If Bioware wrote LOTR...

[Hermit]

 

[Angel]

This. Forever and ever and ever and ever.

 

[Hermit]

This. Forever and ever and ever and ever.

u r vry smarrt yes??
u no mas ebfeck r ruin 4ever?? XDXDXDX
is ok spurdo mad too

 

[Tyloric]

Sigh... do we have to bring your dislike put of the gaming forums? Really?

 

[Tsuyu]

Bitch please. This isn't BioWare. This is EA/BioWare. If old BioWare wrote LoTR you would've orgasm'd to death due to the awesomeness.

 

[Hermit]

Bitch please. This isn't BioWare. This is EA/BioWare. If old BioWare wrote LoTR you would've orgasm'd to death due to the awesomeness.

yeah, you're right. I'm just so blinded by the pain, y'know..? I just... It just... *cries*

 

[queenofdisco]

Did you just spoil ME3 for me through metaphors?

I hate you forever and ever.

 

[D3m190d]

Did you just spoil ME3 for me through metaphors?

I hate you forever and ever.

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[TRA Rotid]

Actually, there is a theory, called the Indoctrination Theory, which, if true and intendend by BioWare from the start, makes ME 3 ending one of the most epic game endings ever produced.

There's a lot of info about it on the webs so I'm not going to explain it here. But if you think about it - and especially about the 3 choices at the end - you'll see what BioWare actually accomplished.

Ah nvm I'll make it easier for you.

First watch this video that explains the basis of this theory (there are some more details not included in the video):

I believe that the endings may be indicative of BioWare attempting to allow the player the real-time experience of what indoctrination would be like.
[---]
We have already established as much evidence as we can that 'proves' that Shepard is either hallucinating/dreaming just prior to/immediately after he runs into Harbinger's beam/Conduit. The hallucination/dream sequence has been quite well fleshed out, with a lot of compelling environmental evidence to support it. I am going to use this particular vehicle of suspension of disbelief to propose that BioWare's intention during this sequence is to flag the player with as many markers as they can: This current reality playing
before your eyes (the Citadel, the Catalyst, TIM, Anderson) is a reflection of Shepard. It is the product of his/her mind. The meeting with the Catalyst may or may not be rooted in reality; they may meet in some metalphysical dimension, or Shepard may just hallucinate the entire thing. Either way, this theory would argue that it essentially doesn't matter, because what truly matters is the role of the player in this sequence. Your role. The scene is set in a way that urges the player to become aware of things just not being right, of being a place that mirrors (literally) Shepard's experiences throughout the game. The reality presented on the Citadel is an amalgamation of archetypes of every thing Shepard has seen in the series, which this theory challenges the player to understand as being a
direct prompt from BioWare to understand that what is truly happening during this scene is all within Shepard's mind. His/her reality. Under her/his control.

Understanding that the reality on the Citadel as being a cerebral concoction that is entirely of Shepard's creation is
important when we arrive upon the Crucible. It becomes a vital understanding when we are faced with these three, seemingly bizarre and unexpected choices that the Catalyst gives us. This theory submits that BioWare is asking the player to actively question EVERYTHING that happens once Shepard runs into Harbinger's beam. The cost of not
questioning, or making the right choice even if you do?

Real-time player indoctrination. Shepard's literal death.

Think about it carefully. We arrive on the Crucible, and are faced with an archetype of manipulation, the Catalyst. Taking the form of a child that has come to represent everything that is horrendous about the Reapers to Shepard, the Catalyst/Harbinger provides Shepard with three strange and disorienting choices. He first presents Shepard with the option of Destroy, making swift and empty assertations about how it is the wrong choice because it would kill all synthetic life and Shepard herself/himself. At its surface, this seems like the renegade/chaos option, and is even insidiously portrayed in Renegade Red, a direct nod to the Player himself/herself. Directly appealing to your experiences with how the game works. He then goes on at great length about the Control and Synthesis options, portraying Control as the blue paragon/order option. Again, directly appealing to the Player. He argues
that Control is the best option, implies that Shepard is the new Catalyst, and leaves us to contemplate the possibility that we could use it to try and save the people we love; after all, we are Shepard, and we would never become like TIM.

Synthesis is the last option explored, and it is portrayed as a compromise or as being the Brave New Hope for the galaxy. Synthesis smacks of strangeness because it seems so inherently Reaper-oriented. As though it were servicing the Reapers' philosophy more strongly than the other two options.

This moment, when you are standing there, agonizing over your choice? This is your indoctrination moment. This is where, it could be (fantastically and insanely) argued that this is the moment when indoctrination and all of its insidious power becomes as real as it possibly CAN be to the Player. Think about it! We stand there. We agonize. We freak out about the ridiculous choices, and we wonder (like Shepard would) why we just can't ARUGE with the Catalyst (like Shepard would). And then, as this reality seems to be the only way forward (much like how indoctrination presents a version of reality to the indoctrinated that he/she sees as being the ONLY REAL OPTION -- echoes of TIM, Kai Leng, Saren here), we begin to accept it. Tremulously, we start to make our choice.

If you choose Control, then you, the player -- the one who moves through the game though Shepard's eyes; every choice s/he has ever made in the game has been directly because of you -- have been indoctrinated. It may have been because you thought you could save your crew, your LI, or that you really could gain perfect Control over the Reapers because you are Shepard. Regardless, you have been duped. Indoctrinated by the game.
Your slow exposure to the Reapers in 2007 culminates to this final choice -- complete and free player agency and determination.

If you choose Synthesis, you face a fate similar to that of Control. It's debatable to me at this point as to whether or not you have chosen to fulfill the Reapers' purpose, but indoctrination is still a heavy possibility with this one. The only reason that I state this with any certainty is because, like the ending we see with Control, Shepard is dead at the final credits.
(Kitten Tactics @ BioWare forums: Choosing Synthesis - Allows everyone in the galaxy to be manipulated by Reaper code, like they have done to the Geth multiple times now. )

If you choose Destroy, then the Player Indoctrination Theory submits that this is you, the player, deciding whether or not Shepard overcomes the indoctrination attempt being rained upon him/her by Harbinger/the Catalyst. If you decide this option, and if you have enough EMS to ensure that Shepard has enough real-world time to get through the indoctrination attempt/hallucination -- Shepard lives. We see him/her breathing in the rubble of London streets at the end of the game. Shepard has defied indoctrination. You, yourself, have defied indoctrination.
( Kitten Tactics @ BioWare forums: : During Shepard's final dream with the child, chatter can be heard over the radio about nobody making it to the beam. Shepard is still in London.)

Does this theory make sense? Maybe not. When we consider BioWare's real-world motivations and risks (profit, losing a large fanbase over the disgusting wretchedness of the endings as they currently exist), then the theory is hard to support. But if, for just one moment, we can let ourselves believe that BioWare may just have lived up to their celebrated philiosophy of Player Choice and Player Acutalization, then this theory becomes awe-inspiring. Is it possible? Could BioWare have sacrificed the potential for safe profits in order to bring the most insane and beautiful gaming experience of all time to its fans? The most unprecedented example of player immersion of our times? Would BioWare have truly allowed the risk for profit and angering a serious amount of their fan population in pure deference to the story, and its lore?

It may explain BioWare's silence on the matter, until "more people have played the game", or until all regions have the game. It may explain Jess M.'s twitter about fans "reacting before having all of the facts". It may.... just may explain these super sh*tty endings in a way that would make BioWare the God of RPGs.

Is it likely? No. Am I reaching, insanely? Yes.

But is it possible?

Yes.

​

 

[Azer249]

Actually, there is a theory, called the Indoctrination Theory, which, if true and intendend by BioWare from the start, makes ME 3 ending one of the most epic game endings ever produced.

There's a lot of info about it on the webs so I'm not going to explain it here. But if you think about it - and especially about the 3 choices at the end - you'll see what BioWare actually accomplished.

Ah nvm I'll make it easier for you.

First watch this video that explains the basis of this theory (there are some more details not included in the video):

​

As a follow up to that,

Amazing really.

 

[TRA Rotid]

Good video, Azer, sums up the whole thing nicely.

Another game that had a similar ending, or at least a similar vibe to it, in my opinion, was S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

 

[D3m190d]

MUST. NOT. WATCH. D=

 

[Quistrix]

As comforting and cool as an indoctrination theory might be, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Bioware even have the required dedication to pull this off. The idea that they could now use a psychological mind game to warrant those horrendous endings for games we have bought, played and adored right up until the ending of ME3 is almost laughable. Just look at what they did with Tali's face reveal for example; instead of actually rendering her face into the game - they created the intrigue over 5 years and simply photo-shopped a royalty-free stock image. Look familiar? Theorise all you like. Bioware are merely lazy in my eyes.

 

[TRA Rotid]

Yeah not everyone buys the Ind. theory, but to me it's genius. Of course, there's always the chance fans look too much into it and that the theory holds water is simply a coincidence. Like how teachers at school always want the blue curtains to imply melancholy.

 

[Javikwrathofadeadpeople]

sadly this is the jist of it!

 

[Gikoku]

As brilliant as the indoctrination theory is, Bioware have yet to make such a thing true, so it remains just that.. a wonderful theory. I just want some closure with the endings, because they all end the exact same way barring the initial cutscene with Shepard. This is the final game in the trilogy, the grand finale, but in the end I'm left with more questions than answers and it just feels like one big cliffhanger.

As comforting and cool as an indoctrination theory might be, I find it incredibly hard to believe that Bioware even have the required dedication to pull this off. The idea that they could now use a psychological mind game to warrant those horrendous endings for games we have bought, played and adored right up until the ending of ME3 is almost laughable. Just look at what they did with Tali's face reveal for example; instead of actually rendering her face into the game - they created the intrigue over 5 years and simply photo-shopped a royalty-free stock image. Look familiar? Theorise all you like. Bioware are merely lazy in my eyes.

Yeah, that Tali nonsense really irritated me. Whether Bioware was trolling or just being plain lazy on the situation, I don't know, but they deserve a swift kick in the nuts. It's no different than if Darth Vader was finally being unmasked, but only Luke Skywalker can see his face.. and then later in the movie Luke admires an unmasked photograph of his father, only for it to be a goofy picture of Fabio.

sadly this is the jist of it!

I can't stop looking at your avatar, keeps reminding me of this..

 

[TRA Rotid]

Well there are very strong evidence in the game that this is indeed what Bioware was after. It's not a clumsily mashed together collection of details that only make sense under strict circumstances. Though yeah, until Bioware releases (if Bioware releases) a DLC with a complete ending we can't be sure (although to me the Destroy ending already told us what was going to happen, it's just that Shepard had yet to achieve it. Sure, it wasn't super elaborate or detailed about everything, and I naturally would like some additional info as well, but it made sense imo.).

 

[Javikwrathofadeadpeople]

im really fine with the ending what i dont like about it is the lack of conclusion! poeple would have been fine with a Dragon age: origins epilogue thing .