be blown up and further effecting indoctrination.
The warning signs are an attempt at fleshing out this theory by suggesting further evidence that the child is not a real being. The warning signs would be a manifestation of Shepard's mind telling him the child is not real. Alternatively, they would be a plant by BioWare subtly hinting that the child is not to be trusted, which leads to theorizing of the child being a reaper indoctrination device.
You need to look at more than just those minor points. There's a very strong overall indoctrination theory. Did you even watch any of the videos previously posted? They might be a little long but are very in depth and make a compelling argument.
Here's a simple question I'd like you to answer. In the final scene before you make your control/synthesis/destroy choice.... why is the representation of the catalyst THE child? Just simply reading Shepard's mind? What importance does this child have compared to all the others Shepard has died?
I think I read somewhere that Bioware originally wanted to have a change of Shepard being indoctrinated but could not find a way to make it work in gameplay, hence all the signs and foreshadowing.
Remember how Javik warned that Reapers greatest weapon was despair they managed to inflict on their enemies? Those dreams and encounters with the child before that are almost pure despair and hopelessness.
That said, Bioware just botched the endings in such a spectacular way that it is hard to top. Fortunately for them, they have a good game foundation that can be fixed with improved ending / Earth sequence if they wish (if rEApers want to fund it ...).
Remember how Javik warned that Reapers greatest weapon was despair they managed to inflict on their enemies? Those dreams and encounters with the child before that are almost pure despair and hopelessness.
That said, Bioware just botched the endings in such a spectacular way that it is hard to top. Fortunately for them, they have a good game foundation that can be fixed with improved ending / Earth sequence if they wish (if rEApers want to fund it ...).
The more I learn about these games, the less I know. I don't know what to think at this point.
There are lots of little hints and subtle, and not so subtle things in the game which support the indoctrination theory. While many of them can be either dismissed or rationalized away, such rationalizations become suspect given the sheer volume of evidence presented in the theory. As for the child, I believe it's something created to crush Shepard's hope deliberatley. To illustrate the futility of his efforts in an effort to make him feel despair and a sense of inevitibility. (Inevitability is something which Harbinger and even Sovereign spoke of often.) The boy also refuses to let Shepard help him. If you think about it, Shepard is charasmatic and definitely good at getting the trust of strangers in all kinds of situations. Yet for some reason, Shepard fails hard with this particular person.
Some things, like the caution signs when the boy appears in the real world may be coincidence. But the fact that Shepard burns with the boy when caught in the final dream tends to put a nail in the coffin in the idea that the boy isn't to be trusted.
Remember, when the destroy ending is selected with a high enough EMS rating, Shepard wakes up in rubble, in London. This tells us the boy lies to us as Shepard is clearly not destroyed with all synthetic life. A choice that the AI child tries to steer Shepard away from. The other two choices are presented in a much more agreeable manner. I have little to support this assertion that the boy tries to argue against this choice other than my interpretation of how the lines are delivered. Kind of an "oh, BTW, you can destroy all synthetic life if you want, but you are partly synthetic." Quarians and a lot of others have cybernetic implants. Does a biotic implant count? In fact EDI even discusses the threshold of what counts as a trans-human in regard to organic / synthetic hybrids. The choice is presented as negative as well because if you saved both the Quarians and or the Geth, you'd destroy them too with this choice. A people you just saved being condemned right away seems shitty.
There is a lot of evidence, and it seems more hits all the time as people complete the game and go through it. Some of the things I've noticed which lead me to conclude the indoctrination theory is correct:
- The boy is never acknowledged or interacted with in any way by anyone other than Shepard.
- The signature Reaper growl is heard when Anderson walks into the room and talks to Shepard. The boy vanishes instantly without a noise or a trace.
- The Rachni Queen in ME1 describes the indoctrination of those who came before her (as the species has a genetic memory) as involving images of oily shadows. Shepard's dream sequences involve ever increasing amounts of oily shadows.
- The codex entry on indoctrination describes it in a very a specific way, which has symptoms identical to Shepard's behavior at the end of the game. Remember that indoctrination can take days, weeks, or even years.
- Matriarch Benezia's description of indoctrination also matches up to what Shepard is experiencing.
- After the beam hits and Shepard wakes up, there are all of the sudden bushes and trees which can be seen in the streets of London which weren't there previously and wouldn't have survived Harbinger's beam attack even if they were present before. (There is no reason for shrubberies to be present in the middle of the street regardless and this scene when carefully examined looks like a melding of what Shepard saw when he was hit and his dream sequences.)
- Radio chatter after the beam hits definitely indicates that Shepard and Anderson failed to reach the beam. This is further supported by Shepard waking up in the rubble if your EMS is high enough and the destroy ending is chosen.
- The gun shot wound inflicted on Anderson transfers to Shepard as Anderson "dies."
- Look at Shepard's eyes in all of the endings. Only the destroy ending shows Shepard with unaltered eyes. The eyes in the other two endings look like those of the Illusive Man and even resembles Saren's eyes somewhat.
- It is unlikely Shepard's radio would work given the sheer amount of damage it took, or that Anderson could beat him to the control room.
- Marauder Shields shoots Shepard in the shoulder, yet no wound is ever seen here and Shepard's shoulder seems fine. He continues to hold his M-6 Carnifex hand cannon and even fire it without difficulty after reaching the Citadel.
- Shepard's weapon never needs to be reloaded during the entire ending sequence.
- Like the dreams, Shepard moves in slow motion once he or she "wakes up" after the beam hits.
- Why does Harbinger fly away? He has a particular obsession with Shepard and I'm fairly certain he would notice whether or not Shepard, or anyone on the team near the beam is still alive or not and wouldn't leave them there. He woudl finish them off if that was his desire.
- The appearance of the Illusive Man is strange. Are we to believe he went alone, into the Citadel to confront Anderson and Shepard? Even somewhat huskified and gross, it seems unlikely he'd confront the two under any circumstances without help.
- Anderson and the Illusive Man do not speak to one another. They only speak to Shepard, and offer almost totally opposed points of view.
- The teleportation of Shepard's final "push" squad into the Normandy in the dream sequence seems more like a vision or hopeful dream of Shepards rather than a possible real event.
- Harbinger's voice is present in all the dream sequences.
- Shepard chases the boy and burns when he catches him in the dream.
- Many voices in the dream can be interpreted as warning Shepard, or making him/her feel guilty about the choices he or she made. As Javik puts it: "Despair is the enemies greatest weapon." Like other verbal clues, I believe this statement tells you how the Reapers work, and clues you in that the indoctrination succeeds only when all hope is lost and your will is broken. This idea is exemplified in Saren who essentially lost all hope and joined Sovereign due to having no other viable choice to ensure the survival of any organics. He believed only adding value to the Reaper cause would allow him to be spared, but it was the false sense of control and the sense of despair that became his trap. Matriarch Benezia also seemed to fall into this trap as well.
Some other things to think about:
Shepard has spent a lot of time around Reaper technology and has spoken to at least three Reapers directly. Something that even Shepard's squad mates couldn't have possibly done as they were not present during his conversation with Harbinger in the arrival. So Shepard has had more time with Reapers than anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated previously. There are also comments from squad members like Ashley expressing concern about indoctrination and how fighting it seems almost impossible, if not unimaginable. Prior to ME3, I started wondering when Shepard would start to suffer ill effects of being around so much Reaper stuff. He is constantly referred to as being remarkably strong willed, and of course he has the Prothean Cipher and knowledge within him as well. This may allow him to fight the effects longer and harder than anyone else, but he's still been around so much of it. In fact it seems to me that Shepard NOT suffering from indoctrination or at least struggling with it would be a HUGE plot hole.
The conversations, codex entries, Reaper agents, etc. in all the games prior to this one keep telling you time and time again about how subtle, irresistable, and complete the indoctrination is. They make this point constantly.
And this one is the real kicker, and it's hard to figure out just what to make of this:
http://loudmouthedgamers.com/blog/w.../03/mass-effect-3-ending-in-mass-effect-1.jpg
I confirmed this in Mass Effect 1 myself yesterday. The star child is alluded to in ME1! Let me give you a minute to absorb that...............................................
It is really difficult to figure out what this really means. This odd ball codex entry about a random planet you can't land on or do anything with in Mass Effect 1 has to mean something. Especially given how out of place it seemed when I played the original game. It just didn't seem to totally fit with the universe the way it was presented at the time. Notice that the description of the star child AI fits, and though vague a perfect match to the AI star child. However, the role which is presented at the end of ME3 seems opposite of what's presented in the codex entry. The legend of these beings in the codex entry for that planet paints a picture of these guardians of organics as opposite of the Reapers. Yet the Rachni Queen's talk of oily shadows and the effects of indoctrination etc. are in fact perfectly represented with consistency from ME1 to ME3. In fact all the threads of all the game's plotlines show remarkable, if not uncanny consistency. When we all played ME1 the first time, we just didn't have context for everything we saw and heard. But it seems odd for all that consistency to go out the window in the last 10 minutes of what amounts to a 100+ hour series of games.
If you haven't seen that codex entry, you are probably floored right about now as I was. You may think it validates this as the original planned ending to the game. While I won't deny that this is in fact a possibility, I don't think that's the case either. I think there is more to it than that. BioWare also talks about clarification and explaining the endings. Saying this is indoctrination, or adding gameplay which tells us this and many other possibilities fall into the category of clarification.
I'm going to go out on a limb and give BioWare a shit ton of credit. One thing these games are, is character driven. They are designed to play on our emotions in a very real and concrete way. For those of us who really understand the game, listen to every conversation and lament over each choice we make, it works. When we make a difficult decision without knowing what the long term effects will be, you may lament the decision, want to change it, or gleefully anticipate learning the outcome even if it's two games away from happening. From a science fiction standpoint BioWare's created a great universe, but the universe borrows many of it's elements from other franchises. What defines the experience as unique is it's interactivity. Not just simple combat, but our choices, conversations, and the way we can personally cultivate Shepard's relationships in the game. We can choose what characters to cultivate friendships with, or betray, who to romance. We can choose to cheat or be faithful even if separated for a long time. etc. The characters themselves are really well done, and even when I don't like them all, I understand and can often sympathize with them. This is very clearly, the way things were designed.
BioWare may be further personalizing the game by manipulating the player, not a character in a game. Afterall BioWare has been manipulating our emotions from day one in this series. If you really enjoyed the game, you had to feel something as you played through it. Be it gleefully sacrificing Kaiden on Virmire, to mourning Legion's sacrifice as he ushered his people into a new era of consciousness.
Getting back to the codex entry about the star child. We saw this codex entry in passing at best. Whether we remembered it or not. Essentially this means Shepard saw it in passing.
So why the boy? Not only does the child represent an innocence which Shepard fails to save, the Star child AI may represent a hope opposite of the fear and horror which is associated with the Reapers. Harbinger is undoubtedly using this AI child as a construct to manipulate Shepard if the indoctrination theory pans out as I think it will to some extent. It is possible that this is also done as a means, by Harbinger to trick Shepard further should these guardian beings created to protect organics appear. Sort of a proactive propaganda campaign if you will.
Now, never forget that Mass Effect borrows from the mythology of many other science fiction sources. These life forms presented in that codex entry sound a lot like the Ancients in Stargate to me in a sense. Fans of Stargate may recall that the ancients had their opposing faction. If you will recall the ancients, were sworn not to interfere with the natural order of organic life in the galaxy. they would let them evolve on their own, be harvested by the Wraith etc. They had few rules which would allow their interferance. It may be that the Reapers are kept in check by these beings and this is why they can only harvest under certain conditions. Just as the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek aren't allowed to make first contact with a species until they reach a certain level of technology. (Sorry for changing gears with regard to science fiction parallels, but whatever.)
This codex entry was something I noticed in my first playthrough of ME1 and thought: "How strange. This doesn't really seem to fit with this game at all." I hadn't put this piece together until I found this codex entry again in my most recent playthrough of ME1 which I completed last night.
The game seems to attempt to actually create despair in the player in the final act. These games have always been about manipulating the emotions of Shepard, and by extention the player who controls Shepard. While this is giving BioWare a lot of potential credit, they may be upping their game to indoctrinating the actual player in a sense with this as a stunt of sorts. In essence to make the player feel what the character in the game would or should feel under the circumstances. In a way, the ultimate RPG experience. fooling a character in a game is a matter of scripting a sequence with the player being along for the ride. But that creates a disconnect as it is forced on the player as it is completely beyond their control. In reality, making the player feel a certain way is the only way to truly bring them into the game. It's far fetched I know, but the theory behind indoctrination has so much evidence going for it, that it seems highly improbable if not impossible to simply be us reading into something that isn't there. While it is true that we may be drawing the wrong conclusions, you have to admit, the endings have more going on than what we are seeing at face value. Even if we are reading into some imagery too much, the likelyhood of this all being in our collective heads seems again, far fetched. Especially when the entire series has so much consistency to it's story telling and writing, just to lose it all in the last 10 minutes of the third game at what is really, the most important point in the series, it's conclusion.
One could argue that the codex entry which points to a planned existence of the Star Child AI indicates that this ending was the original intention. You could take it a step further and argue that the leaked script was a bit of a red herring and this was their plan all along. Despite the odd disparity between the way the codex represents these legendary protectors of organic beings, and what we are seeing in the final act of the third game. But, the existence of this codex entry doesn't actually preclude the possibility of the indoctrination theory being true. But whatever is going on with the game's ending is certainly planned despite the fact that on the surface, it is poorly done. Either due to being rushed or due to design, I can't say. Maybe both.
It seems to me that even if the indoctrination theory doesn't quite pan out, there is more going on here than even that and that endings can not be taken at face value. We are missing crucial context.
Well see there's two things that all the indoctrination advocates are missing:
1) You can find evidence for anything if you look hard enough, even if that thing isn't there. It is like seeing faces in clouds or hearing voices in music backwards. We look for patterns we want to see. So that you found things doesn't mean anything particularly since in light of the backlash, Bioware could retroactively decide that indoctrination was what they wanted, even if it wasn't the original plan. It could have not been that, but become a face saving thing.
2) Even if it was intended, it is a really dick move. To be a good game, a game should be complete without DLC. I'm fine with DLC adding other things later, but you shouldn't have to get DLC to get the real ending or something like that. Imagine if ME2 had ended with the Reaper IFF mission. You go off to test things, your whole crew is abducted, you come back and get the ship and EDI says "Well fuck, the Reaper IFF lead them here, I had to shut it down. We can't attack the collector base, we are boned unless we can make it work," and then there was other associated ending related things, and the game stopped with no closure. You didn't actually get to assault the collector base, get your crew back, any of that until DLC came out. You might be a little pissed off that you were sold an incomplete game, that a major feature, the ending, was a later addon you had to buy.
That's the thing. It doesn't matter whatever the case because the ending is a total cock slap. It was either a cock slap because Hudson and/or Walters went crazy and emo and decided the ending needed to be "dark" to be good and provide no closure, or it was a cock slap because they said "Fuck the real ending, we'll make you have a shitty fake ending, and then pay for DLC with the real one later."
There really is no excusing it. They fucked up bad. I don't even really want them to fix it, I want them to acknowledge it. I'm fine with the idea of art as art and you don't change it because people don't like it. However if they've decided that their games are going to have shitty endings, either because they think it is cool that way or because they want to sell you the "real ending" later, then I will not be purchasing their games in the future.
If they say "Yep, we fucked up. Here's why we did this and thought it would be good, we understand that people didn't like it and won't do it in the future," then ok. Nobody bats 1.000 (hell Jade Empire was a fairly big miss for them) but the people that can't admit their misses are the ones I worry about.
1) You can find evidence for anything if you look hard enough, even if that thing isn't there. It is like seeing faces in clouds or hearing voices in music backwards. We look for patterns we want to see. So that you found things doesn't mean anything particularly since in light of the backlash, Bioware could retroactively decide that indoctrination was what they wanted, even if it wasn't the original plan. It could have not been that, but become a face saving thing.
2) Even if it was intended, it is a really dick move. To be a good game, a game should be complete without DLC. I'm fine with DLC adding other things later, but you shouldn't have to get DLC to get the real ending or something like that. Imagine if ME2 had ended with the Reaper IFF mission. You go off to test things, your whole crew is abducted, you come back and get the ship and EDI says "Well fuck, the Reaper IFF lead them here, I had to shut it down. We can't attack the collector base, we are boned unless we can make it work," and then there was other associated ending related things, and the game stopped with no closure. You didn't actually get to assault the collector base, get your crew back, any of that until DLC came out. You might be a little pissed off that you were sold an incomplete game, that a major feature, the ending, was a later addon you had to buy.
That's the thing. It doesn't matter whatever the case because the ending is a total cock slap. It was either a cock slap because Hudson and/or Walters went crazy and emo and decided the ending needed to be "dark" to be good and provide no closure, or it was a cock slap because they said "Fuck the real ending, we'll make you have a shitty fake ending, and then pay for DLC with the real one later."
There really is no excusing it. They fucked up bad. I don't even really want them to fix it, I want them to acknowledge it. I'm fine with the idea of art as art and you don't change it because people don't like it. However if they've decided that their games are going to have shitty endings, either because they think it is cool that way or because they want to sell you the "real ending" later, then I will not be purchasing their games in the future.
If they say "Yep, we fucked up. Here's why we did this and thought it would be good, we understand that people didn't like it and won't do it in the future," then ok. Nobody bats 1.000 (hell Jade Empire was a fairly big miss for them) but the people that can't admit their misses are the ones I worry about.
I really hope they don't run with IT and instead come up with something else entirely. If they use it, people will smugly be claiming they "called it", even though Bioware probably had no notion of it until the fans dug them out of the hole they got themselves into with the current worthless ending. They would be laughing all the way to the bank when people pay for DLC that was essentially written by the community.
Solitude
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,566
dan_d said it well. any good videos of the theory from stuff only in me3?
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 9,762
I wonder if the legendary protectors of organic life will "arrive" in a DLC...
Yeah, Vega does mention that there's a strange hum on the Normandy. This is even discussed in the "Shepard's Indoctrination" video at 5.25.
Great post.
How is it that Anderson beats Shepard to the control room when Anderson says he follows Shepard up? There's only path to the room. And where does TIM come from? Was he hiding in the Citadel or did he follow Shepard and Anderson in the beam?
Something else, in this video, at about the 1 minute mark, Ashley asks, "how do we fight something that can worm its way into your head?" The camera very subtly closes in on Shepard. It's probably just for dramatic effect, but who knows at this point?
Last edited:
soulsavior
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2011
- Messages
- 200
At this point, I have a had time believing BioWare hadn't planned something similar at one point or another. There's just too many clues for it to be mere coincidence. Either they ran out of time or changed their minds and decided to go another direction. The groundwork they left is just too strong.
Frankly, charging for a "real ending" sounds exactly like something EA would do.
soulsavior
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2011
- Messages
- 200
This is what gets me too. I'm not going to say that BioWare is incapable of a bad ending. Surely they are. But the endings we got (especially synthesis) are so incoherent and inconsistent with the rest of the universe they boggle the mind. The most brain dead, straight forward, least effort ending would have been to let the Crucible just be a weapon that blows up the reapers. That ending would have been 10x better than what we got. They literally had to go out of their way to make such a terribly inane ending.
The whole thing stinks of EA going "You can't have 2 more months to finish it, ship it with what you've got now and fix it with DLC."
you mean undeniable proof that they wanted to make a "$$$" ending where people are forced to buy additional content.
did not check this myself, but would I be correct to assume that the original description has no image of the boy? even the wiki entry has no trace of it, deliberately misleading if so... see this is the problem I have with "theory crafting", not only do people create inferences that do not (yet) exist, but also have to embellish them with additional assumptions and even completely made up details to support their point of view. I don't find it odd at all that they would refer to this overarching theme from the beginning, this is one of my gripes with the series in general, so much of it is just implicit recurring themes. it makes total sense for them to leave a good part of it to the imagination, but to the point of rampant speculation? no, this is a failure in storytelling we can all agree on.
the points listed start out from plainly obvious, to becoming completely far fetched imo. again I'm not denying the fact that this "boy no one sees" is a manifest of shepard's emotions, point being there is no legitimate reason for anyone else to acknowledge him, so why is it constantly implied that he doesn't exist? whether or not he ever physically existed is not important to the concept at all, it's a weak anchor to a theory that just gets worse the more we add to it.
this is the only point I really want to single out, since it basically undermines everything we've been presented with in the game, and this entire "indoctrination theory". I don't believe indoctrination was ever meant to be specific at all, this to me was deliberately vague to maintain a constant level of uncertainty with every antagonist in the game. in fact the only elements of this construct that they have ever been specific about are
- permanent and irreversible mental deterioration
- constant audible interference
none of which shepard has ever suffered from, even through the final moments of the game. the only "pseudo indoctrination" that is ever remotely implied here is of tim's own incomplete research, while he himself becomes a victim of the real thing. you're never even given the chance to entertain his point of view, so how would it make sense that shepard is in any way vulnerable? everything you do, everyone you interact with, even during renegade exchanges serve to reenforce the fact that shepard's convictions are never compromised. is this all supposed to be ignored, simply because you *may* be given a choice to fail at the very end, with practically no explaination of the consequences?
real plot elements and storylines in the game have actually gone to great lengths to be specific on how victims managed to maintain rational thought while under the influence, notice how this all suddenly starts to get fuzzy with tim... just further evidence to me that even if they wished to imply shepard was somehow vulnerable, it was not predetermined in any way, ie. made up on the spot, along with this bootstrapped ending. shepard's "advanced biotics" were installed by tim while in direct opposition with the reapers, where it was also explicity noted that he made no attempt to maintain control over them, so even this slim path was denied by their own writing.
No disagreement here. The ending as it stands does suck because it provides no closure and doesn't make for a satisfying end to the game. It would also be complete asshatery for a game to be released so incomplete.
As for digging in and finding patterns, I hear what you are saying and normally I'm not that guy. I don't buy conspiracy theories when more simple explanations are usually available. In this case it's hard to say, "BioWare just wrote a shitty ending" because at no point in the Mass Effect games, not even ME3 have we seen them jump the shark like that or write anything so poorly. The first time I saw it I hadn't heard of the theory, but frankly much of it struck me odd from the very beginning.
Mainly the shrubs you can see all of the sudden in the streets of London. Then Anderson and the Illusive Man being there on the Citadel. The gun shot wound transferring to Shepard from Anderson was the next big clue something was up. The fact that the Illusive Man doesn't speak to Anderson and vice versa was also something I caught right away. I already questioned everything I saw right off the bat because of how it was presented. That first playthrough I had avoided spoilers at all costs, I didn't want to go into that part of the game with preconceptions. About the only thing I knew was that many people hated the ending. I don't think this is a simple case of me seeing patterns and things I just want to see. The patterns are there and are very clear. Is indoctrination theory correct? I don't know. But there is enough about the whole thign that isn't right in any form or fashion regardless. The only thing I'm certain of is that the endings can not be taken at face value.
I'm thankful for that at least because the endings at face value are fucking horrid.
Drown Babies
Gawd
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 700
Having beaten the game again last night I noticed a few more odd things that make the ending sequence seem a little rushed and sloppy.
There is some missing geometry present when you are on top of the Citadel. After talking to the kid you can walk (slowly) away from the three ending choice areas. When you get to the back of that area (I think where Shepard came up on the platform) you can see some weirdness while trying to look out towards the edge of the presidium ring; I see the kind of odd repeating and shimmering textures that normally occur when you clip through a wall, or fall through a hole of missing geometry in other games. It's not like many people will walk back there, it takes forever, but it still seems sloppy.
Also, I'm fairly sure that the Crucible is docked to the wrong side of the Citadel. I had originally thought that it docked the same way that Sovereign did, along the inside of the Wards, connecting to the end of the tower. But it is very clearly docked to the other side of the presidium, at the base of the tower.
Earlier though, when you first open the Citadel, the Crucible is shown approaching the Citadel's opening arms as if it's going to dock like Sovereign did. This would make sense. Why, otherwise, would you need to open the Citadel arms if the Crucible was just going to dock to the already exposed side of the presidium ring? This just seems like another odd oversight. Unless something weird is going on that we aren't shown, like the Crucible approaching from one side, then going all the way around to dock on the other side.
There is some missing geometry present when you are on top of the Citadel. After talking to the kid you can walk (slowly) away from the three ending choice areas. When you get to the back of that area (I think where Shepard came up on the platform) you can see some weirdness while trying to look out towards the edge of the presidium ring; I see the kind of odd repeating and shimmering textures that normally occur when you clip through a wall, or fall through a hole of missing geometry in other games. It's not like many people will walk back there, it takes forever, but it still seems sloppy.
Also, I'm fairly sure that the Crucible is docked to the wrong side of the Citadel. I had originally thought that it docked the same way that Sovereign did, along the inside of the Wards, connecting to the end of the tower. But it is very clearly docked to the other side of the presidium, at the base of the tower.
Earlier though, when you first open the Citadel, the Crucible is shown approaching the Citadel's opening arms as if it's going to dock like Sovereign did. This would make sense. Why, otherwise, would you need to open the Citadel arms if the Crucible was just going to dock to the already exposed side of the presidium ring? This just seems like another odd oversight. Unless something weird is going on that we aren't shown, like the Crucible approaching from one side, then going all the way around to dock on the other side.
trick_m0nkey
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 4,240
This is a really good video that convinces me of the indoc theory. I really encourage you guys to look at it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck&feature=player_embedded
Drown Babies
Gawd
- Joined
- May 29, 2005
- Messages
- 700
That planet is also in ME3, the description is there, but changed a little.
http://kotaku.com/5897486/was-the-ending-of-mass-effect-3-telegraphed-five-years-ago
So it's obviously not something random that they just forgot about.
I have only one question - having only one "playthrough" (my sheperd, vs trying to do everything right), if you did NOT save urdnot wrex in ME1, how does it play out in the second/third game? Is there just an alternate character, or did they actually spin something totally new?
The indoctrination thing isn't that out of character for BioWare, though. The current ending taken at face value, however, is absolutely out of character for BioWare.
I replayed the last part. Anderson says he and Shepard came out in different spots, so it's possible Anderson was quite a bit ahead. Though, it's obvious that Anderson is hurt himself as he makes a wincing sound over the communication device. I don't buy the argument that Anderson is in better condition and thus can move faster.
Shepard makes some comment about feeling like he's dead but that he's moving. Mind you, he moves very robotically.
Anderson goes completely silent on the communication device right about where you cross the bridge area. He's quiet up till Shepard approaches him at the control panel, and then you start hearing all sorts of whispers (so you're automatically thinking back to the dreams). Anderson also starts moving very robotically. Then the camera is just BOOM right in Shepard's face.
I think the ending is a dream.
I replayed the last part. Anderson says he and Shepard came out in different spots, so it's possible Anderson was quite a bit ahead. Though, it's obvious that Anderson is hurt himself as he makes a wincing sound over the communication device. I don't buy the argument that Anderson is in better condition and thus can move faster.
Shepard makes some comment about feeling like he's dead but that he's moving. Mind you, he moves very robotically.
Anderson goes completely silent on the communication device right about where you cross the bridge area. He's quiet up till Shepard approaches him at the control panel, and then you start hearing all sorts of whispers (so you're automatically thinking back to the dreams). Anderson also starts moving very robotically. Then the camera is just BOOM right in Shepard's face.
I think the ending is a dream.
I think there's something to all that.
Acavyos, the person who made the Indoctrination Video, is actually pretty talented:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-JrFmJY2xI
It's nothing to add to the discussion, but I do wonder what this guy does for a living. His website ends .de.tl. That's kind of strange.
Conspiracy1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-JrFmJY2xI
It's nothing to add to the discussion, but I do wonder what this guy does for a living. His website ends .de.tl. That's kind of strange.
Conspiracy1
it means alot to the overall story, but worthless in terms of gameplay for me2 and 3. the story is either wrex succeeds clan urdnot and unites the krogans with eve, or wreav uses the genophage cure as an opportunity to take over and vow revenge. in me2 it's only the difference between a rude or warm greeting when you reach tuchanka, in me3 it's the difference between how you go about achieving the most war assets. storywise it's probably part of the most significant and convoluted plot flags in the game during the tuchanka arc.
the only important thing to know is that if wrex is alive, you gain the most forces by curing the genophage. if wreav is in charge, you gain the exact same assets by fooling them out of the cure and convincing mordin to go along with it (since wreav is an idiot and will not realise what you've done). it's not possible to save mordin unless wreav is in charge, giving him a valid reason to deny them a cure instead of either dying to prevent the sabotage or getting killed by you.
Pretty much, though the dialog is very different in Mass Effect 2 if Wreav is in charge. They respect Shepard as an enemy, but the talk of change and social reform is totally gone from Tuchunka in ME2. Also this alters the dialog with most of the Krogan slightly. In Mass Effect 2 the implications are far larger as you pointed out. If Wreav is in charge then you can save Mordin, but I believe this is only the case if Eve dies. Otherwise Mordin has hope that the Krogan will go through a social revolution and return to their ancient ways. (In which they did more than kill each other and blow shit up.) Otherwise the only way to prevent Mordin from curing the genophage is to shoot him in the back. On the flip side if you don't cure the genophage and deceive Wrex, he will try and kill you leading to a confrontation on the Citadel.
Really the Tuchunka story arc in ME3 is one of the best in the series and among the most variable with quite a few consequences arising from it's many variations.
yea agree, tuchanka was the highlight of this game. then it's all downhill from there, starts going to shit from the moment you escape the rannoch base with legion or the geth vi to fight the 3rd reaper. it's as if at this exact moment EA just called bioware up and said, "times up, pencils down, hand in your work".
No it doesn't show that at all. And it's not docked on the wrong side. It's docked correctly at the "back" of the Citadel. The arms need to be open so the weapon can fire. It can't do anything with the arms closed.
I guess one of the other questions is "where exactly is Shepard at the end?" We know he's at the point where the Crucible meets the Citadel. But is he in space? It would see that is in space at that time.