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

by Guest Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:55 pm

@DD: Yeah, that's one of the better parts of how this was all set up. No matter the interpretation, Shepard loses their gun in all endings but Destroy. Shepard definitely dies in all endings but Destroy. Those are the basic truths.

Oh, and here's some fan videos.

(3:10 onward... haha.. Leviathan mixed with beam run...)

Dinner time, toodles.

by vlad78 Sun Oct 19, 2014 4:11 am

spotlessvoid wrote: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.

Imagine a minute if bw suddenly tells you something along 'we've been telling you everything there was to know from the start' and releases at the same time a new version of the original trilogy?

I think that's the original plan.
And indeed there's been whispers of me1 and me2 being redone. But we'll see.
That may be just whishful thinking.

by **spotlessvoid** Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:14 am

I fail to see your point...

by dorktainian Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:06 am

well.....they could do this for the nextgen consoles.

by smash016 Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:19 am

I agree that a direct sequel would be a complex undertaking, and you could say BW wrote themselves into a corner with the ME3 endings.

However, this is taking into consideration classical IT only, with Shepard literally rising from the debris and continuing the same story arc. Regarding the next game as the DLC-that-should-have-been.

This is but one of many possibilities to take things. This new game will have to be accessible for first-time players, from a commercial and EA POV. So I don't expect a traditional, direct sequel in any way, if only for this reason.

It could however be a new story arc that will have familiar players reinterpret the first three games. Not saying something like that would be easy to accomplish, but it's certainly possible.

There could be something going on that's much larger than just the Shepard story arc, whether you like it or not. And if, like IT says, certain things are not happening in reality, the endings in particular, then maybe BW wrote themselves OUT of a corner. It means they won't have to take into account certain things players might have done in the previous games, because it didn't happen in reality. This could be as little as the endings or as huge as... something more. I mean, people are still debating where reality stops in ME3, not even counting Scary Door contributions.

Speaking for myself, I just want a story that elaborates on the first trilogy. In what form, that's up to BW. As long as they don't sweep it under the rug and start entirely anew, you know?

by **spotlessvoid** Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:23 am

The just a dream gimmick (no matter how you justify it in game) is terrible to begin with, introducing that mechanism to an epic trilogy negates the emotional impact of every scene preceding it. It's narrative shtick best saved for short stories. The last place it belongs is a game series where player agency is the defining characteristic. You thought the resistance to the idea the ending choices and consequences are not only invalid but didn't even happen was controversial,wait until you tell the fans it's all, for lack of a better term, retconned. I can't think of a lazier narrative device than "didn't happen" and I hope Bioware knows better than that.

Mass effect isn't about throwing out as many plot twists as possible, and for good reason, it would only dilute the impact with each subsequent twist.

Indoctrination is a defining element of Mass Effect's universe and it's a central aspect of the lore and narrative. According to IT the ending happens and it's events have a massive impact, just not in the way presented. You can't do that retroactively to the whole game, or even to any substantial portion of it. You just can't.

The idea of redoing this cycle's battle with the Reapers as anew character getting another chance to do things right is awful. It's the same story with different filler. That filler is what creates the emotional bond and I think Bioware learned not to poke that bear too hard with the ME3 ending fiasco.

Doing the same cycle from a different perspective poses the same problems but adds a ridiculously impossible task of importing plot flags and then building varying plot flags (to give players the agency fundamental to Bioware games) on that massive foundation of preexisting plot flags. I'd guess it's flat out impossible.

The player has always experienced the ME universe through a single avatar, Shepard. It's already damn hard for Bioware to break that connection, but desecrating that connection by negating any substantial portion of it is bat shit crazy and would likely destroy the good will remaining among hardcore fans.

by dorktainian Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:53 pm

Or you could apply "edge of tomorrow" logic to IT theory....

by **spotlessvoid** Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:24 pm

dorktainian wrote:Or you could apply "edge of tomorrow" logic to IT theory....

no

by smash016 Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:04 pm

@Spotless

Don't mean to provoke you or anything, but you're assuming quite a lot. It's not that because I posted about Choose Wisely in another thread that every post of mine here is advocating CW in favor of IT. I'm equally interested in any theory that goes beyond a face-value interpretation.

Sure, I'm more open-minded about IT and interpretation of ME than you, but a lot of people here are.

Anyway, traditional IT says part of the narrative is an illusion, too. Then there are other interpretations, not limited to CW but also including other IT variants, like Cronos Station stuff, that take the illusion concept further to varying degrees. And even traditional IT doesn't require a direct, conventional sequel with us seizing control of Shepard again. It could be unveiled in various ways. That's mainly what I was referring to.

Again, we're all in this together, not? "Fuck sides." I say save your ammo for the literalists.

And for the record, do you truly believe the CW people are making a comprehensive documentary series when the only message is "it was all a dream, end of story?" I don't think anyone is advocating such a lame thing, no. Same for retelling the same story. That would suck, yes.

by Raistlin Majere Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:19 pm

smash016 wrote:@Spotless

Don't mean to provoke you or anything, but you're assuming quite a lot. It's not that because I posted about Choose Wisely in another thread that every post of mine here is advocating CW in favor of IT. I'm equally interested in any theory that goes beyond a face-value interpretation.

Sure, I'm more open-minded about IT and interpretation of ME than you, but a lot of people here are.

Anyway, traditional IT says part of the narrative is an illusion, too. Then there are other interpretations, not limited to CW but also including other IT variants, like Cronos Station stuff, that take the illusion concept further to varying degrees. And even traditional IT doesn't require a direct, conventional sequel with us seizing control of Shepard again. It could be unveiled in various ways. That's mainly what I was referring to.

Again, we're all in this together, not? "Fuck sides." I say save your ammo for the literalists.

And for the record, do you truly believe the CW people are making a comprehensive documentary series when the only message is "it was all a dream, end of story?" I don't think anyone is advocating such a lame thing, no. Same for retelling the same story. That would suck, yes.

Even when it is an illusion under IT it still has meaning and consequences, that is the important part to remember. Sure the last part of the game may have all been in Shepard's head, but what he saw, what he did has consequences for his mind and thus by extension whatever happens after. That is what sets it apart from "just a dream."

by **spotlessvoid** Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:31 pm

Smash:

I like how you just hand wave in other ideas without actually putting one forward. In the context of Vlad and I discussing what they could actually do to continue the narrative- do you actually have anything to suggest? Other than any variation of the just a dream/hallucination/simulation idea? If not my points stand.

As both Raist and I point out: there's a major difference between the ending (no matter where you start it) and the majority of the game being "unreal"

In the context of moving the narrative forward the suggestion that major plot flags could be retconned by saying those plot flags didn't happen is why the just a dream mechanism was brought up. My point was that this was a terrible idea. I stand by that for the reasons I've stated. You know, the ones you side stepped completely to defend Scary Door.

Oh and in regards to "picking sides" it's called peer review. It'll keep coming man....

by **DoomsdayDevice** Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:34 pm

One such theory I've heard mention is that Shepard was replaced by a clone in the Lazarus project. The events in ME2 and ME3 happened, but it was not the real Shepard, but a clone. So the real Shepard was also "rebuilt", but kept in some sort of stasis, and in ME4 we might play the real Shepard.

So, not quite the same as "it was all just a dream", but it would still nullify the relations you built up with your crew, etcetera.

I don't like this idea, but it's an example of one such theory.

by **spotlessvoid** Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:40 am

DoomsdayDevice wrote:One such theory I've heard mention is that Shepard was replaced by a clone in the Lazarus project. The events in ME2 and ME3 happened, but it was not the real Shepard, but a clone. So the real Shepard was also "rebuilt", but kept in some sort of stasis, and in ME4 we might play the real Shepard.

So, not quite the same as "it was all just a dream", but it would still nullify the relations you built up with your crew, etcetera.

I don't like this idea, but it's an example of one such theory.

Not just a dream.... someone else's dream. Love it.

You won't be playing as Shepard 2.0.... because you'll be playing as Shepard 1.0 lmao what an awful idea.

by ZerebusPrime Mon Oct 20, 2014 1:02 am

spotlessvoid wrote:
DoomsdayDevice wrote:One such theory I've heard mention is that Shepard was replaced by a clone in the Lazarus project. The events in ME2 and ME3 happened, but it was not the real Shepard, but a clone. So the real Shepard was also "rebuilt", but kept in some sort of stasis, and in ME4 we might play the real Shepard.

So, not quite the same as "it was all just a dream", but it would still nullify the relations you built up with your crew, etcetera.

I don't like this idea, but it's an example of one such theory.

Not just a dream.... someone else's dream. Love it.

You won't be playing as Shepard 2.0.... because you'll be playing as Shepard 1.0 lmao what an awful idea.

Only if Shepard 1.0/3.0 gets a scene like this.

by Eryri Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:28 am

It's weird that Bioware would make all these "no Shepard 2.0" statements, then show us that vague teaser trailer at E3 that seemed to promise exactly that.

If the player character really is some random N7 space marine whose gender, appearance and personality is chosen by us, then how is that not Shepard 2.0? In much the same way that the "Inquisitor" is the Warden 2.0?

Making us play as another N7 would just annoy everyone who wants our Shepards back (i.e. us), and all the folks on the BSN who want to move on to something different and play as some Han Solo-esque space pirate, or whatever. It's one of the things that gives me hope that Shepard might be coming back after all.

Re the clone thing, I suppose they could have some sort of asspull where it turns out that Cerberus have been recording the memories of post Lazarus Shepard through the implants, and can download them into another spare clone like a la the Cylons? O re-integrate them back into hypothetical Shepard 1.0? They could be incomplete memories, so this new composite Shepard is even less sure of who he / she is. This would allowing some flexibility in retconning some details, but still allow an emotional bond...

Nah, on second thoughts I'd rather he just got up out the rubble.

by smash016 Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:39 am

spotlessvoid wrote:Smash:

I like how you just hand wave in other ideas without actually putting one forward. In the context of Vlad and I discussing what they could actually do to continue the narrative- do you actually have anything to suggest? Other than any variation of the just a dream/hallucination/simulation idea? If not my points stand.

As both Raist and I point out: there's a major difference between the ending (no matter where you start it) and the majority of the game being "unreal"

In the context of moving the narrative forward the suggestion that major plot flags could be retconned by saying those plot flags didn't happen is why the just a dream mechanism was brought up. My point was that this was a terrible idea. I stand by that for the reasons I've stated. You know, the ones you side stepped completely to defend Scary Door.

Oh and in regards to "picking sides" it's called peer review. It'll keep coming man....

I thought we could bury the vendetta, Mr. Butthurt. Stop sounding like a cynical dick in response to everything I say and we might just get a decent conversation.

I already said what I really meant. What if for example ME4 will feature other N7 operatives, that stumble upon Shepard's body? And we will find out at what point Shepard became "corrupted" and as such things started deviating from what we assumed was going on? "At what point" possibly being something in line with how you see IT?

Again you are assuming I was suggesting the majority of the game is unreal. Again, I didn't. Again, you want to tempt me to defend an idea in this thread which I never presented. I won't bite again.

This isn't some competition, or a scientific journal. It's not called peer review, it's called a discussion, which is something quite different.

Am I right you're suggesting that BW keep incorporating all those plot flags? If so, how long do you think they'll manage before it becomes an unworkable mess? It is severely limiting for their game design, which we saw already in ME3.

by **spotlessvoid** Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:41 am

Is this going to be your thing going forward? Where everytime I mention Scary Door, no matter the context or who I'm responding to, you're going to take it as a personal attack?

The specific thing I was referring to was how Bioware could possibly deal with the tangled mess of plot flags, particularly ones that cause major narrative divergence, such as the Geth Quarian conflict. I gave my reasons why I felt any mechanism that negates decisions having significant emotional impact is an awful idea. Again, you've ignored them completely. CW is just one of "just a dream" mechanisms but it's not particularly relevant to my belief that any implementation of that mechanism, no matter the specific details, is a terrible idea. "Your" suggestion for going forward is the fundamental idea behind IT, what differentiates what we call "Scary Door" is it's blithe willingness to take this concept to it's extreme. Since I've already explained why going much further back than the ending is a terrible idea, I'll just point out that this was the discussion at hand until you sidetracked into defending your speculations from the villainous criticism of one spotlessvoid.

IT stood up to rigorous peer review. That process absolutely strengthened the theory. I'm not going to walk on eggshells with Scary door because you can't articulate anything comprehensive enough to withstand scrutiny without making it into a personal affront. Need I remind you what thread this is?

It's laughable that you think discussing how the plot flags and ending impact the future of Mass Effect and whether Scary door provides a way forward is some bait I laid out just so I could spend another couple pages watching you gripe.

While I admit that these exchanges continue to provide substantially more entertainment than annoyance, it's unlikely others feel the same, so I'm going to just end this for the thread's sake. If it pleases you to know that I'll be actively ignoring you instead of passively doing so through the forum function, you're welcome.

by smash016 Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:08 pm

Spoiler:

While I admit that these exchanges continue to provide substantially more entertainment than annoyance, it's unlikely others feel the same, so I'm going to just end this for the thread's sake. If it pleases you to know that I'll be actively ignoring you instead of passively doing so through the forum function, you're welcome.

Good.

Also why I put the rest in a spoiler.

by **DoomsdayDevice** Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:41 pm

I'm really confused by this whole exchange.

Wish we had some new material to speculate on.

by **spotlessvoid** Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:18 pm

DoomsdayDevice wrote:I'm really confused by this whole exchange.

Wish we had some new material to speculate on.

It's fairly simple. Smash got his feelings hurt in the CW thread. He can't accept that I'm not mindful of this. It bothers him that my reaction to his victimhood is derision instead of sympathy. Now he thinks everything I say is about him. I think he believes if he complains long enough I'll cave to my nurturing side and treat him like the delicate flower he is. I think he needs to just toughen up and accept that isn't going to happen. Perhaps then he can make peace with my opinions of Scary Door not being a direct insult of him. Or he can just keeping getting worked up over it and I'll just ignore it as planned. :)

by smash016 Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:17 pm

If it were my feelings that got hurt then I wonder why he keeps getting back at me here.

He couldn't hurt me in a dream.

by ZerebusPrime Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:38 pm

DoomsdayDevice wrote:
Wish we had some new material to speculate on.

Nothing likely before N7 day. There's some non-buzz online about a Mass Effect panel at Honorcon here in North Carolina*, but I believe I read that that's not being run by BioWare. We got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Squat.

*No, I am not going to drive all the way to Raleigh so don't ask.

EDIT: Oh wait. Here you go.

http://kotaku.com/legion-is-the-nicki-minaj-of-mass-effect-1648607479 What a Face

Sigh. These are the end times.

by Hanako Ikezawa Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:07 am

With N7 Day so close to the release of Dragon Age: Inquisition, I wouldn't be surprised if there was nothing big happening so as to keep all the hype on DAI. I would love for there to be something, but I'm not expecting much.

by dorktainian Tue Oct 21, 2014 12:23 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/03/21/did-the-real-mass-effect-3-ending-go-over-everyones-heads/

"Art that fails to communicate it’s intent is bad art."

by Guest Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:08 pm

ZerebusPrime wrote:
DoomsdayDevice wrote:
Wish we had some new material to speculate on.

Nothing likely before N7 day. There's some non-buzz online about a Mass Effect panel at Honorcon here in North Carolina*, but I believe I read that that's not being run by BioWare. We got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Squat.

*No, I am not going to drive all the way to Raleigh so don't ask.

EDIT: Oh wait. Here you go.

http://kotaku.com/legion-is-the-nicki-minaj-of-mass-effect-1648607479

Sigh. These are the end times.

Yeah, but Kotaku. *shrug*

EDIT: I'm not holding my breath (heh) for N7 day, but looking forward to it. I'd like substantial info sometime this year, but I know that if anything, 2015 is more the year for Mass Effect info dumps and hype levels to riseeee.

by Sponsored content