Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.