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

by TurianRebel212 Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:01 pm

Dumbersel.... lol, holy Fuck. Damn Rif, get him. Get him!

by dorktainian Thu Jul 09, 2015 12:28 pm

http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/leveling-up-in-mass-effect-andromeda-is-incredible/
http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/mass-effect-andromeda-might-have-a-better-ending/

Head meets wall

by ZerebusPrime Thu Jul 09, 2015 3:28 pm

Stupid google bomb websites. Ignore them.

by **DoomsdayDevice** Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:55 pm

Exactly, stupid clickbait.

by dorktainian Fri Jul 10, 2015 9:57 am

lets assume this andromeda bullshit is legit.

If people left for Andromeda, wouldn't those remaining in the milky way be pretty pissed that they abandoned them? I cannot imagine the likes of Hackett staying behind knowing people were going to leave for andromeda and relative safety. Surely self preservation would kick in about the time the reapers got to earth?

by Rifneno Fri Jul 10, 2015 10:50 am

dorktainian wrote:lets assume this andromeda bullshit is legit.

If people left for Andromeda, wouldn't those remaining in the milky way be pretty pissed that they abandoned them? I cannot imagine the likes of Hackett staying behind knowing people were going to leave for andromeda and relative safety. Surely self preservation would kick in about the time the reapers got to earth?

Haven't you ever heard that the captain goes down with the ship? I can't imagine someone like Hackett would tuck tail and run while the galaxy burns. Or really, anyone that isn't an emotionless pragmatist or outright coward.

Of course the Andromeda shit is true. The game is literally named "Mass Effect: Andromeda".

In other news, Dwailing has converted to Hinduism. He hopes to be reincarnated as a tampon, so that he can go in his next life where he never could in this one.

by dorktainian Fri Jul 10, 2015 11:33 am

Rifneno wrote:
dorktainian wrote:lets assume this andromeda bullshit is legit.

If people left for Andromeda, wouldn't those remaining in the milky way be pretty pissed that they abandoned them? I cannot imagine the likes of Hackett staying behind knowing people were going to leave for andromeda and relative safety. Surely self preservation would kick in about the time the reapers got to earth?

Haven't you ever heard that the captain goes down with the ship? I can't imagine someone like Hackett would tuck tail and run while the galaxy burns. Or really, anyone that isn't an emotionless pragmatist or outright coward.

Of course the Andromeda shit is true. The game is literally named "Mass Effect: Andromeda".

In other news, Dwailing has converted to Hinduism. He hopes to be reincarnated as a tampon, so that he can go in his next life where he never could in this one.

Yeah but Hackett isn't the captain, he's an Admiral. British Ninja

He'd be off like a fucking shot. If indeed he knows about ARKCON he'd have a seat reserved in first class.

by Eryri Fri Jul 10, 2015 1:05 pm

Rifneno wrote:
Eryri wrote:Although, as Demersel points out, all the focus on this N7 who is emphatically not the protagonist, but does no many Shepardish and yet subtly sinister things in the trailer...

Just what are they playing at?

Like I said a couple days after they took Mass Effect out behind the shack and shot in the head, the Shepard-esque stuff is so that old fans may buy it hoping they're going to see Shepard.

Well... This is EA we're talking about, and they've done stupider things in the past so you could very well be right Rif. But if so, I think it's an incredibly short sighted marketing strategy, for a couple of reasons:

1. It's impossible to keep secrets for long in this day and age. The identity of this N7 will come out on social media within hours of this game releasing, and probably before. In which case, anyone who preordered in the hopes of seeing Shepard is going to be bitterly disappointed and will most likely start to bitch about it to their online friends. Now, EA will still have the early buyer's money, but they can expect negative word of mouth to affect ongoing sales - especially of DLC, which is often the most lucrative part of the game's life cycle.

2. People remember negative experiences much more strongly than positive ones. The last time many people saw Shepard he was getting his face melted off in one of the most poorly received endings in video game history. If Bioware want to quietly brush all that under the rug, then using N7 iconography in the trailer was a really bad idea. Most people assumed we were seeing the new protagonist, and if they don't check gaming news sites or Bioware's Twitter they probably still think that. It just brings up a lot of negative associations and jokes wondering if this guy will die in a purple, orange or yellow explosion.

3. I've read quite a few people opine that they were sick of square-jawed military characters, and wanted the new protagonist to be something completely different like a Han Solo or Mal Reynolds type. So that's another demographic disappointed by the focus on yet another N7.

TLDR - if EA really are trying to cajole us into buying Andromeda by teasing some random "Not-Shepard" then it's probably going to backfire horribly on them.

by Rifneno Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:24 pm

Eryri wrote:Well... This is EA we're talking about, and they've done stupider things in the past so you could very well be right Rif. But if so, I think it's an incredibly short sighted marketing strategy, for a couple of reasons:

1. It's impossible to keep secrets for long in this day and age. The identity of this N7 will come out on social media within hours of this game releasing, and probably before. In which case, anyone who preordered in the hopes of seeing Shepard is going to be bitterly disappointed and will most likely start to bitch about it to their online friends. Now, EA will still have the early buyer's money, but they can expect negative word of mouth to affect ongoing sales - especially of DLC, which is often the most lucrative part of the game's life cycle.

They aren't banking on people thinking the N7 is Shepard. They immediately told us in no uncertain terms that it isn't Shepard. If they wanted people to think it was, they'd have just ignored the question. They're not trying to trick people into thinking it's Shepard, they're trying to get them reminiscent about the good old days of Mass Effect so they may want to give the new one a shot.

2. People remember negative experiences much more strongly than positive ones. The last time many people saw Shepard he was getting his face melted off in one of the most poorly received endings in video game history. If Bioware want to quietly brush all that under the rug, then using N7 iconography in the trailer was a really bad idea. Most people assumed we were seeing the new protagonist, and if they don't check gaming news sites or Bioware's Twitter they probably still think that. It just brings up a lot of negative associations and jokes wondering if this guy will die in a purple, orange or yellow explosion.

Any sales they're going to lose from people who remember the abuse have already been lost because of the ending of 3 and in some cases the entirety of DA2. People who buy ME:A are going to be either: A) new players who weren't previous fans of the series B) old fans who forgive any shit sandwich sold as filet mignon, or C) people are such fans of the series they won't miss an entry no matter how much they loathe Bioware. Most people here that will buy it fit into category C obviously. Either way they aren't losing much.

3. I've read quite a few people opine that they were sick of square-jawed military characters, and wanted the new protagonist to be something completely different like a Han Solo or Mal Reynolds type. So that's another demographic disappointed by the focus on yet another N7.

"I'm sick of the same old shit. Let's have a Star Wars rehash!" Some demographics deserve to be disappointed, because they are fucking idiots.

TLDR - if EA really are trying to cajole us into buying Andromeda by teasing some random "Not-Shepard" then it's probably going to backfire horribly on them.

I am just in disbelief at how this place is so positive about ME:A. I've spent the past year here arguing that there's still a chance for a reveal and ME4 might not be shit. Now they finally make the announcement that makes me hang it up and the forum is alit with "OMG, it's Shepard, we're getting Shepard!"

Why do you think they're going to Andromeda? I don't mean the characters, I mean why did Bioware writers make the narrative decision to move the game to another galaxy? I've only seen one explanation that holds any water: to avoid addressing the endings altogether. Unless you can come up with a good reason for the Andromeda thing that isn't about cowardice, then there's no reason whatsoever to think there's any chance at all for a reveal or more Shepard.

by Eryri Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:50 pm

Don't worry Rif. I've no intention of buying this... whatever it is, unless I know that it's going to address the ending of ME3.( I'm the kind of person who'll read a plot synopsis before watching a movie, if I'm not sure I'll like it.) if it doesn't do this, then I'm not spending a penny on it, the same way I didn't spend a penny on any of ME3's DLC except From Ashes, (and that came included with the Collector's Edition). I'll just watch the opening and ending on YouTube to satisfy my curiosity and that will be that.

by **DoomsdayDevice** Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:58 pm

I'll probably borrow it from my friend, who is the sort that will buy it anyway.

But yeah, I have to agree with Rif.

I don't think there's much positivity here for ME:A, but there are still people holding out hope that we'll get Shepard or some kind of closure in some form.

I really don't think that it's going to happen.

It seems to me that they're going to Andromeda precisely because they want to avoid the whole Shepard incident and the repercussions of the ending(s). I can't think of any other good reason.

They're just trying to make something that's entirely new and unrelated, while at the same time trying to appeal to certain aspects of gameplay and visual style that attracted players to the old games in the first place. So, something that is somehow supposed to feel 'Mass-Effecty' because it has a Mako, exploration and N7 armours.

I seriously doubt it will work out.

Especially because this is not what most people wanted. Sure, there were some fans campaigning for something like this, a fresh restart, but going by the poll they did at the end of the ME3 DLC cycle, the far majority of people wanted a direct sequel because they wanted more answers and more Shepard.

by Guest Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:58 pm

DoomsdayDevice wrote:
It seems to me that they're going to Andromeda precisely because they want to avoid the whole Shepard incident and the repercussions of the ending(s). I can't think of any other good reason.

They're just trying to make something that's entirely new and unrelated, while at the same time trying to appeal to certain aspects of gameplay and visual style that attracted players to the old games in the first place. So, something that is somehow supposed to feel 'Mass-Effecty' because it has a Mako, exploration and N7 armours.

I seriously doubt it will work out.

Especially because this is not what most people wanted. Sure, there were some fans campaigning for something like this, a fresh restart, but going by the poll they did at the end of the ME3 DLC cycle, the far majority of people wanted a direct sequel because they wanted more answers and more Shepard.

+1

by southbeatz Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:41 am

I think it's a combination of things really. I think people played Mass Effect largely for the story more so than the game play. Shepard was a focal point in the story along with the Reapers. Shepard needs a complete and proper ending even if it's death, it just needs to be an actual ending to Shepard's story. The Reapers would also need a complete and proper ending to their story.

If Bioware doesn't do this then I don't believe it will be a very big success. If everyone gets a story that puts a definitive end of one story then I believe Bioware could explore anything they want to in the Mass Effect universe but until then I just don't think it'll work out too well. I remember a lot of comments from the ME3 ending on here and Bioware's forums.

I remember a lot of people simply wanted an actual ending, a proper ending. An ending even if it wasn't one they liked. Some of the best stories have endings that can piss off people but the best stories have actual endings and that is what ME3 was missing. We played ME1 which was pretty slow paced since it was the first of the series and was introducing us to the Mass Effect universe.

ME2 picked up the pace but gradually and didn't truly pick up the pace until closer to the end but it was very solid. ME3 really picked up the pace and I believe many would agree that it had us really anticipating what was going to happen at the end of the game. We fought through ME3 and enjoyed some amazing stories and some stories throughout all 3 games were concluded which was nice.

The problem occurred once we got to the end of ME3 which possibly was supposed to be the end of Shepard's story but then we got the middle finger so to speak with a shit for brains ending. I know we can use our imagine to have an ending in our head but with the ending ME3 had, it pretty much took away that option so a proper ending was needed which we didn't get.

If the 4th ME ignores ME1,2,3 then I'm not sure if I'll support it and buy it or not. It's not even about the money to me though. It's about feeling like I wasted hundreds of hours exploring and enjoying those 3 games only to have it all shit on with the ending of the trilogy. I'm fine playing a game that is only just 1 game but when the story spans multiple releases then it needs a proper ending to make the time spent worth while.

by Rifneno Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:56 am

southbeatz wrote:I think it's a combination of things really. I think people played Mass Effect largely for the story more so than the game play. Shepard was a focal point in the story along with the Reapers. Shepard needs a complete and proper ending even if it's death, it just needs to be an actual ending to Shepard's story. The Reapers would also need a complete and proper ending to their story.

If Bioware doesn't do this--

They won't. Until someone comes up with a good reason Bioware would move the series to Andromeda besides avoiding the endings, then any notion that a reveal is even possible is nothing but a pipe dream.

There is NO chance.

Not a small chance.

NO chance.

And I don't mean a reason why in the storyline the Alliance or Council would build an ark. I mean why Bioware would choose to make a major break of both lore and common sense that creates a bunch of plot holes so they could move the series to another galaxy. They must've had a damn good reason to do it. And if it's not avoiding dealing with the endings, what is it?

The Andromeda rumor started as a joke entirely because it was the only way they could continue the series as a sequel without addressing the endings. Now the unthinkable has come to pass, and we're still entertaining the idea that they're going to address the endings. Guys, seriously. It's over. It's time to step out of denial. We're never going to get closure on ME3's clusterfuck. That's just all there is to it.

by Eryri Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:45 am

Rifneno wrote:

And I don't mean a reason why in the storyline the Alliance or Council would build an ark. I mean why Bioware would choose to make a major break of both lore and common sense that creates a bunch of plot holes so they could move the series to another galaxy. They must've had a damn good reason to do it. And if it's not avoiding dealing with the endings, what is it?

I'm 80% sure that you are correct Rif. EA Corporate has probably decided that it's more trouble than it's worth to properly end the Shepard saga.

But if I had to think of a reason to go to Andromeda that isn't a cowardly cop out... The Crucible hasn't fired yet in IT, and the battle for Earth is still ongoing. We don't know what the Crucible really does, or if it does anything. If it really is a Reaper trap then there is nothing in the Milky Way powerful enough to stop the Reapers. They've supposedly dominated its history for millions of years and harvested anything that came close, so Bioware have somewhat written themselves into a corner, as we're hit over the head that we can't win conventionally.

But if the Reapers have stayed out of Andromeda (for some contrived reason) then there would be advanced species that have been left alone to evolve technologically for hundreds of thousands of years. They actually might have enough resources to fight the Reapers "conventionally" with an armada of ships rather than some space-magic ass-pull, and they might have alternative means of FTL that can cross galactic distances reasonably quickly. Perhaps a story could be built around convincing those species that it's in their best interest to fight the Reapers and save the Milky Way (or if we're renegade, tricking them into picking a fight with them). Or maybe just acquiring their left-over technology if they've destroyed themselves or evolved into something non-physical.

Anyway, that's just my speculation... what I would do if I were Bioware. It's unlikely to take place in the real world.

Edit - and you would still have the problem of how we could get to Andromeda in a timely fashion without invoking more space magic. So... Probably best to just ignore all of the above.

by Rifneno Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:14 am

Eryri wrote:I'm 80% sure that you are correct Rif. EA Corporate has probably decided that it's more trouble than it's worth to properly end the Shepard saga.

But if I had to think of a reason to go to Andromeda that isn't a cowardly cop out... The Crucible hasn't fired yet in IT, and the battle for Earth is still ongoing. We don't know what the Crucible really does, or if it does anything. If it really is a Reaper trap then there is nothing in the Milky Way powerful enough to stop the Reapers. They've supposedly dominated its history for millions of years and harvested anything that came close, so Bioware have somewhat written themselves into a corner, as we're hit over the head that we can't win conventionally.

But if the Reapers have stayed out of Andromeda (for some contrived reason) then there would be advanced species that have been left alone to evolve technologically for hundreds of thousands of years. They actually might have enough resources to fight the Reapers "conventionally" with an armada of ships rather than some space-magic ass-pull, and they might have alternative means of FTL that can cross galactic distances reasonably quickly. Perhaps a story could be built around convincing those species that it's in their best interest to fight the Reapers and save the Milky Way (or if we're renegade, tricking them into picking a fight with them). Or maybe just acquiring their left-over technology if they've destroyed themselves or evolved into something non-physical.

Anyway, that's just my speculation... what I would do if I were Bioware. It's unlikely to take place in the real world.

It's a nice thought, but people have put forth plenty of ideas on how the Reapers could be beaten. Some of them were quite clever, some of them pretty contrived (although not half as contrived as going to another galaxy for help), but either way they had a lot of paths they could've taken.

As always, I'm of the belief that the Reapers were going to be beaten by using ships moving at FTL doing kamikaze attacks. It's not only possible, it's actually been done by a turian terrorist group on Taetrus. Just not against the Reapers. All the governments of the world need to do is figure out what those terrorists did and the Reapers are toast. Emily Wong's death seems to foreshadow this as well. When she found out the Reapers were tracking her, her last words were "You want to see how a human dies? At ramming speed." before she kamikaze'd her skycar into a Reaper. Furthermore, if a sapient intelligence has to be on board to handle the controls, this fits with the "victory through sacrifice" theme that Mass Effect was so full of. It even gives reason for the series title: we beat the Reapers with mass effect. I firmly believe this was the route they had set for us to beat the Reapers after ME3.

Even if I'm wrong, I highly doubt they didn't have a plan for how we'd beat the Reapers. How the nigh invincible villain is beaten is generally one of the first things a writer figures out. It'd be a ridiculously amateur mistake for a team of professions to make if they actually wrote themselves into a corner with regards to unbeatable bad guys.

Also, remember how they kept promoting "Take back Earth" in ME3's advertisements? It'd take hundreds of years for even the Reapers to reach Andromeda, and they move at over twice the speed of the fastest organic/geth ships. By the time anyone gets to Andromeda, the war would be over. Even if they could instantly teleport back with all their new Andromeda buddies, all they'd find is a clean, sterile galaxy and empty, inviting Citadel. True, they may asspull (again), but remember that they said this game will be set in the far future from the original trilogy. So they're keeping true with the travel time at least. Point is, I doubt they'd go from "ME3: Take back Earth!" to "ME4: You lost Earth, along with every other location in the galaxy."

by Jusseb Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:53 am

Rifneno wrote:
southbeatz wrote:I think it's a combination of things really. I think people played Mass Effect largely for the story more so than the game play. Shepard was a focal point in the story along with the Reapers. Shepard needs a complete and proper ending even if it's death, it just needs to be an actual ending to Shepard's story. The Reapers would also need a complete and proper ending to their story.

If Bioware doesn't do this--

The Andromeda rumor started as a joke entirely because it was the only way they could continue the series as a sequel without addressing the endings. Now the unthinkable has come to pass, and we're still entertaining the idea that they're going to address the endings. Guys, seriously. It's over. It's time to step out of denial. We're never going to get closure on ME3's clusterfuck. That's just all there is to it.

I believe this is also the case. It's not good for morale here, but all points to this.

We maybe get some in game information in the beginning in what may or could've happened back in the milky way but no one will probably know. Because if they launched the ark before the actual endings the persons inside those ark(s) know jack shit.

That is the clue right there, they know jack shit. So the endings are what you make of them.

by demersel Sun Jul 12, 2015 12:07 pm

Ok, why nobody even considers going to Andromeda possibly being a way to actually reflect the endings?

Consider this - we have an ending choice that changes the whole galaxy in three major ways. Building a whole game in that galaxy and reflecting the choices propertly would mean building three games.

Now we have an entirely new galaxy. Not affected by our choice. But in that galaxy we do have our ship, or small flotilla. And that is easily customiseble to be reflecting of ME3 ending choice. We have a small sample of our galaxy (what we take with us) vs entirely new galaxy. And that small semple could easily be made to reflect the ending choice of the trilogy as all the other choices too.

You just get different starting conditions and perks.

So far, all we really have is the reveal trailer. And all the things Bioware chose to include in it.

And one of those things is a peculiar, untypical for Mass Effect song choice.

Ghost Riders in the Sky by Johny Cash. And that song has strangly relevant lyrics to overall plot of the trilogy:

An old cowboy went ridin out one dark and windy day
Upon a ridge he rested as he went along his way
When all at once a mighty herd of red-eyed cows he saw
Plowin through the ragid skies and up a cloudy draw

Their brands were still on fire and their hooves were made of steel
Their horns were black and shiny and their hot breath he could feel
A bolt of fear went through him as they thundered through the sky
For he saw the riders comin hard and he heard their mournful cries

Their faces gaunt, their eyes were blurred
Their shirts all soaked with sweat
He's ridin hard to catch that herd
But he aint caught em yet
Cause they got to ride forever in that range up in the sky
On horses snortin fire as they ride on hear their cries

As the riders loped on by him he heard one call his name
'if you wanna save your soul from hell a-ridin on our range
Then cowboy change your ways today or with us you will ride
Tryin to catch the devil's herd across these endless skies

by **DoomsdayDevice** Sun Jul 12, 2015 12:46 pm

But that still doesn't explain the move to Andromeda. If they were going to reflect our ending choices, there's no reason they couldn't do that in the Milky Way.

Those lyrics are indeed intriguing, but I'm pretty much done trying to find clues in these things. We've found plenty in the past, yet we never seem to get what we want.

Not holding out any hope.

by demersel Sun Jul 12, 2015 12:56 pm

As i see it, making a game in the milky way to reflect the ending choices would be kinda pointless - it would be just a checkbox of things that used to be A and now they are either A, B, C, or absent altogether. Sure Milky Way is huge and all... and trilogy is extremly limited in scope and execution but for it still to work we kinda have to pretent that during the trilogy we combed through all of the milky way.

For me the concept of Andromeda - "Stranger in a Strange Land" seems more appealing. This way we have double mystery worth uncovering - what awaits us in Andromeda, and what did we leave behind. And poossibly, hopefully, they could sort of collide and combine those two for a really compelling narrative.

by Rifneno Sun Jul 12, 2015 1:01 pm

demersel wrote:As i see it, making a game in the milky way to reflect the ending choices would be kinda pointless

(XL) Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark IV! - Page 13 Okaysure_zpsm9vrpzac

by ZerebusPrime Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:08 pm

Oh no, he's actually right. Reflecting Control and Synthesis seriously and as-presented and believed by the non-IT crowd would be pointless.

And if the Reapers are still around and all our fleets demolished... well, Andromeda's looking mighty sunny this time of year.

Sigh.

by MaximizedAction Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:20 pm

Of all that managed to stay in my mind of the Mass Effect franchise to three years after playing it the last time, are two things:
-The feeling of exploring outer space
-The inconceivable decision that was greenlighting the ME3 game's ending

It's like letting a car crash into a wall. Either that person is too unreasonable to see the consequences or they plan insurance fraud to get a fancier car.

Both of my takeaways are equally fascinating in their own way.

by Eryri Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:05 pm

Rifneno wrote: Point is, I doubt they'd go from "ME3: Take back Earth!" to "ME4: You lost Earth, along with every other location in the galaxy."

The horrible irony is that seems to be what has effectively happened. We can never visit Earth or Tuchanka or Rannoch ever again because everyone may, or may not, have green circuit tattoos. They may as well have been harvested for all the difference it makes... In fact I almost wish they had been. At least that would be consistent with established lore and theme.

The only basis for my 20% (and falling) optimism is that the fact they have obscured the identity of the new N7. I can understand them doing that with the player character as that should be defined by us. They did something similar with DAI in the early promos, the Inquisitor's face was always hidden by a helmet. But why hide the face of an NPC?

Unfortunately there are some depressingly mundane possible explanations -

A. Bioware still can't do facial animation worth a damn, and hid his face to give them more time to work on it, or

B. This bloke is one of our army of "agents" that we send out to do time-dependent fetch quests a la DAI, and he's so unimportant that he doesn't warrant the time and effort to give him a face.

C. As Rif said, EA are trying to give us the warm and fuzzies for the ME of old by making this N7 the current "face" of Andromeda. A sadly very plausible explanation.

I just hope they are decent enough to put me out of my misery sooner rather than later, and reveal the identity of this N7 asap. At least then I'll have closure, of a sort.

by Rifneno Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:58 am

ZerebusPrime wrote:Oh no, he's actually right. Reflecting Control and Synthesis seriously and as-presented and believed by the non-IT crowd would be pointless.

I didn't even read most of it because it's dumbersel. But really, why are we even discussing literal endings? Literal endings didn't happen.

And if the Reapers are still around and all our fleets demolished... well, Andromeda's looking mighty sunny this time of year.

Sigh.

I hope you're not implying that as an answer to the "Why Andromeda?" question. Because from an in-game perspective the answer is obvious. We need an answer from the writer's perspective. Why would they move the series to Andromeda if not to avoid addressing the endings?

Of course, "because the Crucible fixed everything and everything's perfect now because Starbrat was legit and totally for real" is technically an answer, but we know that's not the case.[/quote]
[/quote]

by Sponsored content