Mass Effect 3 (Seriously, Use Spoilers People!)

[Dark567]

How can you screen something that has 16 very different endings based on a player's choices over the course of three games? Sure, they didn't have this problem with ME3 but they should have. I also don't think screening would have helped in this case because I am not convinced the people who created the rest of this game could have looked at the ending and been satisfied with their work.

Yeah, if they actually had 16 endings, I would be more sympathetic. Also, the way Casey Hudson has been acting, he seems satisfied with it, which of course just could be a PR move.

[Belial]

Fiiinally slogged through and beat it so I can start opening spoilers, but fucked if I'm going to go back and read the ones I missed because ye gods.

Anyway, my thought:

Spoiler:

I am not as upset by it as I could be. It was never going to be straightforward, there always had to be some sort of twist, so the fact that the ending wasn't "and then we slugged the reapers to death with very large bullets" doesn't trouble me. The fact that the crucible was something really weird doesn't trouble me.

The reveal about the reapers themselves bothers me. I was really hoping they weren't going in the direction of "reapers are archived sentient minds" because that is pretty silly and takes a lot of the eldritch horror out of them, taking them from unfathomable to nonsensical. Why would a few million human minds suddenly sign on to the galactic murder train just because you put them in a cuttlefish?

The purpose of the reapers troubled me more. Both because there was a purpose (I liked them better when they were ineffable) and also because of the choices given to me to react to that purpose. Like, okay, the citadel AI believes that synthetics will always wipe out organics, so it gives me these three choices. I can get behind that. That makes sense. However, what the hell was the point of the Geth and EDI storylines if I can't turn to the AI and say "Uhh, actually, I totally got the synthetics to play nice, and now they're invited to all of our sexy organic parties. The geth send me yearly christmas cards. Can we try rethinking our base assumption here?"

The fact that Shepard just accepts that "okay, yeah, synthetics will always wipe out organics because the shimmery space gradeschooler says so" completely gives the lie to what she was saying through the entire rest of the game. If I had to pick one thing that bothered me, it's that.

That said, I feel like we're being set up for some serious End-of-Eva nonsense. And frankly, I'm totally on board if that's the way they want to go with it. In that light, the entire scene on the citadel takes on the character of a...statement of intention. You aren't actually changing anything, but within the dream/vision sequence you're choosing what you want from a conclusion. Proving yourself to something that's judging you based on what you choose. Interesting to see if they'll build on that.

Suddenly, I find myself wondering if the inclusion of a character named "Eva" toward the beginning was meant to be reference.

[Dark567]

That said, I feel like we're being set up for some serious End-of-Eva nonsense.

Could you elaborate? I am not familiar with the term....

[Belial]

Evangelion was a very thoughtful science fiction anime series, that ended wierdly. For a show that was all about large biomechanical robots beating the shit out of otherworldly angels while something weird and metaphysical was in the works, it ended with the main character sitting in an imaginary room dealing with his psychological demons. The ending was intriguing, but it just didn't really feel like the ending, and in the context of the rest of the series it just didn't make a ton of sense.

Eventually they revealed that that wasn't really the ending they had planned, they just ran out of money, and after enough fan uproar* (and a pretty big influx of money as the series became more popular) they put together a two hour ending movie (Entitled "End of Eva") that was basically "what was going on in the real world while the last episode was going on in the main character's head". It was much more interesting, and was much better received, but the end result is that the series has two endings, an internal one and an external one.

(Three now, as they've since remade the series entirely).

*At one point in the course of the movie, when some serious reality-breaking is occurring, the screen is briefly plastered with a collage of all the death threats the writers and producers received in response to the original ending.

[Dauric]

I could get behind this idea as an intentional storytelling technique if they hadn't made the "In shepard's head" bit suck so badly that the "End Of" ending has to come of as an apology to the fans. Bioware's public announcements read like "We planned it this way all along", when it feels like what happened to Evangellion with the budget/schedule shortfall but they won't fess up to it.

As a fan of the series I'm somewhat more upset that they can't just be honest about the budget/schedule problems and keep trying to play the "I meant for that to happen..." card.

[Belial]

Agreed. But I'm not so angry that I won't take their EoE-style ending gratefully and with a smile on my face, should they choose to offer it.

[Dauric]

Agreed. But I'm not so angry that I won't take their EoE-style ending gratefully and with a smile on my face, should they choose to offer it.

Ehh, it's probably because I hit the end to ME3 unwarned about the nonsensical suckage, but I'll get their EoE-style ending because I do love the rest of the series, however I reserve the right to kick ass if it fails to deliver on the same scale as the original ending failed to deliver.

[Chen]

It really depends on how they do it. There are a lot of fan theories going on that have some evidence as to how the ending could have been planned to be that way. If they expand on that and do it well I suppose it could come off as "yeah we planned this" even if they really just fucked it up badly. I don't really see any way they can PROVE that they did plan it in advance so regardless of what they do its very likely people will consider it the "yeah you're just doing this because we massively complained about it" anyways.

[Dark567]

It really depends on how they do it. There are a lot of fan theories going on that have some evidence as to how the ending could have been planned to be that way. If they expand on that and do it well I suppose it could come off as "yeah we planned this" even if they really just fucked it up badly. I don't really see any way they can PROVE that they did plan it in advance so regardless of what they do its very likely people will consider it the "yeah you're just doing this because we massively complained about it" anyways.

The iPhone app thing had to be preprogrammed though,that's at least some evidence that it was planned.

[An Enraged Platypus]

It bugs me that the MP will probably be overlooked/ people will end ME3 and never boot it again. I love the MP.

[Dauric]

It really depends on how they do it. There are a lot of fan theories going on that have some evidence as to how the ending could have been planned to be that way. If they expand on that and do it well I suppose it could come off as "yeah we planned this" even if they really just fucked it up badly. I don't really see any way they can PROVE that they did plan it in advance so regardless of what they do its very likely people will consider it the "yeah you're just doing this because we massively complained about it" anyways.

The iPhone app thing had to be preprogrammed though,that's at least some evidence that it was planned.

Well it was obviously planned at some point,....

Spoiler:

they had to get the voice recordings done and the object models and texture-mapping for the "Choice Nodes" (Operating under the assumption that the 3D models for the Citadel/Crucble set were already in the works) and the 3D modeling and renders for the reapers falling down or leaving and Joker spazzing at the controls of the Normandy (I'd imagine real ship controls at the navigation crewstation for "Go Faster, Faster, I Said FASTER DAMNIT!" would involve pushing the throttle all the way forward and holding it there, unlike say the poor sod in engineering who's trying to match relativistic speeds with his own body trying to rebuild radiation shielding using the last of the Duck-Tape)... All the stuff that they did in the ending sequences takes time to do, a lot more time than it would take to update a promotional app with an entry that wouldn't be seen for a month or more.

So yeah sure, it was planned, after they'd failed to meet deliverable deadlines and realized that they needed to get shit wrapped up in whatever time EA would grace them with.

The ending and lack of a 'real' conclusion isn't the only sign of an inadequate schedule. The animation spazzes like Traynor's head going in to neck-wrenching contortions if you talked to her while standing directly behind her, as well as numerous problems with the texturemaps, and even the "Security Gate" -inside- the Normandy (which is essentially a "Loading screen") spoke to a lot of unfinished tasks and graphical optimization that -had- been completed in ME 2.

[Ghostbear]

Even if they fix it though, this is going to give a big hit to their reputation; a well deserved one too, I think.

As for actually fixing it, I think their best bet is

Spoiler:

To pretend something like the indoctrination theory was what they had intended all along. I think people going along with it are being silly and making a lot of assumptions and making some big reaches to get that conclusion, but.. it's sufficient for Bioware to be able to pull off a convincing attempt of it. It also gives a decent way to segue into a real ending while keeping what they have already. I think I'd rather they did something else entirely, but they at least have something not-terrible to start with with that.

[SlyReaper]

Or they could just release a patch on the sly and have it auto-update via Origin, and then wait to see how long it is until someone notices. Bad ending? There was never a bad ending! In other news, we have always been at war with East Asia.

[Dark567]

As for actually fixing it, I think their best bet is

Spoiler:

To pretend something like the indoctrination theory was what they had intended all along. I think people going along with it are being silly and making a lot of assumptions and making some big reaches to get that conclusion, but.. it's sufficient for Bioware to be able to pull off a convincing attempt of it. It also gives a decent way to segue into a real ending while keeping what they have already. I think I'd rather they did something else entirely, but they at least have something not-terrible to start with with that.

Spoiler:

I would hate that so much, because I don't really think there are any big hints for it or anything. I dunno any real way that I could come away from this and be like "Oh yeah, that makes so much sense".

[An Enraged Platypus]

As for actually fixing it, I think their best bet is

Spoiler:

To pretend something like the indoctrination theory was what they had intended all along. I think people going along with it are being silly and making a lot of assumptions and making some big reaches to get that conclusion, but.. it's sufficient for Bioware to be able to pull off a convincing attempt of it. It also gives a decent way to segue into a real ending while keeping what they have already. I think I'd rather they did something else entirely, but they at least have something not-terrible to start with with that.

Spoiler:

I would hate that so much, because I don't really think there are any big hints for it or anything. I dunno any real way that I could come away from this and be like "Oh yeah, that makes so much sense".

Actually, I think a lot of the points hold water.

Spoiler:

See http://w11.zetaboards.com/Theorycraftng ... 7688087/1/ for where the foreshadowing could be.

[maybeagnostic]

The way to prove that it was planned in advance is to have convincing hints in the game itself. Even the best indoctrinated theory I heard relied on cherry picking some nonsense bits of the ending but ignoring others.

Spoiler:

The main hint was that Anderson is presented as renegade for wanting to destroy the reapers and TIM is a paragon for trying to control them. That struck me as very weird when I was playing but I'd saved the geth so it made some sense. The only other convincing evidence was that Shepard is shown still on Earth in one of the endings that implies something weird is going on. But there were so many rushed and not thought out bits that a half-second clip of a soldier lying in rubble is more likely to be a recycled image thrown in there to force people into playing MP to get the 'best' ending.

On the other hand no one even tries to indoctrinate Shepard until he's already in the Citadel control room talking to TIM and Anderson, the synthesis option doesn't fit in the paradigm ('controlling' the Reapers is giving in to the indoctrination while destroying them is breaking free), destroying the mass relays has nothing to do with stopping the enemy (as far as Shepard knows), and the post-choice reality is not something Shepard would see after dying so... what are we being shown?

A sequence where Shepard is being indoctrinated and you need to realize that and fight the Reapers would have been really cool. The flipped paragon-renegade choice hints that that might have been the original intention but that is definitely not the ending we are given. Come to think of it a few weeks is probably an overly optimistic estimate of how long it takes to put together a good ending.

I'd rather get a free DLC that completely rewrites the last fifteen minutes although that seems unlikely. The problem is that if they take a few more weeks to get it out almost all fans would have seen the crap ending already so it will be too late.

P.S. I just started looking at Platypus' link. That's a lot more detailed than anything I've seen before.

[Dauric]

I'd rather get a free DLC that completely rewrites the last fifteen minutes although that seems unlikely. The problem is that if they take a few more weeks to get it out almost all fans would have seen the crap ending already so it will be too late.

Ultimately this is their problem. They settled on a terrible ending, not an artistic ending that alters the world suggestive of something else going on*, but one that's patently nonsensical and clearly wasn't edited as well as it should have been (See Sexy Talon's post on the previous page about their abbreviated writing staff).

*(like the personality-reversal in the epilogue ofTaxi Driver that is suggestive that the main character didn't actually survive the preceding gunfight, or even interpretations of the end of Lord of the Rings that suggest Frodo and possibly Sam actually died when the volcano did the big explodey. Used intentionally or not it's a pretty old literary/cinematic device to have an epilogue that doesn't quite match the rest of the series to throw an interpretative wrench in the works.)

So now whatever they do, no matter how grand the End-of Eva ending there's this crap already there.

[Ghostbear]

As for actually fixing it, I think their best bet is

Spoiler:

To pretend something like the indoctrination theory was what they had intended all along. I think people going along with it are being silly and making a lot of assumptions and making some big reaches to get that conclusion, but.. it's sufficient for Bioware to be able to pull off a convincing attempt of it. It also gives a decent way to segue into a real ending while keeping what they have already. I think I'd rather they did something else entirely, but they at least have something not-terrible to start with with that.

Spoiler:

I would hate that so much, because I don't really think there are any big hints for it or anything. I dunno any real way that I could come away from this and be like "Oh yeah, that makes so much sense".

I don't like the theory much, but:

Spoiler:

I definitely think people are stretching when they argue that it's what actually happened- as you said, there's no big hints that lead up to it. I was just saying that, as a jumping off point, it's probably their best bet for keeping the ending they have (e.g. saving face- whoever is at the top that made the ending would be pissed to have it excised completely, and the EA/Bioware would have to admit having made something bad. I don't think they're willing to do that.), while expanding on it for an ending that isn't utter shit. They could add in some actual hints that work for it, while keeping those sequences relatively unchanged. Switch up the ending a bit- cut out the cinematic, make it more visually ethereal, make it more obvious, and make Shepard always live if choosing the right option- and then have a post-waking scene. It'd still be a stretch, but if they're going to leave the current ending sequence in place in some form- and I expect they will- it's probably the least implausible scenario.

As for the "when would Shepard have been indoctrinated?" I think there's at least enough stuff for them to do a hand-wave for it. The derelict reaper in ME2 was shown to still indoctrinate, and Shepard spent a decent amount of time on it. The final boss of ME2 was an incomplete reaper- it might have been able to indoctrinate as well-, and in Arrival, Shepard spends several hours unconscious around an artifact that is also shown to indoctrinate. Add in time unconscious around Harbinger at the very end and you have enough time to make up some bullshit I think. Not enough to make it plausible as things are now, but with some more writing and such... maybe? As I said, I don't think it's a good theory as-is, but I think it's their best "jumping off" point for a new ending, unless they're willing to do something completely new, which corporate decision making leads me to expect they aren't willing to do.

So now whatever they do, no matter how grand the End-of Eva ending there's this crap already there.

And don't forget that they will almost certainly charge money to get that new ending. If they charge money for it and it makes money, it sets a really terrible precedent for the game industry: it's OK to fuck up your ending, because if you fuck it up badly enough, you can use it as a revenue stream!

[Belial]

Spoiler:

The two things that happen with a really high EMS (the big deep breath at the end of the red ending and the child saying "wake up" instead of "why are you here") tend to imply to me that they planned something weird here.

In that case, they're probably intentionally waiting until enough people have seen and are upset by the ending to pull out the "so here's what's actually happening" In fact, Hudson's recent changes in stance look kindof exactly like that.

[SlyReaper]

Spoiler:

It's easier to believe that the bits pointed out by the indoctrination theorists are genuine mistakes by EA or Bioware. Frankly it just seems more likely than them risking pissing off fans and losing money to make a clever artistic statement. But now the theory is out there, it gives Bioware a means to save face and claim to have planned it all along if and when they patch the ending.

[Telchar]

From the Grantland.com review...

In fact, could we, as gamers, maybe politely band together to convince BioWare to can the sex scenes entirely, at least until the technology exists to make a non-hilarious one? Then again, I'm a shameless hypocrite, because I spent an inordinate amount of time as Commander Shepard trolling my crew for sex. All I can say in my defense is that, when I know Liara's in the next room, it's hard not to get a hankering for blueberry, if you know what I mean.

[Gelsamel]

Spoiler:

Were clues presented that unreliable narration was occuring? I don't mean "Well it's all fucked up and it makes sense if we make excuses 'X' " but actual genuine clues that an excuse on the level of "it was a dream, a story, or a hallucination" was actually foreshadowed?

It's times like these you need a little Knox. "It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED!"

If clues were not presented, then even if Bioware show us documents that demonstrate that, actually, that was the plan the whole time... then it's still absofuckinglutely terrible writing.

[VectorZero]

Would people mind not openly discussing the ending? Spoiler tags please.

[Dauric]

Spoiler:

Were clues presented that unreliable narration was occuring? I don't mean "Well it's all fucked up and it makes sense if we make excuses 'X' " but actual genuine clues that an excuse on the level of "it was a dream, a story, or a hallucination" was actually foreshadowed?

It's times like these you need a little Knox. "It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not PRESENTED!"

If clues were not presented, then even if Bioware show us documents that demonstrate that, actually, that was the plan the whole time... then it's still absofuckinglutely terrible writing.

Spoiler:

I think they tried, Citadel-Child is the same model as the boy in the opening, there's other stuff as well, though it depends on how well you played the rest of the game to see those hints, so in my case I grabbed my first completion save from ME2, which I knew wasn't going to get me the best options, but I wanted a feel for the plot and what was going on (and alleviate the "New Toy Syndrome" by playing the new game...), then I'd go back to ME2, finish the second round, and import my ME1x2, ME2x2 character in to ME3 and really hit ME3 with my best choices and well equipped to take on the Reapers.

Problem is this got me the suboptimal ending that contains no hints of an unreliable narrator.. -and- it sucked, so now completing my second ME2 character feels like a chore.

The thing about the "Impossible Epilogue" is that the outcome is usually bunnies and rainbows when that's not a possible outcome. Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) becomes a community hero, and sheds a lifetime's worth of social awkwardness after getting in a gunfight with pimps and drug dealers. Frodo and Sam are 'saved' by wings and a bearded guy in a white robe after being close enough to an exploding volcano to be carbonized hobbit-kebabs.

ME3 tries the trick, but presents a bleak epilogue when the real-world outcome isn't going to be "Everyone lives happily ever after." and they end up with an impossible epilogue that's just blatantly nonsensical in order to not mirror the real-world events.

[Gelsamel]

Spoiler:

I think they tried, Citadel-Child is the same model as the boy in the opening, there's other stuff as well, though it depends on how well you played the rest of the game to see those hints, so in my case I grabbed my first completion save from ME2, which I knew wasn't going to get me the best options, but I wanted a feel for the plot and what was going on (and alleviate the "New Toy Syndrome" by playing the new game...), then I'd go back to ME2, finish the second round, and import my ME1x2, ME2x2 character in to ME3 and really hit ME3 with my best choices and well equipped to take on the Reapers.

Problem is this got me the suboptimal ending that contains no hints of an unreliable narrator.. -and- it sucked, so now completing my second ME2 character feels like a chore.

The thing about the "Impossible Epilogue" is that the outcome is usually bunnies and rainbows when that's not a possible outcome. Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) becomes a community hero, and sheds a lifetime's worth of social awkwardness after getting in a gunfight with pimps and drug dealers. Frodo and Sam are 'saved' by wings and a bearded guy in a white robe after being close enough to an exploding volcano to be carbonized hobbit-kebabs.

ME3 tries the trick, but presents a bleak epilogue when the real-world outcome isn't going to be "Everyone lives happily ever after." and they end up with an impossible epilogue that's just blatantly nonsensical in order to not mirror the real-world events.

Spoiler:

Yes but... The Citadel-Child being the same model at the kid is explained very easily by poor writing. Those VI type things have been shown to do some crazy stuff before and Protheans have that experience-memory thingo going on so it's not weird that something might be able to rip the memories out of Shepard and appear as that kid as BioWare trying to be "deep" or something.

I have not played the game, just spoiled myself on as much as I could and watched a lot of videos, so I don't know of any clues myself. But it seems much more believable that everything was just terrible writing because it all makes sense from that perspective and seems much more likely.

But let us consider the idea that there may be more clues than you have communicated to me. Then we have the following possibilities available to us.

1) The 'excuse' was intended and clues were shown.
2) The 'excuse' was intended and the clues were shown if you made certain choices (per your claim that you didn't see any clues with some choices).
3) The 'excuse' was intended and clues were not shown.
4) The 'excuse' was not intended but BioWare will jump on it to save the ending.
5) The 'excuse' was not intended and BioWare will leave the ending as it is.

The first is the only possibility that results in a story with writing that isn't quite terrible. Not necessarily good... if it was really good I doubt this many people would have missed it. But perhaps not horrible. Say what you will, but if your writing is obtuse whether by purpose or perchance then it is bad. The second through fifth are all possibilities in which the writing is various levels of terrible.

[Weeks]

From the Grantland.com review...

In fact, could we, as gamers, maybe politely band together to convince BioWare to can the sex scenes entirely, at least until the technology exists to make a non-hilarious one? Then again, I'm a shameless hypocrite, because I spent an inordinate amount of time as Commander Shepard trolling my crew for sex. All I can say in my defense is that, when I know Liara's in the next room, it's hard not to get a hankering for blueberry, if you know what I mean.

They are indeed hilarious.

Even with Thane.

As for the ending, Evangelion taught me about weird endings so well that if this is at all like that then I don't think I'll mind it so much, thank you Internet.

[Dauric]

I completely agree with you Gelsamel.

Spoiler:

Belial had a few other 'hints' above

The two things that happen with a really high EMS (the big deep breath at the end of the red ending and the child saying "wake up" instead of "why are you here") tend to imply to me that they planned something weird here.

EMS being your rating for how much of the galaxy you'd gotten behind your effort, so the clues of "Wake Up" and the final shattered Shepard taking a breath in the ruined concrete depend on getting good enough progress in the game, so not all the clues of unreliable narration are there at the end.

I think -if-, and I stress the -if- here, they had intended to use the 'indoctrination' mindfuck plotline (which at this point seems their only 'out' from the presented information to something more coherent) they executed it -very- poorly.

I'm not certain that -all- the clues were not shown even with the 'wrong' choices, the opening has a very "Sixth Sense" feel in that no-one but Shepard ever interacts with the child the way Bruce Willis's character never directly interacted with anyone else in the 6'th Sense movie, but it makes no sense that Shepard would see a phantom of the Citadel-Child at that point*. The problem is that in using the cinematic tropes they may have used they don't translate well. On top of that he game's lack of polish and just plain lousy ending dialog choices make it impossible to know what clues are actually clues and what are technical failures.


*Unless indoctrination began in a previous game, but taking that route you could argue that Indoctrination goes back to Eden Prime and the very first mission of ME1, and the whole thing could be a hallucination, which IMO I hate that possibility because the whole thing goes completely meta ("Let me tell you a story about a story in some guy's head") and Shepard could be sitting at home in front of his television with a game controller in his hands....

[Jesse]

Ending stuff:

Spoiler:

Just finished the game. Ending cinematic was incredibly naff, but the choice was really fun. I saved the Geth and spent the entire time hanging around with EDI, so I suddenly had the choice of either wiping out the synthetics I'd tried so hard to save during the game, or giving up my white picket fence and retriever dog with Samantha to save an entire race of sentient beings. I very nearly cried, and actually said "Sorry Samantha" out loud when I chose to die controlling the Reapers, but allowing the Geth and EDI to live. (Admittedly, some of that may be to do with it being 1:30am and me being awake for nearly 24 hours, but still.)

I felt, that while a lot of the writing and story was poor, the characters totally got me this time round. My friendship with Garrus, shooting bottle on the Presidium, and him being so happy when he beat me, makes me happy I used him on missions, and EDI never failed to make me laugh. I loved my romance with Samantha Traynor (homosexuality ftw, makes me feel like a gay Captain Janeway), and I felt like that was done with the least amount of awkwardness (beyond any time they touched looking awkward as hell) and the dialogue felt very real at times. Enjoyed that part very much.

[Gelsamel]

I completely agree with you Gelsamel.

Spoiler:

Belial had a few other 'hints' above

The two things that happen with a really high EMS (the big deep breath at the end of the red ending and the child saying "wake up" instead of "why are you here") tend to imply to me that they planned something weird here.

EMS being your rating for how much of the galaxy you'd gotten behind your effort, so the clues of "Wake Up" and the final shattered Shepard taking a breath in the ruined concrete depend on getting good enough progress in the game, so not all the clues of unreliable narration are there at the end.

I think -if-, and I stress the -if- here, they had intended to use the 'indoctrination' mindfuck plotline (which at this point seems their only 'out' from the presented information to something more coherent) they executed it -very- poorly.

I'm not certain that -all- the clues were not shown even with the 'wrong' choices, the opening has a very "Sixth Sense" feel in that no-one but Shepard ever interacts with the child the way Bruce Willis's character never directly interacted with anyone else in the 6'th Sense movie, but it makes no sense that Shepard would see a phantom of the Citadel-Child at that point*. The problem is that in using the cinematic tropes they may have used they don't translate well. On top of that he game's lack of polish and just plain lousy ending dialog choices make it impossible to know what clues are actually clues and what are technical failures.


*Unless indoctrination began in a previous game, but taking that route you could argue that Indoctrination goes back to Eden Prime and the very first mission of ME1, and the whole thing could be a hallucination, which IMO I hate that possibility because the whole thing goes completely meta ("Let me tell you a story about a story in some guy's head") and Shepard could be sitting at home in front of his television with a game controller in his hands....

Spoiler:

Actually now that you mention it I do remember the part where the kid climbs onto a transport seemed really fucking weird.

Like the soldiers were acting like he wasn't there and the kid took an unusually long time to move to safety. It could still be ascribed to terrible filmography and initially I thought they were just trying to force a moment where Shepard definitely notices the kid and has a chance to react emotionally but in retrospect the whole tone of the scene felt so off... I have trouble believing they just phoned it in and purposely left it so terrible.

Maybe they did intend for this to be a hallucination/indoctrination thing... but then where did the form of the child come from? It just brings up more questions they have to answer which further throws doubt on the writing and restricts it to more and more obtuse possibilities for a coherent explanation. Why a child? Why -that- child? When did the indoctrination happen? If it happened in ME2 how much of ME2 was open to unrealiable narration? How did that affect our choices which were based off the possibly unreliable "narration"? Were there more clues or was that the only one given? When Shepard looked away from the duct and the child disappeared, did that symbolise wavering indoctrination?

The mechanics and limitations of indoctination have never been explored fully in the previous games. This brings up a few problems. The first is that the mechanics of indoctrination should have been explored if it was to be used as a plot point, for the sake of presenting clues. The second is all the questions it brings up about the plot given various indoctrination mechanics. For instance, assuming only certain parts of ME3 were unreliably narrated then why even let indoctrinated Shepard make a decision? If there is some benefit to Shepard making any of the decisions then why did Shepard or another human need to make them? Does this imply the indoctrination is weak?

Random postulate based of my small knowledge of ME3 (there may be a bunch of things I have not seen that make this question obvious):

What if the plans for the crucible which were worked on cycle after cycle were initially seeded by the reapers themselves?

They wait till the civs reach a tech point that they can work on the crucible meaninfully then force desperation in them by commiting to a serious invasion and genocide against them. This forces the civs to take the myth of the crucible seriously and try and develop it more. For some reason the reapers are unable to finish the crucible themselves, so they need to utilise all the civs for this. For some reason the reapers/the catalyst also can't just use the crucible themselves, so they need another person to activate it, hence why indoctrination is useful.

This also explains why the crucible for some reason interfaces with the citadel (reaper tech) and requires the catalyst (reaper tech) and why the catalyst is even mentioned (who, other than the reapers themselves would know of the catalyst? Or did some older cycle reach far enough to perceive the catalyst somehow?).

The true purpose of the crucible could be to bring about the synthesis ending (DIDN'T I PREDICT HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY PROJECT BEFORE!?), or it could be some unknown purpose, especially given possible unreliable narration. This is convenient as it explains the inefficiency and irrationality of the cycle and the reapers supposed motivations. You still have to come up with reasons why the reapers can't do it themselves, although you could hand wave it as needing out of the box thinking (thus many cycles of different minds), or needs the treat of extinction to get that type of tech (Ala "reapers can't advance tech because necessity is the mother of invention").

With the interpretation that there is no unreliable narrator the story is just a mess. It does seem like it, perhaps, becomes coherent if this theory or any general indoctrination theory is true. Either way, the writing seems unredeemable.

[Belial]

Spoiler:

the indoctrination theory site makes the incredibly valid point that saying "wake up" out of the blue to a clearly conscious character is usually an indication that something isn't real (see: Jacob's Ladder, the bees episode of Futurama, that one very short and awesome piece of creepypasta). Given that that line only appears when you're doing "well" in the game it's really hard to explain it any other way.

[Koa]

Casey Hudson statement. Revoltingly hollow words, fuel for the fire I think.

[Ghostbear]

More ending and theories discussion:

Spoiler:

I still think that overall, theories that this is intentional are still making big stretches. Yeah, some of it is weird, such as the "wake up" line, but I think those more point to the feeling that production of the ending was rushed. I think the theories have enough basis for Bioware to use as a recovery point, but I don't think they have enough, by any stretch, to say that they were intentional.

And even if it was intentional, it's still terrible story telling. Either they continue on with it with paid DLC- which would essentially boil down to them holding the "proper" ending hostage intentionally, or they make it free, but still leave the group that is their most ardent fans with a terrible, likely months long, ending experience. Neither of those scenarios are particularly redeeming.

Casey Hudson statement. Revoltingly hollow words, fuel for the fire I think.

Spoiler:

It reads to me like a "You guys are wrong for not liking the ending because penny arcade and the NYT liked it" statement more than anything else.

[Gelsamel]

Um... I edited my last post and people posted after me and I don't know how much I edited in so I'll just repost in a spoiler here.

My theory about the crucible/plot. Disclaimer: I have not played ME3.

Spoiler:

Random postulate based of my small knowledge of ME3 (there may be a bunch of things I have not seen that make this question obvious):

What if the plans for the crucible which were worked on cycle after cycle were initially seeded by the reapers themselves?

They wait till the civs reach a tech point that they can work on the crucible meaninfully then force desperation in them by commiting to a serious invasion and genocide against them. This forces the civs to take the myth of the crucible seriously and try and develop it more. For some reason the reapers are unable to finish the crucible themselves, so they need to utilise all the civs for this. For some reason the reapers/the catalyst also can't just use the crucible themselves, so they need another person to activate it, hence why indoctrination is useful.

This also explains why the crucible for some reason interfaces with the citadel (reaper tech) and requires the catalyst (reaper tech) and why the catalyst is even mentioned (who, other than the reapers themselves would know of the catalyst? Or did some older cycle reach far enough to perceive the catalyst somehow?).

The true purpose of the crucible could be to bring about the synthesis ending (DIDN'T I PREDICT HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY PROJECT BEFORE!?), or it could be some unknown purpose, especially given possible unreliable narration. This is convenient as it explains the inefficiency and irrationality of the cycle and the reapers supposed motivations. You still have to come up with reasons why the reapers can't do it themselves, although you could hand wave it as needing out of the box thinking (thus many cycles of different minds), or needs the threat of extinction to get that type of tech (Ala "reapers can't advance tech because necessity is the mother of invention").

There may have been more I edited into my last post that others have not seen yet, I can't remember what parts were new and old but this part was definitely new.

Edit:

Also:

Spoiler:

By true purpose of the crucible I also mean the true purpose of the reapers and the true purpose of the cycle. As in, the whole reason whatever the original race was invented the reapers and the idea of the cycle was to gamble and hope to bring about a universal version of the Human Instrumentality Project by creating a massive device that, for some reason, was only able to be created by a vast majority of different thinking peoples "cooperating" over millions or billions of years (a feat that would normally be impossible).

Of course, all the relays and the citadel were created with a view to furthering this end.

Edit2:

I forgot to mention:

Spoiler:

This also explains why plans for a superweapon exists anyway and why the myth that this plan could even possibly work also exist. Because the myth and the plans were seeded. I can't think of a natural process by which some unknown, and undeveloped super weapon based on unknown science with an unknown catalyst could possibly be thought of as having a mechanic by which it could defeat the reapers unless someone in the know seeded the rumor to begin with.

I mean, I can understand rumors and myths of superweapons "if we could just figure out how to make/use it", but to have them actually work? Too much of a coincidence.

[SlyReaper]

I completely agree with you Gelsamel.

Spoiler:

Belial had a few other 'hints' above

The two things that happen with a really high EMS (the big deep breath at the end of the red ending and the child saying "wake up" instead of "why are you here") tend to imply to me that they planned something weird here.

EMS being your rating for how much of the galaxy you'd gotten behind your effort, so the clues of "Wake Up" and the final shattered Shepard taking a breath in the ruined concrete depend on getting good enough progress in the game, so not all the clues of unreliable narration are there at the end.

I think -if-, and I stress the -if- here, they had intended to use the 'indoctrination' mindfuck plotline (which at this point seems their only 'out' from the presented information to something more coherent) they executed it -very- poorly.

I'm not certain that -all- the clues were not shown even with the 'wrong' choices, the opening has a very "Sixth Sense" feel in that no-one but Shepard ever interacts with the child the way Bruce Willis's character never directly interacted with anyone else in the 6'th Sense movie, but it makes no sense that Shepard would see a phantom of the Citadel-Child at that point*. The problem is that in using the cinematic tropes they may have used they don't translate well. On top of that he game's lack of polish and just plain lousy ending dialog choices make it impossible to know what clues are actually clues and what are technical failures.


*Unless indoctrination began in a previous game, but taking that route you could argue that Indoctrination goes back to Eden Prime and the very first mission of ME1, and the whole thing could be a hallucination, which IMO I hate that possibility because the whole thing goes completely meta ("Let me tell you a story about a story in some guy's head") and Shepard could be sitting at home in front of his television with a game controller in his hands....

Spoiler:

Actually now that you mention it I do remember the part where the kid climbs onto a transport seemed really fucking weird.

Like the soldiers were acting like he wasn't there and the kid took an unusually long time to move to safety. It could still be ascribed to terrible filmography and initially I thought they were just trying to force a moment where Shepard definitely notices the kid and has a chance to react emotionally but in retrospect the whole tone of the scene felt so off... I have trouble believing they just phoned it in and purposely left it so terrible.

Maybe they did intend for this to be a hallucination/indoctrination thing... but then where did the form of the child come from? It just brings up more questions they have to answer which further throws doubt on the writing and restricts it to more and more obtuse possibilities for a coherent explanation. Why a child? Why -that- child? When did the indoctrination happen? If it happened in ME2 how much of ME2 was open to unrealiable narration? How did that affect our choices which were based off the possibly unreliable "narration"? Were there more clues or was that the only one given? When Shepard looked away from the duct and the child disappeared, did that symbolise wavering indoctrination?

The mechanics and limitations of indoctination have never been explored fully in the previous games. This brings up a few problems. The first is that the mechanics of indoctrination should have been explored if it was to be used as a plot point, for the sake of presenting clues. The second is all the questions it brings up about the plot given various indoctrination mechanics. For instance, assuming only certain parts of ME3 were unreliably narrated then why even let indoctrinated Shepard make a decision? If there is some benefit to Shepard making any of the decisions then why did Shepard or another human need to make them? Does this imply the indoctrination is weak?

Random postulate based of my small knowledge of ME3 (there may be a bunch of things I have not seen that make this question obvious):

What if the plans for the crucible which were worked on cycle after cycle were initially seeded by the reapers themselves?

They wait till the civs reach a tech point that they can work on the crucible meaninfully then force desperation in them by commiting to a serious invasion and genocide against them. This forces the civs to take the myth of the crucible seriously and try and develop it more. For some reason the reapers are unable to finish the crucible themselves, so they need to utilise all the civs for this. For some reason the reapers/the catalyst also can't just use the crucible themselves, so they need another person to activate it, hence why indoctrination is useful.

This also explains why the crucible for some reason interfaces with the citadel (reaper tech) and requires the catalyst (reaper tech) and why the catalyst is even mentioned (who, other than the reapers themselves would know of the catalyst? Or did some older cycle reach far enough to perceive the catalyst somehow?).

The true purpose of the crucible could be to bring about the synthesis ending (DIDN'T I PREDICT HUMAN INSTRUMENTALITY PROJECT BEFORE!?), or it could be some unknown purpose, especially given possible unreliable narration. This is convenient as it explains the inefficiency and irrationality of the cycle and the reapers supposed motivations. You still have to come up with reasons why the reapers can't do it themselves, although you could hand wave it as needing out of the box thinking (thus many cycles of different minds), or needs the treat of extinction to get that type of tech (Ala "reapers can't advance tech because necessity is the mother of invention").

With the interpretation that there is no unreliable narrator the story is just a mess. It does seem like it, perhaps, becomes coherent if this theory or any general indoctrination theory is true. Either way, the writing seems unredeemable.

Regarding the annoying kid:

Spoiler:

My guess is that in the opening scenes, when the boy is playing with his toy spaceship in the gardens outside Alliance HQ, he's real. Shepard watches him from a window and he sticks in her mind. Every subsequent appearance is an hallucination. The indoctrination starts to kick in once the reapers land, and they use the image of the last child Shepard saw to fuck with her mind.

[maybeagnostic]

Spoiler:

the indoctrination theory site makes the incredibly valid point that saying "wake up" out of the blue to a clearly conscious character is usually an indication that something isn't real (see: Jacob's Ladder, the bees episode of Futurama, that one very short and awesome piece of creepypasta). Given that that line only appears when you're doing "well" in the game it's really hard to explain it any other way.

Spoiler:

I had 6300+ points and played the ending twice (synthesis and control options) and the kid never told me to wake up. When was that supposed to happen?

Spoiler:

If the kid was meant to be indoctrination messing with Shepard's mind then it was a complete flop. I was already annoyed with him in the apartment when Shepard actually meets him, did not care at all when the shuttle got blown up, and dreaded the tedium of the nightmares that Shepard never even acknowledged. If it was building up to a Sixth Sense reveal then it failed at building up the tension and forgot to actually reveal something. Maybe it's just me though- were you guys affected by the kid's death?

In the opening scene the kid is shown pretty far away and Shepard doesn't even seem to be looking in the same direction. Even if Shepard had line of sight (which I, at the time, assumed he didn't) the kid would just be a speck... I guess Shep might have binocular implants and spend his time watching the kid play out his window? I thought at one point that the kid is supposed to be the young Shepard that he was hallucinating but it doesn't change based on gender so that was obviously not right.

[Dauric]

Spoiler:

the indoctrination theory site makes the incredibly valid point that saying "wake up" out of the blue to a clearly conscious character is usually an indication that something isn't real (see: Jacob's Ladder, the bees episode of Futurama, that one very short and awesome piece of creepypasta). Given that that line only appears when you're doing "well" in the game it's really hard to explain it any other way.

Spoiler:

I had 6300+ points and played the ending twice (synthesis and control options) and the kid never told me to wake up. When was that supposed to happen?

Spoiler:

If the kid was meant to be indoctrination messing with Shepard's mind then it was a complete flop. I was already annoyed with him in the apartment when Shepard actually meets him, did not care at all when the shuttle got blown up, and dreaded the tedium of the nightmares that Shepard never even acknowledged. If it was building up to a Sixth Sense reveal then it failed at building up the tension and forgot to actually reveal something. Maybe it's just me though- were you guys affected by the kid's death?

In the opening scene the kid is shown pretty far away and Shepard doesn't even seem to be looking in the same direction. Even if Shepard had line of sight (which I, at the time, assumed he didn't) the kid would just be a speck... I guess Shep might have binocular implants and spend his time watching the kid play out his window? I thought at one point that the kid is supposed to be the young Shepard that he was hallucinating but it doesn't change based on gender so that was obviously not right

.

Spoiler:

Again, whatever they intended it was badly executed, I think we can all agree on that, which is a really f-ing big problem when the technique(s) chosen require at least a 'good' execution to pull off properly, and it's still a crap-shoot how it will come off to an audience unless the execution is almost flawless. It's possible to infer some of the intent from bits and pieces here and there, but the poor execution undermines the techniques they tried to use and any certainty that it was intent or technical failure.

In my first runthrough in ME2 (and my ME1 save) I lost 1) Kaidan, 2)almost all the crew of the SR2, 3) Mordin, 4)Zaeed, and 5) Jacob (which the body count is why I was going to pull my "Serious" ME3 run on the second ME2 run). And the one that suddenly haunts Shepard's dreams is random civilian kid # 276,456,835 (who also happens to be the Citadel Child). We've hashed this bit out already in this thread, but that this child is the one that haunts Shepard's nightmares is 1) an indication of reaper indoctrination early on, and 2) a glaring example of how badly the technique was used given it's inconsistency with the rest of the series. Maybe, and I stress -Maybe- if the first nightmare had had some imagery of all the dead in my previous games being wiped from the scene by the passing of the Citadel-Child, as the Citadel-Child is reprogramming Shepard to be manipulated by the image of the child it -Might- have been a step towards a better execution of the idea, but they didn't even do that much.

[The Sleeping Tyrant]

Spoiler:

Maybe, and I stress -Maybe- if the first nightmare had had some imagery of all the dead in my previous games being wiped from the scene by the passing of the Citadel-Child, as the Citadel-Child is reprogramming Shepard to be manipulated by the image of the child it -Might- have been a step towards a better execution of the idea, but they didn't even do that much.

Spoiler:

I think that's what they were trying to get at with the shadowy people. I heard Mordin and Kaiden in at least one of the dreams, so the dream at least acknowledged that there are dead people I care a hell of a lot more about than some random kid. But even if that's what they intended, it wasn't well executed at all.

If they intended for Shep to be indoctrinated, or even for the end to be one big mindfuck, they would have done much better going with Ashley/Kaiden, or Pressley, or just all the people who died on you/who you let die. No Citadel Child, just the Citadel/Reapers fucking with your head. Or even going with another Shep would have been better.

[BlackSails]

Spoiler:

Why would there be big clues that shephard is indoctrinated? The whole point of indoctrination is that it is slow, insidious and you dont even realize it is happening

[ArgonV]

Spoiler:

Why would there be big clues that shephard is indoctrinated? The whole point of indoctrination is that it is slow, insidious and you dont even realize it is happening

Spoiler:

They're big clues in retrospect, I guess?

Also, about Tali finally using her knife, at the end of the geth/quarian storyline:

Spoiler:

Side with the quarians, Legion will try to kill/stop you and Tali will stab Legion with a knife, presumably the one from her boot.

[Gelsamel]

No thoughts on my crazy theory?