IT is the only thing that fits, but Casey Hudson and the guy who wrote the ending with him may be stupid enough to have really intended this to be the true ending.

Still doesn't explain the oily shadows in the dreams...everything points to Shepard being indoctrinated.

Amaya wrote:
Still doesn't explain the oily shadows in the dreams...everything points to Shepard being indoctrinated.

I assumed that the shadows were all the people that were dead/failed, they /do/ talk to you with voices of the dead after crewmen die.

You're not aware that in ME1 the Rachni Queen specifically mentions oily shadows that poisoned the minds of her children in regards to indoctrination?

in ME1 the queen got about three words out before I filled her filthy xeno braincase with shells

Amaya wrote:Again, they can't admit it now if they're planning a big surprise reveal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZOyeFvnhiI&feature=related

And God can't be disproven.

Its hyperbole. If Bioware were planning a trick ending we'd know about it by now. They're not going to hold it back faced with the fan rage for 3, 6 or 12 months later. We can keep pretending "they're saving it to surprise everyone" but there's no evidence to support that will happen and plenty to suggest it never will. It's a pipe dream at this point.

Still doesn't explain the oily shadows in the dreams...everything points to Shepard being indoctrinated.

Because people have apparently continued misinterpreting that scene (which baffles me because its bluntly obvious). TIM was using the knowledge he acquired on Sanctuary to influence Shepard. In that moment, yes, Shepard was being indoctrinated. But that ended when TIM gets killed.

They would be called GENIUSES for doing this, and praised beyond belief.

Not really. It's still a strong case of crappy writing. "Oh that's right guys it was all a dream. Now you have to go do the last 30 minutes but for realz this time."

TIM acquired that knowledge long after he and Shepard parted ways...

Oh you mean those dreams. To that I respond: Dreamy tendrils in a dream sequence? It must mean something more!

I stand by my interpretation that the dreams are Shepard's trauma. Especially in dream #3 (sry that was #3, #2 is the one where we get a voice over from Ashley/Kaiden) where all the characters who have died are calling his name and the presence of the child who said "you can't help me." The child is a manifestation of everyone Shepard couldn't save and the stress of the war with the Reapers is finally baring down on him.

/facepalm

So the singing oily shadows are just coincidence despite being foreshadowed in ME1?

Okay then...that is totally believable...

Amaya wrote:/facepalm

So the singing oily shadows are just coincidence despite being foreshadowed in ME1?

Okay then...that is totally believable...

When it comes to Lord of Hats I believe you'd make more of an impression talking to granite.

Pretty much.

Maybe I'm a freak of some kind, but my dreams don't have any strange shadows in them. They might be blurry or vague, but there is at least a form to whatever it is I'm seeing...

Amaya wrote:/facepalm

So the singing oily shadows are just coincidence despite being foreshadowed in ME1?

Okay then...that is totally believable...

Oh my God. I was going to let this go but you know what the shadows in a dream sequence mean? NOTHING!!!!!!

Dream 1: No shadows
Dream 2: Some shadows
Dream 3: More shadows

And you call this meaningless?

Tell me you're trolling or haven't played the game.

Amaya wrote:Dream 1: No shadows
Dream 2: Some shadows
Dream 3: More shadows

And you call this meaningless?

Tell me you're trolling or haven't played the game.

I can't even beleive you are posting this with a straight face. You are basically saying: "oh sure, the burnt shape on my toast isn't Jesus Christ?! Pfff ya that makes a lot of ing sense"

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Amaya wrote:Dream 1: No shadows
Dream 2: Some shadows
Dream 3: More shadows

And you call this meaningless?

Tell me you're trolling or haven't played the game.

I can't even beleive you are posting this with a straight face. You are basically saying: "oh sure, the burnt shape on my toast isn't Jesus Christ?! Pfff ya that makes a lot of ing sense"

How can you see his face! Are you a machine looking out at us from the monitor! Hes a machine spirit!

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Amaya wrote:Dream 1: No shadows
Dream 2: Some shadows
Dream 3: More shadows

And you call this meaningless?

Tell me you're trolling or haven't played the game.

I can't even beleive you are posting this with a straight face. You are basically saying: "oh sure, the burnt shape on my toast isn't Jesus Christ?! Pfff ya that makes a lot of ing sense"

I'm almost positive you are trolling or entirely inept about this game.

When it comes to Lord of Hats I believe you'd make more of an impression talking to granite.

Said as though any one of the main commenters in this thread actually posted with the intent of being swayed one direction or another.

Between the trolling and people acting obnoxious to each other, its been a rather disappointing read at times. Initially there was some insightful comments, and some legit discussion, but it inevitably goes back to hating and whatnot.

Rather than chewing each other out for guessing differently than the other guy, you chill out and wait for the now inevitable DLC.

Then ya'll can go back to whatever this is.

I'm serious enough to make a wager: Karon if the new ending is the Indoctrination Theory I'll close my account in Dakka forever. If it isn't you close yours. Deal?

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

When it comes to Lord of Hats I believe you'd make more of an impression talking to granite.

Said as though any one of the main commenters in this thread actually posted with the intent of being swayed one direction or another.

Between the trolling and people acting obnoxious to each other, its been a rather disappointing read at times. Initially there was some insightful comments, and some legit discussion, but it inevitably goes back to hating and whatnot.

Rather than chewing each other out for guessing differently than the other guy, you chill out and wait for the now inevitable DLC.

Then ya'll can go back to whatever this is.

Oh, really, I see humour is quite dead in you then.

Totalwar1402 wrote:When it comes to Lord of Hats I believe you'd make more of an impression talking to granite.

My head gear is cast from a titanium alloy polymer so tough the US government is afraid to use it

Amaya wrote:/facepalm

So the singing oily shadows are just coincidence despite being foreshadowed in ME1?

Okay then...that is totally believable...

First: That's not foreshadowing.

Second: Shadows? In a dream cast in a dimly lit forest? Surprise there. The effects in Shepards dreams are not the same as the tendrils scene in scenes with Saren in ME1, and the tendrils in ME3's ending are probably more a reference to TIM than to Shepard.

I'm serious enough to make a wager: Karon if the new ending is the Indoctrination Theory I'll close my account in Dakka forever. If it isn't you close yours. Deal?

You have more hats than me XD I'm still sitting on a 10% chance of the Indoctrination Theory coming true. I'll get back in a week

Yeah, it kinda is. Rather than friends and fans of the ME world, I just see people who make me feel uncomfortable. Even in 'jest', people get pretty nasty with each other.

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:Yeah, it kinda is. Rather than friends and fans of the ME world, I just see people who make me feel uncomfortable. Even in 'jest', people get pretty nasty with each other.

A jokes not a joke if isn't edgy. If I talk and somebody flat disagrees then theres not a lot I can do other than jest or leave the thread. Besides the view I put across died as of today, therefor the joke has no relevence to whats being discussed. If you talk to somebody and they persist like a mule in not budging on their position; then likening them to a lump of rock after the event seems a suitable term to use. My parents and siblings make more vicious and scathing comments to me than that sort of remark; thats just the sort of banter you have to put up with in society. Its a natural expectation of people that you poke fun at them from time to time.

Besides, there are far worse things that can be said about people on a forum and I didn't see anyone leap up to my defence when it was me being slandered. So I don't see why you should play martyr over such a trivial matter.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I'm serious enough to make a wager: Karon if the new ending is the Indoctrination Theory I'll close my account in Dakka forever. If it isn't you close yours. Deal?

I've already expressed my doubt after their FAQ that the Indoctrination Theory is actually true.

I've only explained why it should be true and why it fits so well.

Amaya is connecting an event from ME1 to ME3 that makes a lot of sense and you are discrediting it with "pffff, bs"

Your childish wager to attempt to make this a personal matter is laughable at best.

It wasn't that remark. There's a lot of hate and vitrol tossed around in thin guises. I tend to get ignored anyway when I make comments on this sort of thing. Maybe its because I'm not 'edgy' enough. =P

Trying to stay positive and not picking on people seems to mean that I'm not allowed on the internet or something. I'm not trying to say 'woe is me' here, and I'm not trying to give anyone crap.

Did the ending over again and there are so many issues that are either poorly explained or completely nonsensical.

1) Where did the trees in the middle of nowhere come from? I don't remember any trees as I was approaching the beam.

2) How did Shepard, Anderson, and Major Coats survive the blast and with their radios intact?

3) Why is everything so fuzzy around the edges of the area? Is this due to damage suffered after the blast? If so, why doesn't this visual damage last throughout the entire end scene?

4) How does Shepard survive? For that matter, how does Shepard survive the destroy option at all, when s/he has massive amounts of synthetic tech in him/her?

5) How does TIM get there? Was he on the Citadel before hand?

6) How does Anderson beat Shepard to the chasm in the Citadel?

7) Why does Shepard suddenly discover a wound in his/her side in the same spot s/he shot Anderson immediately after Anderson dies?

8) Why would the blasts affect the Normandy at all? If it does, does this mean the blast wiped out all ships in the system?

9) Won't the destruction of the Mass Relays wipe out everything? They destroyed everything in the system in the Arrival DLC...

10) Is the Stargazer on the same planet that the Normandy crashed on? What does this imply for the crew? Are 100-200 humans enough to create a genetically diverse populace and avoid inbreeding?



If the ending is true, it is crap and has an atrocious amount of plot holes in it.

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:It wasn't that remark. There's a lot of hate and vitrol tossed around in thin guises. I tend to get ignored anyway when I make comments on this sort of thing. Maybe its because I'm not 'edgy' enough. =P

Trying to stay positive and not picking on people seems to mean that I'm not allowed on the internet or something. I'm not trying to say 'woe is me' here, and I'm not trying to give anyone crap.

You have every right to be on the internet. Fine, I'am too thin skinned at times; no harm done.

Amaya wrote:Did the ending over again and there are so many issues that are either poorly explained or completely nonsensical.

Agreed.

2) How did Shepard, Anderson, and Major Coats survive the blast and with their radios intact?

Not sure that one needs explaining.

3) Why is everything so fuzzy around the edges of the area? Is this due to damage suffered after the blast? If so, why doesn't this visual damage last throughout the entire end scene?

That's a fairly common camera device in movies and in games. It often fades away when the developers are done with it otherwise it would get annoying.

4) How does Shepard survive? For that matter, how does Shepard survive the destroy option at all, when s/he has massive amounts of synthetic tech in him/her?

Obvious implication is that Shepard has somehow survived with his/her implants (still kind of a wtf moment?). Also, destroy is the only ending where is body isn't outright vaporized or fried.

5) How does TIM get there? Was he on the Citadel before hand?

Presumably the Reapers put him there. He's not a threat anymore after all. Maybe he was on board when the Reapers came and took it.

6) How does Anderson beat Shepard to the chasm in the Citadel?

Who knows. Why is there a beam in the first place? It seems like a little bit of a security flaw to me.

7) Why does Shepard suddenly discover a wound in his/her side in the same spot s/he shot Anderson immediately after Anderson dies?

Anderson doesn't die in all the endings. Also, we don't see where Anderson is shot beyond the vague abdominal area. And Shepards wound? He got blasted by a super laser and his armor torn to pieces and he's clutching his side the whole time.

8) Why would the blasts affect the Normandy at all? If it does, does this mean the blast wiped out all ships in the system?

I honestly have no explanation for that one. I had Liara and Garrus with me for the last mission. Guess who stepped off the Normandy in the destroy ending. Of course I've taken that as being against the indoctrination theory, as there's no reason to show this happening to the Normandy is it's a figment of Shepards mind. The alternative, that that moment is real while the rest is a dream, is also somewhat senseless as that means Liara and Garrus left Shepard laying there, which doesn't seem like something they'd do. And of course why wouldn't Harbinger just kill Shepard. The whole indoctrination thing is kind of contrived in that sense.

9) Won't the destruction of the Mass Relays wipe out everything? They destroyed everything in the system in the Arrival DLC...

Indeed. One explanation is that the energy from the blasts is focused in firing the beam to the next relay but the galaxies christmas lights are pretty big and bright.

10) Is the Stargazer on the same planet that the Normandy crashed on? What does this imply for the crew?

That was the second big WTF for me, after the Catalyst.

Are 100-200 humans enough to create a genetically diverse populace and avoid inbreeding?

I'm not biology major but my guess is no. Then again, that's hand waveable.

Yeah, a fair amount of it can be explained, but even at that point there are still tons of issues with it. It just stinks of being rushed.

To be honest, if they don't go with some form of IDT/hallucination/dream sequence then Bioware is even stupider than they appear to be at the moment. I'd think at least keeping the Mass Relays around would be beneficial for future games in the ME universe unless they plan on doing prequels or games where your travel is limited to sectors...

Amaya wrote:Yeah, a fair amount of it can be explained, but even at that point there are still tons of issues with it. It just stinks of being rushed.

Indeed. No explanations account for all the inconsistencies.

To be honest, if they don't go with some form of IDT/hallucination/dream sequence then Bioware is even stupider than they appear to be at the moment. I'd think at least keeping the Mass Relays around would be beneficial for future games in the ME universe unless they plan on doing prequels or games where your travel is limited to sectors...

I honestly think they're setting up for a huge time skip for ME4. The Asari were ready to start building Mass Relays. They had the technology but no desire to actually do it. Now there's a reason to go about building a new network.

Hehe, I may be the only one who liked my ending (well sort of).
My ending was deciding to destroy the reapers, I felt controlling them would mean everyones death to destroy them was meaningless. Keeping them alive for me was too much of a risk. Although I love the geth, it was a tough choice. After all, this was the greatest war for the whole universe, the ending cant be all happy, wouldn't you say? The only reason I am redoing is so not all life is destroyed I could never connect online and so couldnt further my readiness.

My thoughts though to my ending. Quite simply it was a satisfactory end to a long struggle. The main aim was to destroy the reapers, so future generations would not suffer the same fate, even if that meant wiping out the entire generations at the time. Sacrifice. Losing garrus and liara, my favourite team mates, when they charged with me to the beam, that hit me hard. Andersons death, damn. I think it was good to not explain the starchild deal, was it a creation? Was it God? (please answer this if you know ). Would a better ending be letting some live? Everyone would have lost someone, something etc. Wouldn't it be extremely hard to go back to normal? Most people dying, isn't that the ultimate sacrifice? Allow a new start, it's not fair, but sometimes bad endings for you doesn't necessarily mean a bad ending for others. I realised towards the end that the main objective wasn't to simply take Earth back, but to rid the Galaxy of Reapers, at ANY cost. So for my game, Shepard was born to die, as well as most people at the time, in order for the future to be at peace.

Anyway, thats just my thoughts, for me it was a more 'realistic' ending for me. After my mates saying it was the worst ending in history, I must say I was suprised

I look forward to the epilogue dlc, I didnt get to see who stepped out of the crashed normandy. I suppose Shepard is having a drink in that bar with Garrus then

Shepard dying to defeat the Reapers is not an issue. The issue is the massive amount of plot holes in the ending, the silly Crucible, and the pulled out of the ass Catalyst that appears as a deus ex machina at the end of the game.

Introducing characters that are key to the story in the last 15-20 minutes of a 100 hour gaming experience is bad writing.

Edit:

The worst part is, the endings are racist.

Destroy all Synthetic life - um, didn't we just reunite the Get and Quarians and do a mission showing how the Geth were inherently peaceful to the point where they didn't take up arms against the Quarians until forced and that they allowed the Quarians to surive and flee because they were no longer a threat? Why do the Geth deserve to die for the Reapers' crimes? Why does EDI deserve to die for the Reapers' crimes?

Control the Reapers - So, we can't trust synthetics and its acceptable to violate the free will of a being in order to use it? By controlling the Reapers you are essentially joining them in their mission to wipe out synthetic life in the future when it becomes a threat...because you can't trust synthetics.

Synthesis - Organics and synthetics will always fight so its okay to violate the free will of billions (hopefully that many are still alive) and unify them into a conglomerate of organic-synthetic hybrid races? Yeah...that's not morally questionable at all.


The only acceptable ending involves defeating the Reapers and allowing the survivors to forge a new path unmolested by the mistakes of the past. None of these options give you that.

All of them do.

I don't know if synthetics count as a race... Or even people... Oh wait is that racist?

LordofHats wrote:I don't know if synthetics count as a race... Or even people... Oh wait is that racist?

PUH-LEASE.

Synthetics don't count as people.

The whole notion that AI is sentient and deserves to live is kind of hammered on for the last two games of the series...but I really don't expect better responses from you three.

Its a joke Amaya

Amaya wrote:The whole notion that AI is sentient and deserves to live is kind of hammered on for the last two games of the series...but I really don't expect better responses from you three.

British scientists figured out how to make living, reproducing Metal. Previously it was thought that life could only be Carbon Based. Obviously, we do not know as much as we think we do.

Slarg232 wrote:British scientists figured out how to make living, reproducing Metal. Previously it was thought that life could only be Carbon Based. Obviously, we do not know as much as we think we do.

How previously? I'm pretty sure silicon based life has been known to exist for some time, and theorized as plausible for a lot longer (Of course, elementally carbon has thus far proven the most effective element for creating life).

LordofHats wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:British scientists figured out how to make living, reproducing Metal. Previously it was thought that life could only be Carbon Based. Obviously, we do not know as much as we think we do.

How previously? I'm pretty sure silicon based life has been known to exist for some time, and theorized as plausible for a lot longer (Of course, elementally carbon has thus far proven the most effective element for creating life).

Really? I have never heard of that.

To the Google Mobile!

Yeah. I'm not sure how long we've known but we've observed the existence of silicon based micro-organisms (its theorized that silicon is unable to support complex organisms due to it not being able to form the wide variety of molecules needed to do so).

After PAX today I think anger at Bioware has actually increased.

Their forums are mad.

Mad mad mad mad

So... Maybe I missed something, but how exactly does the extended cut FAQ confirm the indoctrination theory wrong? I read through it and saw nothing of the sort...

I've been seeing people everywhere make that claim.

The Fragile Breath wrote:So... Maybe I missed something, but how exactly does the extended cut FAQ confirm the indoctrination theory wrong? I read through it and saw nothing of the sort...

I've been seeing people everywhere make that claim.

Are there going to be more/different endings or ending DLCs in the future?

No. BioWare strongly believes in the team’s artistic vision for the end of this arc of the Mass Effect franchise. The extended cut DLC will expand on the existing endings, but no further ending DLC is planned.

For now the weight of things leans against the Indoctrination Theory.

Actually Bioware seems to be acting intentionally vague on that subject.

Either it's true, they plan to use it, they're being intentionally obtuse for no reason, or they don't want to piss off fans of the IDT even further.

Give how idiotic their press statements have been so far I think they're just being vague for no reason, but there's still hope they can fix that terrible ending somehow.

unmercifulconker wrote:Hehe, I may be the only one who liked my ending (well sort of).
My ending was deciding to destroy the reapers, I felt controlling them would mean everyones death to destroy them was meaningless. Keeping them alive for me was too much of a risk. Although I love the geth, it was a tough choice. After all, this was the greatest war for the whole universe, the ending cant be all happy, wouldn't you say? The only reason I am redoing is so not all life is destroyed I could never connect online and so couldnt further my readiness.

My thoughts though to my ending. Quite simply it was a satisfactory end to a long struggle. The main aim was to destroy the reapers, so future generations would not suffer the same fate, even if that meant wiping out the entire generations at the time. Sacrifice. Losing garrus and liara, my favourite team mates, when they charged with me to the beam, that hit me hard. Andersons death, damn. I think it was good to not explain the starchild deal, was it a creation? Was it God? (please answer this if you know ). Would a better ending be letting some live? Everyone would have lost someone, something etc. Wouldn't it be extremely hard to go back to normal? Most people dying, isn't that the ultimate sacrifice? Allow a new start, it's not fair, but sometimes bad endings for you doesn't necessarily mean a bad ending for others. I realised towards the end that the main objective wasn't to simply take Earth back, but to rid the Galaxy of Reapers, at ANY cost. So for my game, Shepard was born to die, as well as most people at the time, in order for the future to be at peace.

Anyway, thats just my thoughts, for me it was a more 'realistic' ending for me. After my mates saying it was the worst ending in history, I must say I was suprised

I look forward to the epilogue dlc, I didnt get to see who stepped out of the crashed normandy. I suppose Shepard is having a drink in that bar with Garrus then

Ya, it's pretty good.

Not a large enough sample size yet to be very accurate but in this poll http://social.bioware.com/3723108/polls/31420/ 80% of 1900 voters want a complete rewrite of the ending.

I'll have to go back and check my statistics, but I think by the time it reaches 10,000 votes it'll be high enough to give an accurate evaluation of the population.

The Fragile Breath wrote:So... Maybe I missed something, but how exactly does the extended cut FAQ confirm the indoctrination theory wrong? I read through it and saw nothing of the sort...

I've been seeing people everywhere make that claim.

1) They say they only intend to add extra cutscenes. If you consider the events up to Shephards death as not cutscenes since you are controlling him then it prevents you from doing anything. He would need a whole new section of the game in which you fire the catalyst or wander through the citadel to get their.

2)They specifically and forcefully say they will not change their ending.

3) The indoctrination theory requires both and to impress so strongly that they won't change the ending prevents that since it would massively alter the ending. If the indoc theory was true then technically the game never ended. Defending something that never happened makes no sense.

You guys are going to think I'm crazy, or that I just don't want the theory to be wrong, but I read the whole FAQ, took it in, and honestly, none of it points to the theory being wrong in my eyes. They said they're not changing the ending, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's true, they're being very vague about everything, and I too assume it's for a reason.

The Fragile Breath wrote:You guys are going to think I'm crazy, or that I just don't want the theory to be wrong, but I read the whole FAQ, took it in, and honestly, none of it points to the theory being wrong in my eyes. They said they're not changing the ending, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It's true, they're being very vague about everything, and I too assume it's for a reason.

I hope so, for Bioware's sake.

They're not being vague at all...

Unless we automatically assume that everything they say is a lie (which honestly, probably isn't an outright wrong way to go about things with EA) then "there are no plans for more ending DLC at this time" means that there won't be any, i.e. no indoc theory as the theory hinges on the idea that it was planned.

EDIT: That and I just don't see why people grasp at it and don't let go. The current ending can be fixed with a lot less work and without "it was all a dream."

Hehe wow where have I been, just watched the indoc theory video and gotta say its interesting. The trees in the 'halucination' after being hit by the beam is interesting.

However maybe some things can be explained, maybe anderson was knocked unconscious from a tank explosion and so followed shep up when he woke back up?

Looking at the ending again (the after credits scene), I wonder what the other planet like object was to the right of the Earth and why the atmosphere seemed so wierd on the moon. Can anyone explain this?

Edit: I kind of get that the reasoning to plan dlc ending from the start. Maybe the endings can be clarified by filling in the scenes that felt wierd. You know, to see how exactly Joker and the others managed to escape, explaining the situation would make people go "ooohhh" kind of like a plot twist at the end of a good movie.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

The Fragile Breath wrote:So... Maybe I missed something, but how exactly does the extended cut FAQ confirm the indoctrination theory wrong? I read through it and saw nothing of the sort...

I've been seeing people everywhere make that claim.

1) They say they only intend to add extra cutscenes. If you consider the events up to Shephards death as not cutscenes since you are controlling him then it prevents you from doing anything. He would need a whole new section of the game in which you fire the catalyst or wander through the citadel to get their.

2)They specifically and forcefully say they will not change their ending.

3) The indoctrination theory requires both and to impress so strongly that they won't change the ending prevents that since it would massively alter the ending. If the indoc theory was true then technically the game never ended. Defending something that never happened makes no sense.

1) You can prove IDT via cutscenes.
2) If IDT is correct they aren't chaning the ending.
3) Incorrect assumption.

It's really simple folks, until the DLC comes out and we see for a fact that IDT is false we will not know that it is false.

http://kotaku.com/5899919/no-comment-from-bioware-on-the-mass-effect-3-indoctrination-theory

BioWare is planning to flesh out the existing ending of Mass Effect 3, but that doesn't mean fans haven't already done some fleshing-out of their own.

(Spoilers!)

The much-discussed "Indoctrination Theory" floats the notion that Shepard in fact didn't make it to the final decision at all, and that much of the controversial ending took place in his/her mind. The decisions at the end (or at least, two of them) are controlled entirely by the Reapers.

There are many variations on this theory out there, each supported by a ton of clues gathered from the game. (This one from the BioWare forums is a good example, and there's also this video that breaks it down.)

But what do BioWare's developers think? At a PAX East panel today attended by Kotaku's Kate Cox, one of the panelists allowed that the indoctrination theory "illustrates how committed the [Mass Effect] fanbase is," but said that while "fans will interpret it in their own way," they didn't want to comment either way for fear of being "prescriptive."

Plus, they've got that "Extended Cut" DLC to make. "We want the content to speak for itself, and we'll let it do so."

That response gives me the impression that BioWare didn't expressly intend the Indoctrination Theory's interpretation. But who knows? It's always possible that they've got a suuuuper good poker face and are really going to blow our minds this summer.

Reading Between the Lines: "We didn't plan it but if that's the way you guys are gonna roll we can swing with it."

That's how I read it anyway. I'm more interested in if the commenter even knew prescriptive was a word

Oh, I think it's fair to say Bioware is both shocked and amused by the IDT.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Oh, I think it's fair to say Bioware is both shocked and amused by the IDT.

Maybe you should actually research the issue before discussing it.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Oh, I think it's fair to say Bioware is both shocked and amused by the IDT.

I wouldn't. I get the impression that they're more surprised in a confused way, like they don't get how no one gets their ending... Which is really just confusing and makes me look at IDT and wonder

LordofHats wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Oh, I think it's fair to say Bioware is both shocked and amused by the IDT.

I wouldn't. I get the impression that they're more surprised in a confused way, like they don't get how no one gets their ending... Which is really just confusing and makes me look at IDT and wonder

Ya, you're right. Maybe not so much amused but definately shocked.

LordofHats wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Oh, I think it's fair to say Bioware is both shocked and amused by the IDT.

I wouldn't. I get the impression that they're more surprised in a confused way, like they don't get how no one gets their ending... Which is really just confusing and makes me look at IDT and wonder

What they're getting at is incredibly simple. Trans-humanism is the ansawr because you remove the differences/issues that arise in the creation of artificial intelligence. If you do that then it becomes impossible for machines to out-evolve organics and kill them (Geth/Reapers). Once organics can advance at the same pace and evolve in the same way the conflict can be mitigated.

The problem, and its a big problem; one that is very easily picked up by everyone who plays the game. Is that its just unneccesary and counter intuitive to what was established. Organics and synthetics don't need to fight eachother and can already co-exist. ME3 concludes this absolutely. the only people who need convincing are the reapers. What should have happened should have been Renegade-Kill all reapers and Paragon-Convince them to relent and that organics and machines can get along. The reapers motives, as counter-intuitive and stupid as it is, remains palatable so long as we KNOW and are TOLD that the reapers are in the WRONG. To force you to accept an arguement that you have been repeatedly told is wrong is and premised on a notion of life that is the anti-thesis of the morality established in Mass Effect is unforgivable story-telling.

The only way the ending would have been palatable would have been if.

*The Geth were outright evil terminator robots who simply evolved and decided they were better than the Quarians and attempted to slaughter them.

*If EDI only helped you because she was slaved and once unslaved eventually decided to murder the crew once uninhibited.

If both of these had been handled in that manner and no alternative other than a grimdark reality of 'the machine will rise' then of course synthesis would have thematically made sense. It would have been a great solution and the reapers a form of trans-human (melded organic/machine) that believed it could only protect organics by purging the galaxy and raising various species to their appex of evolution. But Mass Effect forced you to critique such a grimdark notion. It was why the reapers were wrong and Shephard says as much (right up until the end in fact). Negociation and compromise between creatures of feeling and reason allows co-existence. In that context synthesis is an abomination.

So no, people do get the message. But its the wrong one and not one they expected or wanted.

I wasn't referring to the ending but to Bioware's reaction. As you've pointed out, it's kind of obvious why no one got the ending.

So late? Yes. I have been following this thread since I finished the game (about a week or so ago) and I finally sat down and watched the giant explanation vid on youtube about the indoctrination theory. I have to say, I like it, and it really makes the ending not only palatable, but great.

I really appreciate the subtle hints that have been included throughout the series leading to this ultimate battle of wills. My first playthrough, I selected the "neutral" option and, while it was ok, something was missing. If I had selected either of the other options I think I would have been a little more peeved.

SO!

I am going to be starting another playthrough tonight and can't decide which class I want to play. Played an assault rifle toting adept on instanity my first playthrough and will be doing insanity again. Any opinions?

osumicrobio wrote:So late? Yes. I have been following this thread since I finished the game (about a week or so ago) and I finally sat down and watched the giant explanation vid on youtube about the indoctrination theory. I have to say, I like it, and it really makes the ending not only palatable, but great.

I really appreciate the subtle hints that have been included throughout the series leading to this ultimate battle of wills. My first playthrough, I selected the "neutral" option and, while it was ok, something was missing. If I had selected either of the other options I think I would have been a little more peeved.

SO!

I am going to be starting another playthrough tonight and can't decide which class I want to play. Played an assault rifle toting adept on instanity my first playthrough and will be doing insanity again. Any opinions?

The whole thing? Removes hat

Far more patience than I've got.

I'm replaying it as pure paragon instead of renegade/paragon. I missed some stuff the first time through and didn't have Javik.

Anyone have a link to the FAQ?

Yeah, I am a sucker for the ME games. Definitely my favorite game series hands down.

Plus I need a little breather from making people cry with my buddies on BF3 >;-)

I was going to start playing my renegade playthrough on insanity this last weekend but I've been enjoying the hell out of the multiplayer and I can't seem to stop playing it. My Turian Sentinel and Salarian Engineer have been dominating, even on Gold difficulty.

Heh, with the rate at which I'm promoting characters, my single player campaigns are going to have full war assets without ever completing a mission by the time the ending DLC releases!