owl_of_minerva

Basically, because it looks stupid in the eyes of more than a few people. Reapers should probably look mysterious and alien instead of looking like a massive Terminator.

Mass Effect: Marauder Shields Origins.

I'd like a setting and story that didn't suck. Put less bluntly, I'd like a setting that felt less like a plasticky vision of the future and design document and more of the grime and traditional cyberpunk aesthetic of the first game. No more orange and yellow colour palette. And level design that didn't feel like anointed playstyle paths of XP but more open and much larger environments. More thematic continuity with the first game. More choice and consequence in the narrative.

Although I think DXHR is a pretty decent game, I really feel it was a missed opportunity to develop an interesting setting and narrative, and the mechanics fall short in that it's not a particularly effective action-RPG hybrid. Nor does it set well with the series as a whole.

First of all, it doesn't matter what Bioware says about the ending at this point. Until they add more material or explain their current endings (ie. make their fans pay for a retcon or a real ending, the dlc they're so quick to mention), they're an ambiguous, incoherent shambles, and the indoctrination interpretation as it should really be known is one of the best available with a lot of supporting evidence. It can certainly be contested, but the argument against it doesn't have a very good opposing interpretation - what is shown to happen is what literally happens, deeeeeerp, ie. the RGB interpretation with those three, on the face of it, incredibly shitty and nonsensical endings. I'm going to exercise the principle of charity and assume that the writers of Bioware aren't that bad. I don't have much fondness for Bioware but I'm going to wait and see on this point - and I'm willing to bet, either see the indoc. interpretation receive some validation, or, the three endings explained away as not actually having happened.

inXile doesn't have a great track record but on the other hand little can be expected in a development + publisher climate so hostile to RPGs (new definition of RPG is really profitable game, to quote Boyarsky). I have confidence Fargo will know how to manage a project and assemble the necessary talent. I've seen some tweets about getting some of the original Wasteland designers back, and they should know a thing or two about designing CRPGs as they ought to be designed - party-based strategy games with lots of potential builds, exploration, choice and consequence, etc.

You definitely can't say they scrapped indoctrination as a main theme when it comes up constantly in the game: Illusive Man/Kai Leng, the conversation with the Prothean VI, the indoctrinated Asari who kills herself on Thessia, the science lab studying indoctrination, aspects of the ending sequence that are difficult to explain otherwise, etc, etc.

Seeing trees is a clear sign of indoctrination.

Edit: You might want spoiler tags/spoiler warning in thread title.

I'd say Dear Esther was meant to evoke melancholy and reflection on mortality rather than confusion, but yes I'd agree with the summation of the "game" above. As essentially a piece of semi-interactive narrative in a game engine, it evokes certain feelings very effectively and was thought-provoking. I will be interested to see what thechineseroom does with the Amnesia: Dark Descent crossover, as the narrative will have to be incorporated into a game.

@Zithe: @Zithe said:

The indoctrination theory doesn't make sense because if you go into the ending with very low EMS, (a) the only option available to you is to destroy the Reapers (along with just about everything else). You haven't unlocked the other endings. (b) And even this Shepard who is not indoctrinated or tricked into a "wrong ending" at all still sees the scenes with Anderson, The Illusive Man, and the Catalyst the same as everyone else.

(A) I've answered this already and it wasn't so achingly important to take up the same argument with me here. I'll restate for the benefit of those ITT: it's because it simply doesn't matter if they succeed at indoctrinating Shepherd because a paltry offensive ensures everyone's death and poses no threat to the Reapers, and since the other endings imply subtle attempts at indoctrination they aren't proffered to Shepherd (indoctrination happens due to proximity but it isn't pushed as hard as when Shep is an actual threat) (B) No idea what point you're trying to make with that.

@Zithe said:

It's funny to me how reluctant gamers are to take a game at anything other than face value. The moment Shepherd gets up from that blast after the fade to white I knew it was some kind of Inception/Jacob's Ladder shenanigans simply from conditioning to those cinematic tropes.

It's certainly possible that it's a dream, but I find it funny that you're calling out others for not taking the game AT FACE VALUE when you have created your own non-proven theory.

I'm not posing a theory, I'm posing an interpretation. An interpretation can be strong or weak, it cannot be demonstrably be true or false because no one owns the meaning of a cultural product, not even Bioware. That said, all interpretations are provisional on what DLC comes out, because they might provide strong evidence for one interpretation or another. We shall see. That said, it'll be hard to do DLC if everyone explodes because of space magic, rather than Shepherd waking up having to finish the fight. Just a thought.

@Zithe said:

Why not? He didn't get hit directly. Also, the line of dialogue about no one making it up to the Citadel is said before either of them actually go up there.

Because if they saw people moving toward the Citadel, you don't think they'd comment? It'd be hard to miss. Also, why does the Reaper just fly away when Shepherd is walking toward the beam, you know, the thing it's meant to be defending? Why does the pistol have unlimited ammo and where does it come from? How come we don't see Anderson on the way to the beam? How does Anderson get ahead of Shepherd? How come Shepherd doesn't see Anderson inside the Citadel since there's apparently only one entrance to the room with the Illusive Man?

@Zithe said:

derp

I stand by what I said. Although the Indoctrination Theory isn't perfect, it is much more consistent and coherent. It's not like those defending the ending as stuff that actually happened don't have things they have to explain. In fact, accepting what happens as actual fact is simply another interpretation, and I'd argue a much weaker one.

It's funny to me how reluctant gamers are to take a game at anything other than face value. The moment Shepherd gets up from that blast after the fade to white I knew it was some kind of Inception/Jacob's Ladder shenanigans simply from conditioning to those cinematic tropes. There was no way Shepherd was getting up from that blast right away + the events you are seeing unfold are contradicted immediately: "Did anyone get through to the beam? No"...yet somehow Capt Anderson and Shepherd get through. Also, what people don't seem to understand is that the indoctrination theory is an interpretation, and thus cannot simply be wrong unless it fails to refer to any textual evidence, of which there is ample evidence for the indoctrination theory even if it might be subject for debate. That said, we are working with incomplete information here, since the game's story clearly will not be completed until all of the DLC is released.

At this point in time indoctrination theory is the simplest and most coherent explanation for what happens in the endgame sequence, unless Bioware retcons, spins, or otherwise changes what it's established in the core game.