(XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV!

TurianRebel212 wrote:Like Spotless said, if their was a big reveal or ace in the hole BioWare would have already released it. EA would have made them lol, pure and simple.

I gave up hope after Leviathan DLC was released and it did nothing really to change anything with the end game.

If the ace in the hole was adjusted to be the next game instead of ME3, we won't be hearing it until they're past DAI and on the specific 'ME4' marketing binge.
This could be any time from early 2015 to early 2016 or so.

There's a lot to be concerned about regarding ME4 if it's a sequel.

Making destroy canon will piss some people off, fortunately destroy is the overwhelming favorite.

Importing plot flags just gets harder and harder as major narrative divergence has occurred by the end of ME3. Entire races are possibly gone, that's a far cry from replacing a few characters for some imports.

How to continue the story if the crucible is not a macguffin. The situation on earth, and elsewhere, is extremely dire. A solution is needed, asap, and if ME4 is just "build a different macguffin" then there's no need for it to exist from a storytelling standpoint.

It really feels like they're backed into a corner with ME4.

SwobyJ wrote:Imagine if the original plan was to sell a 'true ending', really? Even if that true ending was expansive and accounted for decisions to the same level of complexity of Citadel DLC (just + a lot of epicness), and was the perfect Mass Effect experience, the very fact that they'd be charging people for money would be a problem that after the ME3 debacle, they might have finally decided 'no, we can't do that. If we do it, it'll be a full game.' Not trying to get peoples' hopes up for 'ME4', but I do still consider this situation a possibility.

Yes, this is very possible. It would make sense. Hence why we got the IT hints on Twitter that suddenly stopped.

I tend to think that 'ME4' (which won't be called that) will be effectively a sequel, but not truly one. Still an optional stand-alone (perhaps more than ME2 and ME3 ever were), while advancing the narrative that began with ME1-3. I often wonder how true the rumors of 'flashback sections' are. In they can happen in an interesting form, we may see a lot of the game include timeline events from 'ME1-ME3', and earlier.

But any more than this and I get into Scary Door lol.

DoomsdayDevice wrote:

SwobyJ wrote:Imagine if the original plan was to sell a 'true ending', really? Even if that true ending was expansive and accounted for decisions to the same level of complexity of Citadel DLC (just + a lot of epicness), and was the perfect Mass Effect experience, the very fact that they'd be charging people for money would be a problem that after the ME3 debacle, they might have finally decided 'no, we can't do that. If we do it, it'll be a full game.' Not trying to get peoples' hopes up for 'ME4', but I do still consider this situation a possibility.

Yes, this is very possible. It would make sense. Hence why we got the IT hints on Twitter that suddenly stopped.

I admit I'm also influenced by stuff like from the former BW (late 2012ish) employee friend when he was asked about the Mass Effect story by my bf and he went "They don't fuckin' know!"

That was a paraphrase/partial phrase, and he was somewhat joking, but it could be true for 2012 and maybe into 2013, the time that he was actually there. Bioware not knowing exactly where to take things, IF the original plan was a 'wake up' DLC for around that time. They may have been adrift for many months, just figuring out where to go and how to use the new engine, before things made more sense as 2013 went on and now in 2014 (they can and did announce a protag, vehicle, design emphasis, new visuals).

@swobyJ, I agree. They need to look at DICE LA and follow their approach.

Here's a post from Xfactor that was pretty harsh way back when CTE was in swing before the fall patch-

"Why do you guys insist on doing the polar opposite of what the community wants. Are you that glib. We tell you what to fix and all you guys do is nod your head and continue to be the same ole' EA/DICE. Stupid and uncooperative"

Now...... DICE LA didn't cry and ban him nor did they just close off. No... What they did was listen and finally, after 11 months (and you can argue whether that's good or not, not the point here) BF4 is fixed and probably one of the best MP FPS on market today and the best BF game ever made in Frostbite's engine.

The point being.

DICE LA took fan recommendations and applied it to the final product. And because of fan recommendations, DICE LA did more with Battlefield in 5 months than DICE stockholm did in 3 years (BF4's issues were all BF3 issues, lol).


Now, imagine if BioWare was like DICE LA. Imagine what would have happened with Mass Effect 3. Imagine if BioWare just went.


"Guys, we fucked up. We're gonna fix it. But we need your input. After all, this is your game as much as it is ours. Help us. And together we'll fix Mass Effect 3".


Imagine that. It would have been amazing.

But they're not.

Why???

They're spoiled and entitled. They're spoiled by the feverishly fan dedication and brand loyalty they have. Spoiled by the great and creative works that Drew K. and Hudson created for them. Spoiled by the 200 Game of the Year awards won by ME2. Spoiled by the legacy of KoTOR and Baldurs Gate. Spoiled by what the Dr's put in place.

Entitled by EA and the Game media's addoration for BioWare.

"The Pixar of RPGs is BioWare" IGN 2010.

The average meta critic score for Mass Effect is 93.... KOTOR, ME2 and Jade Empire are some of the highest rated games ever made...... The Journo's love BioWare.

BioWare believes way to much in their own greatness, that when the cracks began to appear (ME3 and SWOTOR) they completely shut off and started blaming everyone BUT themselves.

It's quite the fall from grace.

I think they had so many opportunities to encourage fans to believe more was coming and they ... just didn't. Other than some subtle clues and dialogue that could be interpreted several ways (including simply as fan service for the ITers to keep the most optimistic part of the fanbase from turning on them) there was almost nothing beyond a couple initial tweets that overtly suggested any continuation of the ME3 ending. They weren't so "in flux" that they couldn't release multiple premium DLCs so they definitely had the chance to deal with it.

Maybe the backlash was stronger than expected, but IT had the momentum until EC. They could have skipped that clusterfuck with something as simple as 2 more serviceseconds of the breath scene showing Harbinger looming above, or whatever else they came up with. Instead they dug their heels in, and to the majority of the fanbase, reinforced the "this is it" idea with TWO DLCs: EC and the "goodbye" DLC Citadel.

I dunno, doesn't look good to me.

@Turian


This is why I'm personally not necessarily negative about some in BW leaving, including the founders.

It could be bad news, sure.

But it could also mean that

When it comes to SWTOR, a lot of core issues with it remain (like its engine itself, lol), but since so many the original team was scrapped and the F2P was fully implemented in 2012, and once the newer team got used to developing for the game in 2012-2013, 2013-2014 has been quite a lot more enjoyable for players, with relatively increased dev-player discussion, more frequent updates, and content that clearly takes fan input into at least some account! Is the game great now? Up to you - plenty of people legitimately still hate it.

But sometimes the loss of established figures and teams may be exactly what a franchise/IP/studio needs.

I'm not saying that this has happened in a good way to the 'core Bioware' locations. I'm not saying that its always a positive-resulting process. I'm not saying that Mass Effect and Dragon Age are saved or whatever.

But I AM saying that what seems like bad news for BW, may end up being relatively good news for us. There may be more fresh developers working on new content/games that could be less about pushing a specific narrative, and more about taking into account player feedback in the creative process.

I do think that a Catalyst scene is less likely this time around. And I do hope that a Tali Photo Face isn't going to happen. I still can't fully hope that the next game will be great, only that it will be different and that difference may end up being better than before.

And I still like ME3. Its only the details and the post-launch process that got to me. We'll see how it goes, I guess.

spotlessvoid wrote:I think they had so many opportunities to encourage fans to believe more was coming and they ... just didn't. Other than some subtle clues and dialogue that could be interpreted several ways (including simply as fan service for the ITers to keep the most optimistic part of the fanbase from turning on them) there was almost nothing beyond a couple initial tweets that overtly suggested any continuation of the ME3  ending.  They weren't so "in flux" that they couldn't release multiple premium DLCs so they definitely had the chance to deal with it.

Maybe the backlash was stronger than expected, but IT had the momentum until EC. They could have skipped that clusterfuck with something as simple as 2 more serviceseconds of the breath scene showing Harbinger looming above, or whatever else they came up with. Instead they dug their heels in, and to the majority of the fanbase, reinforced the "this is it" idea with TWO DLCs: EC and the "goodbye" DLC Citadel.

I dunno, doesn't look good to me.

The PR narrative has been 'we let our content speak for itself' though. If we listen to the content, it pretty much screams that more is coming, involving Shepard getting out of rubble, not just taking a breath in it.


If the 'ace in the hole' is to be the next game itself, and you don't know when that next game will even be released, why would you tease people? That's why I tried to use specific wording with my example of Bioware explaining. They can't just go "Okay, there's some crazy stuff going on, and you'll love it, but.. wait for 2016. Hype hype. Harbinger appears. Hype hype." If they changed their schedule, then it does no good to actively lead people on for a few years about something so huge.

Does the ME3 DLC contain things that help and/or appeal to ITers? Yep. So that's still something. You can hate that something and prefer something else, but they didn't exactly abandon the idea like literalists like to think.

I agree to a point, I think a fresh perspective is needed. Although, I think the void left by Hudson will be huge. Despite his cavalier attitude and arrogance, Casey Hudson is one of the greatest Directors in the history of the medium. His ability to recognize talent and utilize it for creating amazing worlds and charters is unmatched and the go too duo of Drew K.+Casey Hudson gave the industry some of the greatest games ever made. So.... the loss will be felt.


However.... New perspectives would be nice.

But.... the next Mass Effect game is being headed by Gamble and Walters.... So.... take that for what you will.

spotlessvoid wrote:I think they had so many opportunities to encourage fans to believe more was coming and they ... just didn't. Other than some subtle clues and dialogue that could be interpreted several ways (including simply as fan service for the ITers to keep the most optimistic part of the fanbase from turning on them) there was almost nothing beyond a couple initial tweets that overtly suggested any continuation of the ME3  ending.  They weren't so "in flux" that they couldn't release multiple premium DLCs so they definitely had the chance to deal with it.

Maybe the backlash was stronger than expected, but IT had the momentum until EC. They could have skipped that clusterfuck with something as simple as 2 more serviceseconds of the breath scene showing Harbinger looming above, or whatever else they came up with. Instead they dug their heels in, and to the majority of the fanbase, reinforced the "this is it" idea with TWO DLCs: EC and the "goodbye" DLC Citadel.

I dunno, doesn't look good to me.

Yeah, I can certainly see it that way, Spot. They could have made an IT ending DLC for free, and release it at the end of the DLC cycle, instead of what they did with the EC.

But at the same time I can see how an IT ending DLC might not have been feasible. I mean, how could they ever follow up on the ending with a simple DLC? If IT is true, then there's a major story to tell. One that almost has to be an entire game instead of a limited DLC.

I just don't know.

I know you refer to possible "new directions/wider narrative/deeper meaning" whatever you want to label it, but I think given how hard it was for most to even comprehend IT, I'm not sure Bioware is looking to go scary door for ME4.

I think that Bioware foreshadowing (more like beating you over the head) indoctrination and destroy is not the same as saying the ending is ahallucination and additional content will expand on it.

The ending can be "IT" while remaining vague forever.

To me, the Citadel DLC confirmed that whatever is next will not be a direct sequel, even if the timeline is posr ME4 with destroy as canon.  Already said goodbye to the crew,I think they wouldn't have done that if the main characters will be reprised.

Also, if IT was never intended as DLC and required an additional game, then that was likely always the plan. The reaction to the ending has no impact on that. If it needs a whole game to expand, it needed it before ME3 launched.

I find I still have hope for ME4. News of general recognition among insiders that ME3 had a non-ending is, I think, a good thing. Now if only they can act on it somehow after that train wreck.

spotlessvoid wrote:I know you refer to possible "new directions/wider narrative/deeper meaning" whatever you want to label it, but I think given how hard it was for most to even comprehend IT, I'm not sure Bioware is looking to go scary door for ME4.

Is this in reply to me? I'm not into scary door stuff at all, and I don't believe Bioware would ever go for something like CW.

DoomsdayDevice wrote:

spotlessvoid wrote:I know you refer to possible "new directions/wider narrative/deeper meaning" whatever you want to label it, but I think given how hard it was for most to even comprehend IT, I'm not sure Bioware is looking to go scary door for ME4.

Is this in reply to me? I'm not into scary door stuff at all, and I don't believe Bioware would ever go for something like CW.

Now come on DD, clearly that was a response to my ol pal Swoby. Whatever deeper meaning lies in the narrative, regardless of whether Swoby is on to something or not, I don't think there's any plans to expand or further whatever may actually be hidden in the game, certainly not in any overt way and not as a central narrative concept/mechanism.

So what the guy in the recording was saying, to condense some of what has already been commented above, is basically that he is convinced Bioware were going to try to move the goal posts another step forward...



...and saying this would have been a good thing.

Now, I happen to be perfectly fine with episodic content and was devouring Telltale games, until they stopped doing point-and-clickers, in favour of Dragon's Lair-alikes. The difference is that TT are honest about what they are - the product is exactly as advertised, uncrippled, and made in such a way that the model works.

The ME3 case is a bit tricky, given the plot-twisty nature of it all; Being up-front would could have badly spoiled the reveal, but it would none the less, absolutely, have been a hard sell, in an environment where customers were already up in their arms about From Ashes, long before the ending debacle.

I do hold it quite possible there was a cut-our-losses scenario, with good plans (IT, or equally fine) being scrapped, to just sweep the whole matter under the rug and forget about it. Hopefully ME4 will retain those goodies, should that be the case, rather than branch away in a brown literalist sludge.
We'll see...

It's cute how the fellow blames media for whipping up frenzy against EA, over ME3, because as I recall, 99% of pundits were rather aggressively bandying the "entitled crybabies" thing, in their defence.

That's a great graphic there jojon

http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/1/3439738/the-state-of-games-state-of-aaa

The bottom line is that cost must be extracted somewhere.  They could just charge $100 and up for games like ME3. Or they can keep the base game cheaper and leave it up to the consumer to decide if they enjoy the product enough to purchase additional content. More money generally leads to higher quality.  I'd rather have paid $200 for the "perfect" ME3 experience plus IT reveal that I can play over and over than getting an unsatisfying experience at half the cost.

I get it, it cost a lot more to make great epic games. If the quality is there I'll gladly pay for it. These companies need to stop pretending otherwise and just focus on making the games fans love and charge whatever they need to be profitable as a business. I'm not defending anyone, I'm just saying if you want quality then you'll have to pay. The sooner everyone just accepts this reality the sooner companies can find an equilibrium and developers can just focus on putting out the best content they can.

DoomsdayDevice wrote:

spotlessvoid wrote:I think they had so many opportunities to encourage fans to believe more was coming and they ... just didn't. Other than some subtle clues and dialogue that could be interpreted several ways (including simply as fan service for the ITers to keep the most optimistic part of the fanbase from turning on them) there was almost nothing beyond a couple initial tweets that overtly suggested any continuation of the ME3  ending.  They weren't so "in flux" that they couldn't release multiple premium DLCs so they definitely had the chance to deal with it.

Maybe the backlash was stronger than expected, but IT had the momentum until EC. They could have skipped that clusterfuck with something as simple as 2 more serviceseconds of the breath scene showing Harbinger looming above, or whatever else they came up with. Instead they dug their heels in, and to the majority of the fanbase, reinforced the "this is it" idea with TWO DLCs: EC and the "goodbye" DLC Citadel.

I dunno, doesn't look good to me.

Yeah, I can certainly see it that way, Spot. They could have made an IT ending DLC for free, and release it at the end of the DLC cycle, instead of what they did with the EC.

But at the same time I can see how an IT ending DLC might not have been feasible. I mean, how could they ever follow up on the ending with a simple DLC? If IT is true, then there's a major story to tell. One that almost has to be an entire game instead of a limited DLC.

I just don't know.

I agree with this.
Whatever interpretation of the ending you have (except the bad writing plotholes EA BW sucks opinion), if you search the game, you realize there simply too many things buried in the datas, not openly told, half whispered or just shown without comments or context in the story.

A IT dlc wouldn't do, things are just too complicated. A whole new game is needed.
I think BW indeed at a time were drifting and thinking hard how to deliver the story but now things are set.
Once they were commited to the ending, things could not change a bit. They did polish it but the next game was already in motion so nothing more could be said about the ending beyond Shep's breath.

About the canon ending, people who chose control or synthesis will probably get pissed, but imho the main game made it clear which choice was the only one, and the dlc added over it.
It might hurt but so is indoctrination.

'to win without risk is to triumph without glory'

spotlessvoid wrote:

DoomsdayDevice wrote:

spotlessvoid wrote:I know you refer to possible "new directions/wider narrative/deeper meaning" whatever you want to label it, but I think given how hard it was for most to even comprehend IT, I'm not sure Bioware is looking to go scary door for ME4.

Is this in reply to me? I'm not into scary door stuff at all, and I don't believe Bioware would ever go for something like CW.

Now come on DD, clearly that was a response to my ol pal Swoby.  Whatever deeper meaning lies in the narrative, regardless of whether Swoby is on to something or not, I don't think there's any plans to expand or further whatever may actually be hidden in the game, certainly not in any overt way and not as a central narrative concept/mechanism.

I think the exact opposite. We'll see.
Victory or disappointment.

I dunno.

Look at the FF7,8,9 days. Look at the content you got. Value for money? too fucking right.

Nowadays shit like Destiny happens. I mean it's an ok game but it's so short and completely lacking any story/narrative within the game itself. Another COD sir? Here you go... give me your money.

At least Blizzard are up front about it with WOW. Pay and play. You get what you pay for.

F2P doesnt work because PAYWALLS!!

Maybe the game industry is on the verge of meltdown? Maybe we need to look at a new payment model? What i don't buy is that it costs game companys money to provide us with a satisfactory product ergo we need to pay more. If they get their shit together and release a game that people want then sell that game, then release DLC which expands on it, rather than it being a key part of it (JAVIK).

Success breeds success. Make a decent product and as a result they will make MOAR money through other stuff. Bioware gave us the middle finger with ME3. It was and still is insulting that they pulled that shit on us. The game clearly was not finished. Ripped apart for Money.

you can buy games like The last of us (a far better game than mass effect 3) as a complete unit for the same price as the fucking half arsed ripped apart item we payed for when we bought ME3.

That tells me a lot about both Bioware and EA.

ME3 needed more development time, which under a different pay model might actually happen.

I just want more high quality content. Period. If it costs more to make AAA titles then so be it. If the only model that is viable involves a strong standalone game plus multiple premium DLC along with extras for those who want them, then so be it.

You can't have games coming out "complete" with a staring price that scares off new costumers. You can bitch all you want but it's not changing the fact that AAA costs are increasing while the launch price of games hasn't. Something has to give.

Release the core game. If it's a hit then it gets the proper budget to keep putting out content. This minimizes the impact that duds have on company margins, allowing the successful games to not have to be the "savior" to a company's profit margin. That means games like ME aren't going to be rushed and diced apart to keep a company in the black.

Which means ME3 could have been longer, better polished, with more premium DLCs. Twice the price for double the content with half the risk for the studio. Ultimate result: more of a better product. You're just going to have to pay accordingly. Get over it.

vlad78 wrote:

spotlessvoid wrote:

DoomsdayDevice wrote:

spotlessvoid wrote:I know you refer to possible "new directions/wider narrative/deeper meaning" whatever you want to label it, but I think given how hard it was for most to even comprehend IT, I'm not sure Bioware is looking to go scary door for ME4.

Is this in reply to me? I'm not into scary door stuff at all, and I don't believe Bioware would ever go for something like CW.

Now come on DD, clearly that was a response to my ol pal Swoby.  Whatever deeper meaning lies in the narrative, regardless of whether Swoby is on to something or not, I don't think there's any plans to expand or further whatever may actually be hidden in the game, certainly not in any overt way and not as a central narrative concept/mechanism.

I think the exact opposite. We'll see.
Victory or disappointment.

IT was too much for many to understand, I just don't think they're going much "deeper" given how that worked out.

spotlessvoid wrote:
IT was too much for many to understand

Here's the rub.

NO IT WASN'T.

Scary door stuff is too hard to understand. That the ghost kid is lying to you and that you should shoot the tube is not. You don't need a comprehensive knowledge of indoctrination to realize that something's wrong.

Most of the vehement IT-deniers I saw in the halcyon days of Mass Effect 3's youth were actively fomenting discord. They wanted to hate something and they thought their dark cynicism made them cool. They wanted to rabble-rouse. They didn't pay attention to the ending; they paid attention to the potential for flame wars.

Now most of the IT-nonbelievers I talk to used to give IT credit but left our sphere out of fatigue and an onslaught of disinformation.

Ok, I'll give you that. I'll also point out that the majority needed IT explained to them, instead of figuring it out (myself included) and although some (like us) have learned to pay attention, I still think anything too complex and subtle will go over the majority's head. Anything a whole lot more speculative than IT is just going to be lost on the fanbase. I don't think they plan on turning ME into some surreal mindfuck.

Remember that indoctrination is one of the core features of ME.  That's why it's so appropriate and natural for the game. Lot of scary door suggestions are going too far into the realm of forced narrative devices because it's trippy and cool. That's moving further and further away from what Bioware games have been and I'm not sure that's their market. I think they'll still love their plot twists, but I still think they're sizeable budget is going to keep them focused and finding that balance between hardcore fans of the narrative and the basic reality of needing to sell a lot of units to satisfy EA.

Edit: If they move forward with IT, they'll be helping a lot to encourage gamers to pay attention to the narrative. That's still why my hope for IT isn't entirely gone. That IT was in form was intended for the ending is obvious. That they're not leaving it speculative is not. The Breath scene is a cliffhanger, that more than anything suggests more is coming, but it's not impossible Bioware saw it as an Easter egg forthose who make the right choice. I remember Hudson saying they were surprised at how much the players had bonded with the characters and how that impacted the visceral response to the ending. It feels like Citadel was their response to that. Which makes you wonder why people need a farewell to characters who are returning. They may address the rubble issue and the next game may be a sequel where the Reapers aren't defeated, but I think they're going to distance themselves from the trilogy as much as possible. The variations in the state of the galaxy in different play throughs are huge even before we get to the ending. I think the plot flags are too big to truly import, which will likely result in them pushing the story far enough down the line to converge back into a unified timeline.

vlad78 wrote:About the canon ending, people who chose control or synthesis will probably  get pissed, but imho the main game made it clear which choice was the only one, and the dlc added over it.

Yeah, but even in face value interpretation, they chose to drop the gun and kill off their Shepard.