The last few minutes of the video showed tweets from Bioware staff themselves though, and some of it seemed to indicate something of the sort. Keep in mind those tweets and stuff are largely from before the indoctrination theory took hold, so there's definitely at least something more to it.
Like for example, the writer lady had that tweet about how there's an explanation for how your crew made it back onto the Normandy at the end, but she couldn't reveal it yet because it would spoil DLC.
I'm kinda hoping they do DLC like The Missing Link, where they fill in blank spots in the story rather than just throw on new missions that don't really fit in well.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not a big fan of the indocturnation theory myself. The thing about the endings, at least for me, is that they did have some good ideas and concepts. The execution and writing just ended up failing horribly. Espeically with the major plot holes.
Also, the reason why there is evidence of the indocturnation theory is that they had considered doing more with it then they actually did. There had actually been a whole bit where Shepard couldn't control his own movements (more then what we saw in TIM cutscene), and it was meant to be more ingrained into the ending from what I've read. That's why the base is there. I don't think (or maybe it's hope) they'll go with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believed in the indoctrination theory at first, but then I realized at how stupid the concept is, and that Bioware would never intend for it to happen. It was mostly just Bioware's fault at a lame attempted write-up for an ending, since they have already confirmed that they will be constructing some form of DLC to "fix" the game's ending, in response to the thousands of angry fans, with more news about it sometime in April.
So, yeah. The ending is still below average, and this theory was merely constructed by die-hard fans who couldn't accept that the ending to their game was fairly bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think its just people that cant belive the true, the game they liked has a really really bad ending, and like with all the other things in life the human tries to create an answer that suits himself. Of course, now if the devs are smart enought, they will listen to the theory and make it truth.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do hope that the indoctrination theory is true, that would make the ending less "bad", but that will still means that bioware intentionally screwed the consumers again to rip them off some more ( like the Disc-loaded content).
However, If they really do that I hope that they would take some of this guy's idea.
Since this is one hell of a long ( but quite good) read, here it is: 1 2 3
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah but that's my point. What if Bioware deliberately chose not to end the ME story completely so they could use future projects to clear up ambiguity? I mean, there are plenty of games (and books, and movies, and TV shows) that do this all the time for a lot of reasons. Obviously there's money, but also time constraints, budgets, length, etc.
Leaving a door open for future sequels is a pretty much required rule for most narrative-driven media. Those that don't leave it open end up making prequels (hey there Deus Ex, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings!).
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, ok, I would accept that argument any time if ME3 was not largely introduced as "The end of the Trilogy", get it? The end of the Trilogy.
They left a door open for Dragon Age: Origin, I admit, and then they went off and did Dragon Age 2.
You're talking about narrative-driven media, how many good books, games, movies and TV shows that got dragged on too long, they went from great to so-so and then bad? ( Oh, hi there Star Wars and so many others).
Comment has been collapsed.
Well to be fair, the end of a franchise is almost never the actual end and we're all pretty aware of that. I'm honestly having trouble thinking of a single successful franchise that ended after it's intended/stated length and never had any kind of addition afterwards. They pretty much always leave ambiguity.
Seriously, can you think of one? The only one that comes to mind is The Wire, and that show ended for a lot of reasons including budgeting issues. It doesn't hurt that it's also widely considered to be the greatest show ever made by most critics, so it might as well just be an exception to the rule.
Sure, Bioware could fuck this up and they didn't really satisfy me with the way ME3 ended, but what they're doing isn't really absurd or novel in any way -- I'd actually argue that it's to be expected and to think otherwise is fairly foolish.
Comment has been collapsed.
(hey there Deus Ex, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings!)
Three swings, three misses.
The endings of all three these stories leave room for more stories. Deus Ex was followed by Invisible War which, while a disappointing game, was a real sequel. Star Wars has the extended universe, which has a HUGE amount of stories taking place after the original trilogy. Lord of the Rings doesn't have any official sequels I know of, but The Hobbit is NOT a prequel. The Hobbit was written before the LotR trilogy, so technically LotR itself is a sequel.
Comment has been collapsed.
That wasn't really my point at all. Actually, what you posted seems a lot like it agrees with me (?) since leaving room for sequels was kinda the entire point I was making. Yeah, all of those have also had sequels, but that doesn't really change anything. But ok...
All I was saying was that leaving ambiguity to build off of later on isn't a new concept or a bad one per se -- it's actually what pretty much every venerable franchise has done in any medium of entertainment. It's also what Bioware seems to have done, which has upset quite a few fans. Of course, when you and I rightfully point out all the other times this has been done we put it into perspective.
P.S. It's so nice having actual discussions in a gaming-related setting with people who don't just randomly post a sentence fragment and never reply. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, the part
Those that don't leave it open end up making prequels
made me think you meant that the examples you used didn't leave room for sequels, since all of them have recent prequels (Human Revolution, the new trilogy, The Hobbit movie). Seems like I misunderstood.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the indoctrination theory was true it would be the biggest cop-out in videogame history. "Didn't like the ending? OH THAT'S OKAY IT WAS ALL A DREAM ANYWAY IT NEVER HAPPENED HAHAHA JOKE'S ON YOU, BUY MORE DLC!"
That's just cheap as fuck and the worst kind of storytelling. Even worse if they use it to sell DLC as the "real ending". A bad ending is disappointing but something I can accept. Shit happens, and there have been plenty of worse endings to videogames (and books, and movies). Cutting out the ending so you can make an extra few bucks off it is just plain evil. It's almost as bad as Fallout 3's Broken Steel DLC. At least Broken Steel didn't fundamentally change the ending, it just changed one detail (the player's forced death) to allow you to play on. Giving extra content and the ability to get more enjoyment out of the game is one thing. Deliberately hamstringing your own game for a few extra bucks is something that should be unacceptable to any gamer, unless this is the path we want to see the industry going down. I know I don't.
Personally I'm opposed to changing the ending at all. Yes it's a bad ending, but why can't people just deal with it? I didn't buy ME3 because I actually did my research before deciding whether or not to put my money down. I actually voted with my wallet in stead of mindlessly trusting the good name of the series and the developer (which, let's be honest, had already been tarnished by then). Sure you won't have that option if you pre-ordered, but hey that's the risk you take when you pre-order stuff. Demanding the developer to change their game just because you didn't like it, AFTER the game has been released and you've played it through (and presumably enjoyed it enough to get all the way to the end) is just a disgusting kind of entitlement. And if you're willing to pay for such a change you're just pushing the industry in a very ugly direction. It's sending the message "hey everybody, feel free to butcher your own game so you can sell the missing parts to me for extra dosh, I'm eager to pay!"
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, Super Mario Brothers had a shit ending (a lot of old games do), but that's not the point. As I said, Mass Effect 3's ending is nowhere near the worst ending in videogame history, and a bad end is disappointing but acceptable.
Super Mario Brothers didn't sell the "true" ending in a separate DLC. That's the point.
Comment has been collapsed.
No but they pulled the "it was all a dream" stunt.
I dont think they will actually change the ending either way, its most likely going to be a "fill in the blanks" kind of thing. Have they even confirmed it would be paid DLC? I thought it was going to be released with the multiplayer upgrade.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, you're saying that companies can make everything that suit themselves and then put it in the stores, then the customers will buy them, then they get an unsatisfying product, even in a small way ( which might not be the case in this one), and just say: " Oh, they've released it, I enjoyed a part of it, so I just have to accept the whole product, It's my fault because I bought it, using my money. So, companies, feel free to sell more products like that because I will always buy those things and enjoy parts of them."
Is that the path we want the industry to go down? I know I don't.
I also find the "entitlement" argument really shaky, this one explains a lot better than me.
From Erik Kain, Forbes
A little bit more from it
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it is your own fault for buying it. That's exactly the point. If you buy a book and don't like the ending, you don't demand the author to go change it. You accept that it was a bad book and move on.
It's not an encouragment for developers to release faulty games, it's an encouragement for gamers to stop following advertisement campaigns like mindless drones and to simply stop buying games that are bad. If you're stupid enough to actually keep buying games without at least finding out if they're worth the money then yes, this will have a negative impact on the industry. But then it's the bed YOU made by voting with your wallet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I see, however, a product, and I said a "PRODUCT", not an "artwork" will not in anyway sells well in the long run with this kind of practice.
Advertisement campaigns are designed to make people buy the product, what you said can be the case for new buyers, but not for the fans that have been supporting the company from it's earlier products.
If you're smart enough to call other people stupid, then you would have seen the long run effect for corporations from things like this. We are the consumers, this is capitalism, we have the right to criticize a product that we bought.
Keep in mind that this whole ME3 thing is a marketing move. A lot of consumers are doing service for publishers that are supposed to service them by bashing those that are criticizing this market practice.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you deliberately missing the point here?
a product will not in anyway sells well in the long run with this kind of practice.
That's what I hope. If the product doesn't sell well, it discourages developers to pull this shit in the future. In stead, everyone just gives Bioware their money and then starts whining afterwards. That's not how it works. Bioware already has your money, which is what they were after in the first place.what you said can be the case for new buyers, but not for the fans that have been supporting the company from it's earlier products
So, because you liked ME1 that means you have to buy ME3 like a mindless drone? I bought Mass Effect 1 and 2 and enjoyed them, but still decided not to buy ME3 after I did a minimum of research. As I keep saying vote with your wallet. Not doing the research and buying a bad game is no one's fault but your own.we have the right to criticize a product that we bought
Please point out the part where I said you couldn't criticise? I've been criticising Mass Effect the entire time, something you'd have noticed if you'd bothered to properly read what I'm writing. You're even allowed to say a new ending DLC would be great and you're allowed to spend money on all the crap Bioware keeps pumping out. However, as you've pointed out yourself: "you would have seen the long run effect for corporations from things like this". The more shit you buy, the more shit you get. That's the effect this has on corporations.Keep in mind that this whole ME3 thing is a marketing move.
Which... somehow makes all criticism invalid? Which somehow makes it all right for them to pull shit like this? I'm not really sure what your point is here, or if you even have a point. Marketing move or not, it's still just as bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see your point and I'm not saying that I object to it, especially after this post, please point out the part where I said you weren't criticizing this kind of shit in ME3. I was just getting off from your point and share my point of view.
We might have different point of views and ways to approach but ultimately we stand for the same goal.
These things need to end, one way or another, am I right or am I wrong?
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you that this whole situation is just plain bad and it needs to stop, I just don't believe that demanding a new ending is constructive in any way.
I fully understand that the people demanding a new ending are doing so because they're just as upset at Bioware-EA as I am. However, in doing so they're playing right into their hands, especially if the indoctrination theory is correct.
Comment has been collapsed.
I too, do not support changing the ending, what I saw from a lot of the current arguments was that they were demanding a DLC that explains the ending ( which I might say should have been included in the game itself in the first place) and that it should be a free one.
In my opinion, Bioware really did mess this one up, since right now they won't be able to make a right move, let it be charging for "the true ending DLC" or give it out for free or even change the ending, the outcome will still not be good for them.
It really is a shame.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, right, we were arguing because I disagree with you saying that the people who are demanding the change are idiots and they should not demand some changes in the first place, that was the only thing that we were arguing about.
It's not nice to call people idiots, especially when they have the right to demand. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I actually like the Indoctrination theory. If I recall correctly, didn't Portal's original ending leave you assuming Chell was dead but was later patched to "extend" the ending. Bioware could be pulling something like that off, but I guess we won't know until the DLC hits.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's sort of refreshing that if some sci-fi magic and Shepard's mind's struggles have added to the play. The game series has strong amotional load as a gameplay element and has alot of signs of the on coming attack - on Eden Prime there is this guy who has seen to the future and so on.
The worst part of the ending was the lack of explanations.
The best part was that it made a conclusion to my Shepard's story.
Comment has been collapsed.
Based on the developers and writers comments even before the game's launch, the story isn't over and upcoming DLC will answer a lot of the questions. It kinda sucks, but in another way I can understand why they'd do it.
Everyone from TV to movies to books does the same thing: they make things vague and clarify them later on (usually in a way that earns them a lot more money).
Comment has been collapsed.
Just watched it, and it is a great theory. Really, it's explained well and has good evidence to support it. But is Bioware truly capable of writing an ending that in-depth, and never explaining it when they got all the flak from their fans? Did they just hope fans like the guy who made this video would have to explain to others the ending was actually well written? I want to believe so, but really it (the theory) isn't that likely. It's more likely they hoped the ending wouldn't piss off consumers, but rather intrigue them, and then they could talk about post-release DLC that would "answer their questions" and excite the players for additional content (and therefore more cash for them). Instead they've realized fans can get pissed off and are willing to admit it. To me, releasing a game with Day 1 DLC and saying in the end to "look forward to DLC" shows they're definitely more interested in a huge profit than making a well written game. I'm not saying that companies shouldn't be interested in a huge profit, but that moment when they start screwing over their fans with DLC that adds to an incomplete game rather than building on an already solid one... well it's just hurtful.
Comment has been collapsed.
13 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by sensualshakti
39 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by Moogal
17 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ONZRAL
20 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by QuartzPort
1,063 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Mayanaise
331 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by Daud
22 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by FEGuy
495 Comments - Last post 29 seconds ago by dewdkorn6969
408 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by Tucs
19 Comments - Last post 16 minutes ago by PatchmaN
100 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by Venonat
17,180 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by GeekDoesStuff
349 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by Peiperissimus
12 Comments - Last post 50 minutes ago by FateOfOne
Long watch, but the ending may not be the utter failure that many are criticizing it to be.
The theory here
Comment has been collapsed.