Joined: 18 Feb 2005 Location: Star Kingdom of Manticore
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:57 am Post subject:
Mass Effect 3
Lemme just start by saying FUCK YOU UDINA YOU TRAITOROUS BASTARD.
Also, this game is the reason I have disappeared from the face of the freaking planet. The multiplayer/singleplayer tie-in is amazing, the storyline is amazing (I cried like twice because of very emotional storytelling) and just all around a great game. Graphics are lacking, but that's because the massive scope of the game took up so much frikin space.
Who else though this game was good? _________________ "Reality is a lovely place, but I wouldn't want to live there." -Adam Young QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 22 Dec 2004 Location: Tiberium Research Center N27
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:46 am Post subject:
The ending was terrible. Somehow it's so terrible, I don't actually want to buy the games, because I know it all leads to the disappointment. Which is strange, because I do like gameplay of all games, even the third one. _________________ DUNK! QUICK_EDIT
I refuse to buy the game on the basis EA and Bioware threw out a lore-and-story important character as release day DLC despite it being on the disk. When it's in a Gamestop (used game store) I'll buy it and play it. QUICK_EDIT
There is a huge discussion on the me3 forum over the ending. I myself was very unpleased and in rage over the damn cliffhanger and missing epilogue. Apart from that those were some outstanding 22hours of playtime. _________________ Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade! QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 Location: Star Kingdom of Manticore
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:05 am Post subject:
I'm at 26 hours now and I've only played halfway through the main campaign. The scope of the storyline is insanely open. I don't know why so many people bash on a game just because EA published it :/ _________________ "Reality is a lovely place, but I wouldn't want to live there." -Adam Young QUICK_EDIT
I finished ME1 in 17 hours (didn't focus much on the sidequests as those pretty much sucked, all of them being similar to eachother) and ME2 in 40 hours, doing nearly all sidequests and scanning a lot of planets. 22 for the primary story sounds more than I expected for ME3, although that's still not much considering that my first playthrough of Dragon Age: Origins took some 90 hours.
Quote:
I don't know why so many people bash on a game just because EA published it :/
I've yet to see any "EA sucks" comments here. All the criticism is for other reasons, like forcing you to buy DLC for the story to make some sense etc. And everyone seems to be saying that the ending is bad (without any arguments, but that's fine since I don't want spoilers).
While I've always enjoyed the gameplay of ME, ME2's story and the whole logic of things didn't make sense at all. And the party characters lacked depth, with all of them giving their personal quests straight after picking them up and then being like very good friends right after you've completed that quest. I liked it much more in DA:O where becoming friends with party members actually took some time and effort (and becoming friends with one of them made some others disapprove you). _________________ CnCNet Client | CnCNet TS patches | More Quality-of-Life Improvements for RA Remastered
I agree, the sidequests in ME1 were sometimes too similar to each other, but I liked exploring the planets. Especially one that was close to a red giant; man, the red-tinted world with a huge-ass red ball on the otherwise dark, empty sky (you could even see the plasma streams on the surface of the star)... now that was something. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 Location: Star Kingdom of Manticore
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:58 pm Post subject:
^Rampastein wrote:
While I've always enjoyed the gameplay of ME, ME2's story and the whole logic of things didn't make sense at all. And the party characters lacked depth, with all of them giving their personal quests straight after picking them up and then being like very good friends right after you've completed that quest. I liked it much more in DA:O where becoming friends with party members actually took some time and effort (and becoming friends with one of them made some others disapprove you).
Well, I will tell you that in ME3, it takes quite a bit for the teammates to trust you. Most are people you've played with before. There are a couple of new ones. Ashley/Kaiden do not trust you at all, and take nearly half the game just to come around. Then after the major plot twist involving Udina, She/He questions your trust.
There is much more emotion with ME3 than there ever was in ME1 and 2. Hell, you even have dreams o.O _________________ "Reality is a lovely place, but I wouldn't want to live there." -Adam Young QUICK_EDIT
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 Location: Star Kingdom of Manticore
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:10 am Post subject:
WARNING! SPOILER ALERT!
Mind = … Holy ztype…
[WARNING]
Spoilers! Do not read if you have not finished ME3 or wish to avoid spoilers for the ending.
Alright. I’ve been toying with the idea of the Indoctrination theory for the ending of Mass Effect 3 that has been floating around the internet. And I have discussed many points with my housemate, who has also studied literature extensively. She knows how invested I am in the story, and has given me a seed of hope that has blossomed into a razor-sharp flower of abject disbelief. She has also been researching this purely to ease my troubled mind, because living with me when I am in the throes of anguish or the grips of rage is pure hell.
And I can safely say that this is either the most dick move that Bioware could have pulled, or pure. ztyping. Genius.
So, yes. I have been won over to the indoctrination theory, and I’ll share with you some of the reasons why.
A few things of note…
First are several hints dropped through the game that indicate that something is not quite right. Several people have mentioned them, and I believe them. Here are the things from the end game that I noticed from the ending scene on a second playthrough, combined with some of the things I have heard.
- Why is the means to end the game (destroy, control, synthesis) built into the Citadel, a device that was created by the Reapers to trap the organic civilisations in each cycle?
- If you’re standing at the point where the Citadel and the Crucible meet, why is Earth above your head, looming like a brilliant, cosmic reminder of what’s at stake, when Earth is really beneath you? The Citadel is pointed away from Earth.
- Why does the ‘creator’ of the Reapers simply allow you to choose the fate of their ‘solution’, which also defies all logic, when this is a creature of pure logic?
- How does Hackett know that you’re on the Citadel? As far as everyone knows, you are dead, slain by Harbinger.
- How did Anderson get to the room before you, when there was only one visible entrance, and he was not ahead of you? He even admits to getting to the Citadel after you. Moreover, how did he know you were in the Citadel?
- How did the ‘creator’ know to appear as the child? Even if you’d told someone about the boy, you never told them what he looked like. How old he was. What he was wearing. How he sounded.
These may seem like design oversights, but I very sincerely doubt it. It’s a lot to get wrong in a final scene, especially for what is arguably one of the most notable and reputable game series in history.
How about this?
As quoted from the ‘indoctrination’ codex in Mass Effect 1,
“Organics undergoing indoctrination may complain of headaches and buzzing or ringing in their ears. As time passes they have feelings of being watched ‘watched’ and hallucinations of ‘ghostly’ presences. Ultimately the Reaper gains the ability to use the victim’s body to amplify its signals, manifesting as ‘alien’ voices in the mind.”
The first thing this brings to mind is the obligatory dream sequence we are forced to experience, without any chance to skip or bypass. During this time, we chase the spectral image of the boy we watched die on Earth, fleeing from some unknown terror. When we finally reach the boy, the world is shattered by the roar of Reapers - perhaps a memory of a traumatized Shepard, or perhaps a sound of frustration that the indoctrination process is not complete - and the child burns. The second and third sequence are accompanied by shadowy figures, and the whispers of the fallen, the people we have lost. When we finally catch up to the boy in the third sequence, the boy is embraced by Commander Shepard, and both burn. But neither scream. Neither struggle. Neither are afraid. Both just stare at Commander Shepard. And before anyone objects, a face’s expression isn’t just what it is in a video game. It is a conscious decision of what it is not. If you embrace the child, you burn.
Also, there is a moment where James Vega wonders, when Commander Shepard is standing near him, where a buzzing sound is coming from…
Endgame wtfs
How about the very final decisions you have to make? We have been trained to observe the ‘blue’ option as being paragon, good and virtuous, whereas red is ruthless and practical. Whilst this might not seem like a big deal, do you wonder why each side is coloured the way it is? Why is the Illusive Man’s option blue, when we always rejected his claims, and Anderson, who we have always supported, is suddenly red when he represents destroy?
Why does Shepard simply accept the fact that ‘the Illusive Man was right’? And why does he or she believe that they can control the Reapers when the Illusive Man couldn’t?
And why does the god child make sure to stress that in destroying the Reapers, Shepard destroys all technology upon which the galaxy relies, all synthetics, including the geth, and his or herself, too. And that Shepard does not ‘need hope’, but should simply accept the solutions that the creator presents.
And, I beg of you, go back and replay that final scene we all hate. With the choice we must make. Walk right to the middle of the walkway between the three choices and, several times, begin to walk in each direction.
Listen to the music change.
The ‘control’ option is sinister, with a quiet humming dissidence. So is the synthesis. And the ‘destroy’ option rings brightly, a pleasant sound of uplifting hope and then fades away. It’s barely noticeable, broken by the jarring drumming sound, and it is only right at the start. But it’s there.
And that, my friends, is not by accident.
What about the synthesis option, you ask?
I have one word.
Saren.
Allow me to reiterate something Saren says during his speech on Virmire.
“The Reapers are too powerful. The only hope of survival is to join with them. I am forming an alliance between us and the Reapers, between organics and machines.”
As we all know, Saren was indoctrinated. He was completely under the thrall of Sovereign. But the important part was he had no idea. He believed that what he was doing really was the only way to save the organics of the galaxy. He was truly trying to save everyone, and do his duty as a Spectre, to fulfil his vows. But because of his indoctrination, Sovereign steered him down a different path.
With the geth as his allies.
The geth, who are likely the main reason that people don’t chose the ‘destroy’ option.
The geth
The wrench in the cogs. The geth have defied what everyone has thought of synthetics; they never attack the quarians. They never instigate wars. They are your allies. Legion was a friend, in fact, and it scoured the galaxy searching for you. It gave its life to give the geth sentience, making the sentience of the race all the more important due to your loss.
By the way, it still never tells you why it has N7 armour adhered to its body. Nor why it was searching for you. Not really.
The geth are a sympathetic race. It is hard to hate them. You can destroy them, but they are specifically designed – by Bioware – to be a figure of sympathy and understanding. They just want to find their own way. Be their own people. Victims.
And the Catalyst says, quite pointedly, that choosing the destroy option will kill the geth.
And Shepard.
So that makes me wonder. In the ‘survival’ outcome of choosing ‘destroy’… why does Shepard take a breath?
Speaking of that breath
A lot of people have already mentioned this, but I’ll say it for the sake of this; examine the rubble around Shepard during that breath. It is rock. Concrete. Stone. And I don’t know about you, but I didn’t see a single slab on the Citadel. It is all metal. Shining metal.
So where is it that you are taking your breath?
Perhaps London?
Perhaps you never left?
Why indoctrinate Shepard and not simply kill him/her?
After all, it failed for Saren, right?
But Saren’s mistake was standing against the Council races, and creating an enemy of himself. People fought him, resisted him. Eventually, Shepard defeated him.
So perhaps the Reapers tried a new tact. Miranda says it herself. Shepard’s an icon. People will fall in behind the Commander and follow him or her to death. Which they did in the closing of ME3, flying their vast fleets into the mouth of hell to fight and get Earth back.
In doing so, Shepard did the one thing Saren failed to do; deliver the galaxy right to the Reapers. By being indoctrinated, Shepard has led everyone to their doom.
In conclusion
I think I raged about the fact that Bioware gave us a crappy ending without actually thinking about why Bioware gave us a crappy ending. People are saying that Bioware has a right to end their franchise as they choose. Which is true. But why would Bioware choose to end it this way? Why would they allow billions of dollars, years of development, and a million plus fans go down the drain for an ending like this?
The bottom line is, they wouldn’t.
How many trailers were released to make us want to destroy the Reapers? How many times did you sit back and think ‘6th/8th/9th of March, I’m going to kill them’? It was always Shepard’s doctrine; we will find a way. We will destroy you.
Never was an option to control accepted. You rejected that from the moment the Illusive Man mentioned it. Never was the option of synthesis accepted. You rejected that in Mass Effect 1 with Saren. So why, at the 11th hour. No. The 12th hour, would Bioware give us these options? And why do we have to choose one? Why doesn’t Bioware let us argue with the deus ex machina? It’s not a matter of forgetting to record the lines for a sloppy ending. This was a deliberate decision made by people who have created sensational games. Do you really think this is how they would end it?
Shepard can’t be indoctrinated.
Bullshit. Indoctrination can happen to anyone. From the Illusive Man, to Saren, to Udina. And Shepard is partially cybernetic due to being brought back from the dead. Hell. He or she doubts his or her own existence in the Cerberus base, wondering if they are, in fact, a very smart VI that thinks they are Commander Shepard. Even then they are worried about their own existence.
And again, let me remind you of Saren, who allowed Sovereign to implant him, ‘improve him’, and through those implants was controlled and ultimately dominated, mind and body, even after he was dead. And Shepard has a few snazzy implants and cybernetics, too. Which Chakwas very pointedly mentions during the opening couple of hours of the game.
Indoctrination isn’t purely about turning people into husks. It’s not about controlling their minds. It’s about steering them. Directing them. Pointing them toward a conclusion that they appear to want, that appears to be their only option, even though it plays right into the Reaper’s hands… tentacles… matter-deconstruction laser eyes. Whatever.
Sound familiar?
The Reapers wouldn’t brainwash Shepard into simply giving up. No one would fall in behind. But if they push him or her, if they make them think of the Reapers being too powerful, and that there are ‘acceptable’ costs to destroying creatures as vast and almighty as the Reapers, and cost was Shepard’s life… wouldn’t you choose that?
Wait. You did.
And finally, why would the Illusive Man not put a chip in your head if he knew you would turn against him? If he was indoctrinated the whole time? Why would the Reapers not want this to happen?
Because Shepard has to submit. Shepard had to stop fighting. And for people to believe that Shepard was not indoctrinated, Shepard had to behave like Shepard.
What blew my goddamn mind…
The point of the ending of Mass Effect 3 isn’t to show that Shepard has been indoctrinated, at least, that’s no longer how I see it. And it isn’t some quasai-intellectual, pseudo-philosophical moment where we are prompted to contemplate the future of the galaxy, and make up our own ending. Bioware does not do that. We were literally meant to sit back, stare at the screen, and go ‘why would Bioware do this?’ Not ‘Bioware a ztyping assholes who deserve to burn’, but ‘why would a company so renowned for loving its fans, and who make such wonderful stories, do this to us?’ We’re meant to wonder the reason why we were deliberately handed this ending.
You see, what we forget as we play through is that the only perspective we have is Commander Shepard’s. Some of us may not think of it that way, but that is the case. We only see what he or she sees, and we only perceive as he or she perceives. And Shepard would only know something was wrong with his or her own mind if we saw it.
What is the point of having an indoctrinated character if the person directing them knows they are indoctrinated? Shepard isn’t the only person that has been indoctrinated. We have. We didn’t see the subtle hints. Shepard didn’t notice the signs, and so we didn’t notice them. We were too caught up in saving Earth, just like Shepard. If Shepard had said, “Something’s wrong”, we would have noticed. We might have guessed. We would have gone straight for the ‘right’ option, regardless of what Bioware may have intended for the end. But because we were left with the idea that the control and synthesis options were the best options, we blindly moved towards them. Directed Shepard toward them.
And the Reapers win.
We, the players, were indoctrinated right alongside Shepard. And by sitting here and demanding that we have a different ending, we acknowledging that something is wrong. Something is broken. Something is not right. But instead of thinking that Bioware has done this deliberately to us, we swung immediately into rage and hate and slammed them for the decision.
We are raging that Bioware betrayed our trust.
But we didn’t trust them.
I, myself, am guilty of this. And now that I sit back and think about it, about the games, about Bioware, all I can say is if that this is right, if this is what Bioware intended… If the true ending is yet to come…
…. Bra. ztyping. Vo. Take my goddamn money. You not only successfully indoctrinated us, but you did it so subtly that nobody even knew what was going on. _________________ "Reality is a lovely place, but I wouldn't want to live there." -Adam Young QUICK_EDIT
The question is, what can Bioware's style of story telling and game construction here tell us about their upcoming forays into our little RTS realm? QUICK_EDIT
The question is, what can Bioware's style of story telling and game construction here tell us about their upcoming forays into our little RTS realm?
Since EA's game developer/studio maze is more complex than the construct of lignin, it's likely Generals 2 is developed by entirely different people. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
The question is, what can Bioware's style of story telling and game construction here tell us about their upcoming forays into our little RTS realm?
Since EA's game developer/studio maze is more complex than the construct of lignin, it's likely Generals 2 is developed by entirely different people.
Well yeah from what I've gathered, BioWare as it is today is composed of 6-7 different game studios, some of which have been born as a result of other studios being assimilated into the BioWare brand, which is the case with BioWare Victory studio that's (hopefully) developing Generals 2 as we speak.
How much those studios actually share their resources and developer pool and so on, or how much of it involves a thinly veiled attempt at milking popular brand name, that I don't know.
Either way, I'd say that it's indeed safe to assume that for most part the people working on ME3 won't have any influence on Generals 2. _________________ QUICK_EDIT
what happened to ME was the same that happened to C&C. They changed the writers and dropped parts of the plot. Like Tali in ME2 where she is on that planet that burns you because of the sun dying much faster than it should. That should have ben a hint to dark matter so you had to choose in the end if the reapers are defeated but the galaxy collapses or letting the reapers win. kinda like that.
Drew karpyshin co lead writer of ME2 and main writer of ME and a nobody in ME3 gave some hints to this. The story was never done before the games, they had a vague idea where it should lead, also it was a collaborative work where anyone was giving in ideas and worked on the plot. Pretty much the reason why it badly messed up.
Would you believe that when they made ME1 the cerberus where nothing important? They didnt even think of them becoming so important to the story and then whole ME2 is about them and they have a main part in ME3.
I suggest not wasting any mind on what should be or could be or any theories like that indoctrination one. The story is corrupted and broken, a pile of events leading into oblivion. Its like trying to figure out what lead to Tiberium Wars with Kane in RA in mind. _________________ Free Tibed!
EA for worst company of the decade! QUICK_EDIT
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Mass Effect 3
