Mass Effect 4's first screens glimpsed over BioWare Montreal's shoulders; promise "new worlds" - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42824693]Everything can be explained by BioWare's utter incompetence.[/QUOTE] I feel like there are plenty of folks that work at Bioware that are pretty good at their job, atleast when it comes to art and gameplay (for the most part). From what I hear a big problem with ME3 was Casey Hudson and Mac Walters essentially becoming dictators of the project.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42825037]I feel like there are plenty of folks that work at Bioware that are pretty good at their job, atleast when it comes to art and gameplay (for the most part). From what I hear a big problem with ME3 was Casey Hudson and Mac Walters essentially becoming dictators of the project.[/QUOTE] Wasn't Casey Hudson in charge of Mass Effect since the beginning though? He's like the "director" of the series I think. I wish Drew Karpyshyn would come back...

[QUOTE=Loadingue;42825225]Wasn't Casey Hudson in charge of Mass Effect since the beginning though? He's like the "director" of the series I think. I wish Drew Karpyshyn would come back...[/QUOTE] As the series progressed and the team got shifted around, the success got to him and he took on more responsibility than he should have. For example, writing the last game's story.

Bioware's intended interpretation is the only one that matters. The existence of an offical canon inherently makes any other interpretations coincidental at best, no matter how convincing a fan fiction you can twist out of the facts. IT is no more valid than saying the entire series is an allegory for the childhood of Colonel Sanders.

[QUOTE=be;42824758]Of course, but to believe that is the case is a bias in itself, but it is at least somewhat reasonable.[/QUOTE] No because if you know anything at all about narrative structure or cohesive story telling you can spot the incompetence of the writing in ME3 a mile away. To say it's bias is ludicrous because the Indoctrination Theory is not just poorly thought out but is completely inconsistent with the theming and structure of of the series. Either way you get poorly thought out, poorly written trash. The only difference is one is a shitty ending created by the hubris of of two men who aren't story writers and the other is a shitty ending created by the desperate fan wank of severely disappointed nerds.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42825037]I feel like there are plenty of folks that work at Bioware that are pretty good at their job, atleast when it comes to art and gameplay (for the most part). From what I hear a big problem with ME3 was Casey Hudson and Mac Walters essentially becoming dictators of the project.[/QUOTE] Honestly there was a lot more wrong with ME3 than just the story.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;42825525]No because if you know anything at all about narrative structure or cohesive story telling you can spot the incompetence of the writing in ME3 a mile away. To say it's bias is ludicrous because the Indoctrination Theory is not just poorly thought out but is completely inconsistent with the theming and structure of of the series. Either way you get poorly thought out, poorly written trash. The only difference is one is a shitty ending created by the hubris of of two men who aren't story writers and the other is a shitty ending created by the desperate fan wank of severely disappointed nerds.[/QUOTE] I disagree, I thought the overall experience of, and the writing of, ME3 was good, and I spotted nothing wrong with it. If you're inclined to insult me for that (not saying you are, just preparing if you are), then get your head out of your ass, acting like your opinion on the story is the only possible opinion to the point that you insult those who disagree is insane. Now, of course you likely hoped that after this epic zinger post that no one would contend your post, otherwise you wouldn't say something as silly as it being poorly thought out, because how could that be? There are 3 hours~ from just one youtuber about it, with dozens of points that I am unsure you would be able to disprove. Also, how is it inconsistent? In what way is the idea of being indoctrinated, the most plot-relevant ability of the reapers, inconsistent with the theming and structure of the series? In what way did the theming and structure of the games say "oh yeah you can't ever be indoctrinated for a short 10 minute period"? I'm glad you formulated some stupid opinion based on your own desperate attempts to separate yourself from the "severely disappointed nerds", but I honestly give no fuck about what you think about the IT's quality, I happen to think it would've been a very clever idea, and would've allowed for a great end to a great series, and I think there are some questionable things in the ending (mostly the "Shepard lives" thing) that fit in well with the IT, so it definitely hasn't been disproven. It is logically consistent, and has a lot of supporting evidence to it, so in the end it is certainly plausible, and would be clever. In any other scenario people would give commendations to a movie or game for having a long-term mental torment culminate in a final dream-like attack on the main character's resolve, it would be good in almost every single form of media, but apparently because you hate Mass Effect 3, EA, Bioware, or because it just makes your dick hard to be able to call people "severely disappointed nerds", it is suddenly "poorly thought out".

[QUOTE=be;42825907]Wall of smug[/QUOTE] You're assuming anyone would choose your subjective bias as truth. Can safely say that isn't so, and several Bioware writers whom I happen to know agree with me. Also passively-aggressively calling for a discussion when all you intend to do is spherically say "I like my opinion and am not going to change it, but would most welcome thirteen pages of entirely subjectively based rhetoric in the manner of a failed philosophy major gainsaying based around it" probably isn't going to get terribly far, especially in light of the dint that you're debating things that have already been ground to literal dust both here and BWS, BWS in an order of magnitude more fetishistic and endless-array-of-paragraph-laden intensity.

[QUOTE=be;42825907]Now, of course you likely hoped that after this epic zinger post that no one would contend your post, otherwise you wouldn't say something as silly as it being poorly thought out, because how could that be? [B]There are 3 hours~ from just one youtuber about it[/B], with dozens of points that I am unsure you would be able to disprove.[/QUOTE] People will debate and figuratively fight to the death for something they are passionate about. But you already know this.

[QUOTE=Gar;42825954]People will debate and figuratively fight to the death for something they are passionate about. But you already know this.[/QUOTE] for what it's worth, he claims he himself was a critic of the IT, and didn't agree with it, but in the venture of making a video he found that he could not disagree. Really, I just want someone to fucking give me something that tells me why the IT is implausible, poorly written, poorly thought out, or whatever, because no one has done that for this entire 5 pages. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=27X;42825946]You're assuming anyone would choose your subjective bias as truth. Can safely say that isn't so, and several Bioware writers whom I happen to know agree with me. Also passively-agressively calling for a discussion when all you intend to do is spherically say "I like my opinion and am not going to change it, but would most welcome thirteen pages of entirely subjectively based rhetoric in the manner of a failed philoshpy major gainsaying based around it" probably isn't going to get terribly far, especially in light of the dint that you're debating things that have already been ground to literal dust both here and BWS, BWS in an order of magnitude more fetishistic and endless-array-of-paragraph-laden intensity.[/QUOTE] You think you know my intentions when you have no idea about me at all? Just because I happen to support the IT doesn't mean that I am unyielding and cannot be swayed, it's just that I have yet to ever get properly god damn debated about it, no one has ever told me "oh the IT is wrong because 1. x 2. y 3. z" they always say condescending and meaningless things like "oh yeah the IT is clearly poorly thought out and just plain impossible" without ever expanding on why they think that. At least I give supporting evidence for what I think, but I have yet to be given any form of critique of the IT that actually explains why it is impossible. Often times anti-IT's will just say "oh it's just because Bioware sucks", but that is the easy way out of having to actually explain why an idea is not correct.

By all means google Bioware social indoctrination and knock yourself out.

[QUOTE=27X;42826024]By all means google Bioware social indoctrination and knock yourself out.[/QUOTE] Preferably literally.

[QUOTE=27X;42826024]By all means google Bioware social indoctrination and knock yourself out.[/QUOTE] Well thank you, I attempted to google but my keywords were not as useful as that (I googled "indoctrination theory wrong bioware forums", for example). I will come back a learned scholar.

[QUOTE=be;42826056]Well thank you, I attempted to google but my keywords were not as useful as that (I googled "indoctrination theory wrong bioware forums", for example). I will come back a learned scholar.[/QUOTE] Uhh all you had to do was google exactly what he said to google "Bioware social indoctrination" and the first result is a 2286 page long thread.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42826139]Uhh all you had to do was google exactly what he said to google "Bioware social indoctrination" and the first result is a 2286 page long thread.[/QUOTE] i went about googling it the wrong way, i searched for a topic about how it's wrong instead of a general topic. I would like to point out that this 58k reply long thread is, obviously, going to take way too long to go through. Without any sort of summarization of the main points...I am fucked.

There are four threads.

[QUOTE=be;42826196]i went about googling it the wrong way, i searched for a topic about how it's wrong instead of a general topic. I would like to point out that this 58k reply long thread is, obviously, going to take way too long to go through. Without any sort of summarization of the main points...I am fucked.[/QUOTE] Well you asked us to watch over 3 hours worth of videos like it was no big deal. Just sayin. I think all things considered it'd be best if EVERYONE ended things right here. Seems like a good place to drop the subject.

Alright I stopped doing breakdowns a long time ago but this post is so terrible I just have to do it. [QUOTE=be;42825907]I disagree, I thought the overall experience of, and the writing of, ME3 was good, and I spotted nothing wrong with it.[/quote] Just because you don't see the poor writing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Rather than writing a long paragraph detailing the numerous examples of poor writing I will instead refer you to one character: Kai Leng. This is a character who's entire design was "Badass cyberninja out to stop Shepard." He has no personality, no motives, no interaction with the world beyond "attack Shepard", and every scene with him is written in such a way that he is either outright immortal or Shepard becomes so incompetent a sick child could do a better job. And that's one example. This doesn't mention the entire Catalyst plot, the general incompetence of major characters, the ludicrous incompetence of military forces time after time, the ham-handed character interactions, or the entirety of the ending which I can write about at length, and have in the past. [quote]If you're inclined to insult me for that (not saying you are, just preparing if you are), then get your head out of your ass, acting like your opinion on the story is the only possible opinion to the point that you insult those who disagree is insane.[/quote] Woah. Where the fuck did this crazy hostility come from? "I'm not saying you are but I'm going to act as though you are anyway." Cool your fucking jets. [quote]Now, of course you likely hoped that after this epic zinger post that no one would contend your post, otherwise you wouldn't say something as silly as it being poorly thought out, because how could that be? There are 3 hours~ from just one youtuber about it, with dozens of points that I am unsure you would be able to disprove.[/quote] I know the video you mean. The vast majority of the points brought up in it can be explained as poor writing or the video creator reading hidden meaning where there are none. He uses shoddy animation and background effects as 'evidence' for the child on Earth being Shepard's imagination when in reality it was just a cheap emotional ploy to try to make people care because "Boo hoo a little boy got blowed up." He says graphical errors such as trees appearing in the run to the conduit are evidence of a dream when it's much more likely the entire ending was rushed to due time or budgetary constraints. Most glaringly he criticises poor writing when it doesn't support the indoctrination theory and uses it when it supports it. [quote]Also, how is it inconsistent? In what way is the idea of being indoctrinated, the most plot-relevant ability of the reapers, inconsistent with the theming and structure of the series? In what way did the theming and structure of the games say "oh yeah you can't ever be indoctrinated for a short 10 minute period"? [/quote] Wow. This one might be my favourite. It is inconsistent with the theming of the series because the series has been, from the outset, about overcoming impossible odds. Your 3 background choices have you fighting off an invasion almost singlehandedly, bing the sole survivor of a hellish assault, or sacrifice your soldiers to wipe out a Batarian raiding party. The events of the games reinforce this in all of the pivotal moments in the series from saving the beacon on Eden Prime to finding Ilos to defeating the Collectors. In regard to structure it is inconsistent with the series scientific, direct approach to storytelling. The game gives you codex entries, allows you to discuss the events with your team as it happens, and most importantly focuses on uncovering truth. The Indoctrination Theory has none of that. It isn't direct, it is arbitrarily convoluted, it casts doubt not just on the events of the last few minutes of the game but on upwards of half the series. In a game where we are made to trust what we see to uncover the truth having the be so vague and ambiguous as the Indoctrination Theory isn't just absurd, it's downright insulting. As far as indoctrination goes yes, the games [b]do[/b] say you can't "be indoctrinated for a short 10 minute period." Infact that goes against the entire fucking concept of indoctrination in the first place. Indoctrination is slow, so slow that to create an effective thrall you need to spend [i]years[/i] in constant contact with the Reaper's indoctrination technology. While it is possible to indoctrinate someone quickly (as in days to weeks) the process basically destroys the person's mind and they are only useful for a very short time. Also, a key part of indoctrination is that it is very had to break and breaking indoctrination may be impossible. Even Saren, who you can talk down, only regains enough willpower to kill himself. If Shepard is indoctrinated that's it, the Reapers win. [quote]I'm glad you formulated some stupid opinion based on your own desperate attempts to separate yourself from the "severely disappointed nerds", but I honestly give no fuck about what you think about the IT's quality, I happen to think it would've been a very clever idea, and would've allowed for a great end to a great series, and I think there are some questionable things in the ending (mostly the "Shepard lives" thing) that fit in well with the IT, so it definitely hasn't been disproven.[/quote] You funny guy. I like your joke. First, yes the Indoctrination Theory has been disproved. Not only does it contradict both the original ending and the extended cut ending but the developers have publicly called it a load of shit. Second, a "stupid opinion based on your own desperate attempts to separate yourself from the "severely disappointed nerds"". Are you fucking serious? No, really. Are you shitting me? I'm the one arguing that the [b]ACTUAL FUCKING ENDING WHICH ACTUALLY HAPPENED[/b] is the actual fucking ending. Didn't you [i]just say in this very post[/i] "acting like your opinion on the story is the only possible opinion to the point that you insult those who disagree is insane." My god I can't believe anyone could make a post this terrible. Third, and most importantly, the Indoctrination Theory is a terrible ending to the series. Hell I'd argue it would be a worse ending to the series than the abortion we got because at least Bioware's ending tried to give some closure. That's right, closure, the thing a fucking ending is supposed to have so you don't feel like you've pissed away your time. All the Indoctrination Theory does is create more questions and open more plot holes, the real ending gave moronic answers to questions no one asked but at least it fucking tried to answer questions. Also unlike the Indoctrination Theory is fucking tried to be an ending. [quote]It is logically consistent, and has a lot of supporting evidence to it, so in the end it is certainly plausible, and would be clever.[/quote] It is entirely illogical and relies on conjecture and coincidence to even exist. It has no evidence which can't be explained in a much more logical sense, and is entirely implausible. It would not have been clever, it's the kind of pseudo-intellectual ending a twelve year old comes up with when they want something to be mysterious. [quote]In any other scenario people would give commendations to a movie or game for having a long-term mental torment culminate in a final dream-like attack on the main character's resolve, it would be good in almost every single form of media, but apparently because you hate Mass Effect 3, EA, Bioware, or because it just makes your dick hard to be able to call people "severely disappointed nerds", it is suddenly "poorly thought out".[/QUOTE] In any other scenario the Indoctrination Theory would be a laughing stock and would only win "Worst story of the year" awards. A dream like attack on a character's resolve is never received well by audiences or critics and such endings are almost universally panned. Also the "severely disappointed nerds" includes myself and basically everyone who was following Mass Effect from the beginning. I was a regular poster in the Mass Effect tread for [i]years[/i] and could summarise basically every codex entry in the series. Finally, it wasn't "suddenly poorly written". It was always poorly written. The concept is terrible, the evidence is laughable, the potential execution is insulting, and it's supporters are infuriating. Only two types of people still support the Indoctrination Theory; those who feel an emotional hole from the pure insanity that was the original ending and self aggrandising plebs who believe they are far more clever than they are and can't admit when they're wrong. I'll let you choose which group you fall into. [sp]The correct answer is the latter.[/sp] [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42826286]Well you asked us to watch over 3 hours worth of videos like it was no big deal. Just sayin. I think all things considered it'd be best if EVERYONE ended things right here. Seems like a good place to drop the subject.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah. I spend all that time writing up my post and you have to be all mature and call an end to it.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;42826559]Oh yeah. I spend all that time writing up my post and you have to be all mature and call an end to it.[/QUOTE] I liked your post. It was cathartic.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;42826559]Alright I stopped doing breakdowns a long time ago but this post is so terrible I just have to do it. [/quote] Man it sure does suck not being agreed with :'( [quote] Just because you don't see the poor writing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Rather than writing a long paragraph detailing the numerous examples of poor writing I will instead refer you to one character: Kai Leng. This is a character who's entire design was "Badass cyberninja out to stop Shepard." He has no personality, no motives, no interaction with the world beyond "attack Shepard", and every scene with him is written in such a way that he is either outright immortal or Shepard becomes so incompetent a sick child could do a better job. [/quote] His motive of wanting money got him working with cerberus in the first place, and he got indoctrinated and therefore needs no motivation to stay (as he was forced, essentially). As for personality and interaction, why do you need that from a character who is essentially an attack dog? He is only important separate from the generic soldiers because of his abilities, making him a bigger threat, but you wouldn't expect to learn the motives and personality of the soldiers, would you? [quote]Woah. Where the fuck did this crazy hostility come from? "I'm not saying you are but I'm going to act as though you are anyway." Cool your fucking jets.[/quote] When anti-IT people have, without falter, all acting in condescending fashion, it would not be unfair to expect the same thing. [quote] I know the video you mean. The vast majority of the points brought up in it can be explained as poor writing or the video creator reading hidden meaning where there are none. He uses shoddy animation and background effects as 'evidence' for the child on Earth being Shepard's imagination when in reality it was just a cheap emotional ploy to try to make people care because "Boo hoo a little boy got blowed up." He says graphical errors such as trees appearing in the run to the conduit are evidence of a dream when it's much more likely the entire ending was rushed to due time or budgetary constraints. Most glaringly he criticises poor writing when it doesn't support the indoctrination theory and uses it when it supports it. [/quote] What about the dreams having a lot in common with the Rachni's description of being indoctrinated? What about the schizo whispering and shadow veins during TIM conversation, and the growling? Regardless of the things I could bring up, you can always just cast it aside as being the result of "stupidity", but that's a one-size fits all answer, and really doesn't address whether the IT is dumb because you could always just deny some theory for whatever doubting reason you want. Inception was all a dream? Nah, Nolan is way too stupid. Bruce Willis was a ghost all along? Nah, M. Night is stupid, all the failures to interact are just the result of poor writing. Point is, all ideas have an easy "no fuck you" answer, but that doesn't make them less possible overall. I'm sorry if I'm not explaining my thoughts correctly. [quote] Wow. This one might be my favourite. It is inconsistent with the theming of the series because the series has been, from the outset, about overcoming impossible odds. Your 3 background choices have you fighting off an invasion almost singlehandedly, bing the sole survivor of a hellish assault, or sacrifice your soldiers to wipe out a Batarian raiding party. The events of the games reinforce this in all of the pivotal moments in the series from saving the beacon on Eden Prime to finding Ilos to defeating the Collectors. [/quote] Yeah, but this is the first time you are finally weak in front of a reaper, Harbinger no less, finally put into a defenseless position where you can't fight against their powers any longer. It's a twist ending, really, so there doesn't need to be too much precedent (except there is, because we are taught how convincing indoctrination can be, and that we know indoctrination is a thing too). [quote]In regard to structure it is inconsistent with the series scientific, direct approach to storytelling. The game gives you codex entries, allows you to discuss the events with your team as it happens, and most importantly focuses on uncovering truth. The Indoctrination Theory has none of that. It isn't direct, it is arbitrarily convoluted, it casts doubt not just on the events of the last few minutes of the game but on upwards of half the series. In a game where we are made to trust what we see to uncover the truth having the be so vague and ambiguous as the Indoctrination Theory isn't just absurd, it's downright insulting.[/quote] Well I understand partly what you mean, but I don't like that because that means that certain aspects (such as internal conflicts) would be permanently off limits just because it has no precedent. It should be remembered that internal conflicts ARE explored in ME3, the dream sequences are very much similar to what the IT would make the ending sequence, and because ME3 already featured a dream feature (which is also somewhat out of place), it is definitely possible for them to do it again. [quote]As far as indoctrination goes yes, the games [b]do[/b] say you can't "be indoctrinated for a short 10 minute period." Infact that goes against the entire fucking concept of indoctrination in the first place. Indoctrination is slow, so slow that to create an effective thrall you need to spend [i]years[/i] in constant contact with the Reaper's indoctrination technology. While it is possible to indoctrinate someone quickly (as in days to weeks) the process basically destroys the person's mind and they are only useful for a very short time. Also, a key part of indoctrination is that it is very had to break and breaking indoctrination may be impossible. Even Saren, who you can talk down, only regains enough willpower to kill himself. If Shepard is indoctrinated that's it, the Reapers win.[/quote] That is a good point, but TIM's ability to use force powers to restrict and control your movements also have no precedent so...I dunno man. Although indoctrination apparently takes place when people are conscious through like, subliminal thoughts or something, but in this case it is simply fucking around with Shepard's mind while he's unconscious, giving him a structured dream using the characters (Anderson and TIM) to represent different ideologies, that might be reaching a bit, but...doesn't really make too much sense to me that indoctrination is able to completely schizophrenic mode people (to have such an impact on their minds), but be unable to manipulate a dream of an unconscious and weak person whose stresses have probably made his barriers weak. [quote] First, yes the Indoctrination Theory has been disproved. Not only does it contradict both the original ending and the extended cut ending but the developers have publicly called it a load of shit. [/quote] Well yeah, I know that (though I do wonder why Shepard is alive in the destroy ending...), but that doesn't really call into question the plausibility of the theory itself. Though it does make it not the canon, which isn't really what this debate was initially started by (somewhere along the line I've gone off track, I'm sure), which is about its plausibility in general, not whether it's the truth or not. [quote]Second, a "stupid opinion based on your own desperate attempts to separate yourself from the "severely disappointed nerds"". Are you fucking serious? No, really. Are you shitting me? I'm the one arguing that the [b]ACTUAL FUCKING ENDING WHICH ACTUALLY HAPPENED[/b] is the actual fucking ending. Didn't you [i]just say in this very post[/i] "acting like your opinion on the story is the only possible opinion to the point that you insult those who disagree is insane." My god I can't believe anyone could make a post this terrible.[/quote] I referred to your opinion on the quality of the story, not your opinion on the events of the story, nor your opinion on the plausibility of the IT. [quote]Third, and most importantly, the Indoctrination Theory is a terrible ending to the series. Hell I'd argue it would be a worse ending to the series than the abortion we got because at least Bioware's ending tried to give some closure. That's right, closure, the thing a fucking ending is supposed to have so you don't feel like you've pissed away your time. All the Indoctrination Theory does is create more questions and open more plot holes, the real ending gave moronic answers to questions no one asked but at least it fucking tried to answer questions. Also unlike the Indoctrination Theory is fucking tried to be an ending.[/quote] I don't think many people believe the IT is the literal end of the series, they rather believe it is an explanation for the inconsistencies the ending we currently have has that hopes that there will be more, at least that's what it is for me. The EC was hoped to be that addition, but obviously it wasn't so fml. I agree, though, that the IT with no further expansion (like Shep waking up and continuing) would be terrible, though the ambiguity is a little meritable, but not worth the sacrifice of having closure. What do you mean the IT doesn't answer any questions? Its entire purpose is to give explanation for some of the weird things in the ending, therefore its entire goal is to answer the questions. Do you have any examples of plot holes and questions that the IT creates? I'd like some examples. The IT doesn't try to be an ending, really, it just tries to explain the ending, and many hoped that there would be more. [quote] It is entirely illogical and relies on conjecture and coincidence to even exist. It has no evidence which can't be explained in a much more logical sense, and is entirely implausible. It would not have been clever, it's the kind of pseudo-intellectual ending a twelve year old comes up with when they want something to be mysterious. [/quote] Every single analysis of literature or stories or whatever relies on taking something that actually happens and finding more meaning behind it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it (except now because...i dunno), and imo none of the claims of the IT are over-reaching, and when they are, IT supporters shy away from ever mentioning it because they have much more to work with. This is a theory, might I remind you, with evidence behind it that I find pretty compelling, in the end the only thing that can confirm this theory's validity/canonicity is Bioware itself, and I do not see them doing that, and I definitely don't think this was their purpose all along (though I wish it was, with the EC being the expanding on it that I previously mentioned). Calling things pseudo-intellectual is the result of your disagreement with the notion, not because it is actually the result of a low-intelligence individual, and besides, no one, here at least, ever claimed that IT supporters were geniuses. It's a simple theory based on an important plot device (indoctrination) with evidence from the ending itself, our understandings of indoctrination, and some things from earlier in the game (the dreams) all used in a bid to show that the IT is plausible. [quote]In any other scenario the Indoctrination Theory would be a laughing stock and would only win "Worst story of the year" awards. A dream like attack on a character's resolve is never received well by audiences or critics and such endings are almost universally panned. Also the "severely disappointed nerds" includes myself and basically everyone who was following Mass Effect from the beginning. I was a regular poster in the Mass Effect tread for [i]years[/i] and could summarise basically every codex entry in the series.[/quote] I suppose you're somewhat right, but like I said, most IT supporters don't intend/want the IT to be the ending, they simply want it to be something they can expand on. Again, this entire argument is mostly about the plausibility of the IT in general, not really how well it stands up as being the 100% end, because almost no one wants that. [quote]Finally, it wasn't "suddenly poorly written". It was always poorly written. The concept is terrible, the evidence is laughable, the potential execution is insulting, and it's supporters are infuriating. Only two types of people still support the Indoctrination Theory; those who feel an emotional hole from the pure insanity that was the original ending and self aggrandising plebs who believe they are far more clever than they are and can't admit when they're wrong. I'll let you choose which group you fall into. [sp]The correct answer is the latter.[/sp][/quote] The concept is fine, because indoctrination is a big part of the reaper persona it would make a lot of sense to at one point be subjected to its powers, as it would be (or well, is) even more questionable that even after all Shep's exposure he never got indoctrinated. As a concept for a literal ending, yeah it's not so good because dream endings are bad, especially a dream ending that isn't concrete, but...again, most people don't think the IT is that, they wanted it to be more. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] [quote] Oh yeah. I spend all that time writing up my post and you have to be all mature and call an end to it.[/QUOTE] Don't worry bud, your words didn't go to waste. I apologize for being rude, totally my bad and uncalled for. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42826286]Well you asked us to watch over 3 hours worth of videos like it was no big deal. Just sayin. I think all things considered it'd be best if EVERYONE ended things right here. Seems like a good place to drop the subject.[/QUOTE] Well I'd think that would be expected, to watch some media on the subject.

You're using the theory to try to defend a game that was rushed and badly written and was very divergent to the original theme and actual features of the original Mass Effect. They are saying that the theory is bad because it was thought up to try and defend a badly written and rushed product, and at the same time does not support the narrative of the original Mass Effect product. Shepard's story is over, IT has been discredited and no longer matters, just like the actual argument over fixing the ending doesn't matter because it will not be fixed. tldr; Each fan has their right to come up with their own conclusions in how to cope with the game they were in some way unsatisfied with. It does not change the fact that ME3 was a bad ending to a great trilogy. It is objective, not subjective, that ME3 so heavily diverged from the original drive of the trilogy, and that IT continues that divergence to even greater degree, that its narrative cannot be called anything but poorly constructed for without consistency in plot, how can you have closure?

I just don't think it's right to dumb my post, disagree sure, but dumb? ALL MY EFFORT...all of it...gone.

Consider it a collective of this entire discussion so far. Rehashing a discussion that has been had a hundred times and flinging insults at one another is going to make no difference whatsoever. Just find common ground, admit you can't convince each other, and accept the fact ME3 was not a satisfactory product for anyone who gives a shit about a proper narrative, the ME3 trilogy, and its plot consistency. It has nothing to redeem itself with, and whatever head-canon you come up with does not all of a sudden become real canon, nor can it be argued for as real canon.

I just started a new run of ME3 until i arrived at the first kid dream scene... i hate that kid...

If I'm not mistaken, the whole IT debate is the following: the ME3 ending is inconsistent with the rest of the series, from an outside/video game perspective (EMS alone determines how well it ends, etc) as well as from an inside/scenaristic perspective (the Catalyst, the uncomprehensible choice between the three ways to save the galaxy). Then the IT comes in, and while it makes the ending even less consistent from the outside perspective (no choice given to the player at all), it does make the game more consistent from the inside perspective (endoctrination was always a possibility, also explains Shepard's dreams, etc). It's that even greater lack of consistence from the outside perspective that some people don't like. Am I right? And there's also the Extended Cut, which adds a bit more consistence on both the outside perspective (EMS not as important, possibility to say "no" to the Catalyst) and the inside perspective (the Catalyst explains pretty much everything to Shepard). What makes things more complicated though, is that the EC can be seen as confirming that the IT is false in an outside perspective (why didn't they change the ending if the IT is true?) but also that it is true in an inside perspective (adding more "signs" towards it, not removing any). Did I get this right?

its funny how a 2007 game is already a subject of nostalgia time flies fast

Can we get Drew Karpyshyn back?

[QUOTE=Gar;42823982]Well, the point was the fact that he died and was resurrected in ME2 makes it just as plausible that he survives at the end of ME3. It doesn't change the fact that it's still bad writing all around.[/QUOTE] Honestly my most favourite theory still is, that mass effect 2 and 3 never happened. It's all just Shephard's imagination from a lack of oxygen, pain and heat as she's slowly burning up on the descend at the beginning of ME2. It's the best thing to explain the sudden changes to a lot of the characters. And how suddenly Shephard is much more of a superhero like figure in the eyes of the population. It's all a delirous dieing dream Shephard is having.

[QUOTE=Zeos;42828730]Can we get Drew Karpyshyn back?[/QUOTE] I doubt it. I'm pretty sure he went off to start writing original material. Unless he's really unhappy and Bioware offers him a sweet contract, he's gone for good at this point.

[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;42829387]I doubt it. I'm pretty sure he went off to start writing original material. Unless he's really unhappy and Bioware offers him a sweet contract, he's gone for good at this point.[/QUOTE] He also had no idea how to end Mass Effect 3.