57139 réponses à ce sujet

[llbountyhunter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Simon_Says wrote...

Also, destroy is the default option only when the collector base has been destroyed. Otherwise it's control.

Interesting. I assumed incorrectly then. My mistake.

And with low EMS, it's obvious that it's probably the case that the reapers already have the upper hand. They've already won. Let Shepard break free of indoc, he/she and their entire species are as good as dead already.

How does this make sense, would the Reapers not would to continue into other cycles after this one, given the Catalyst's diatribes?

You also seem to forget that the ending that requires the most work to unlock is... the destroy ending where Shepard survives. That Shepard even survives is even an argument agains the Catalyst, as it had explicityl claimed that Shepard would die if they picked destroy.

No, he says that Shepard is partly synthetic. Not that he/she will die. Just went back and watched destroy-only bad ending on youtube to double-check:  

Up to this point, the headcanon's plausibility remains to be seen.

1.reapers dont comunicate they indoctrinate. saren was indoctrinated, and you sound indoctrinated as well.



4. edi suvrive destroy. also since shepard is partly sinthetic he would have to die as well. but he doesnt.

[SS2Dante]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

Oh no. Not this again. Please not this again.

[balance5050]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

Don't forget that they also harm non intelligent (un worthy) species, harvesters and scions come to mind.

[blooregard]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

blooregard wrote...

I don't want the "widely different endings" or a "happy ending" hell I can honestly say at this point I don't even want "Multiple endings" I just want an ending(s) that make sense and gives me the closure I was promised.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Again, this is all fixed with I.T.

Yeah...has there been any more 4chan "leaks" that we can disprove?

[llbountyhunter]

balance5050 wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Tell me, how are the Catalyst and reapers not the very problem they claim to prevent? Why do they go straight to genocide? Why have they not attempted any real sort of communication throughout the series besides taunts? There are too many gaps and flaws with the Catalyst's argument for any reasonable person to accept as not suspect.

The problem they claim to prevent is synthetics destroying organic civilization. They achieve this by preserving life, it is stored in Reaper form. Don't believe it? Legion said it himself back in ME2, look it up on youtube. The reap'd species aren't killed, their minds live on inside the Reaper. "Each [Reaper] a nation." Also, they don't kill off all organics. Other species that haven't advanced are allowed to live, which further goes to show that they aren't just synthetics bent on wiping out organics.

Reapers do communicate too. But obviously, few people will take kindly to "submit to us and you will not be harmed." Some did (Saren) but most won't. That's where indoctrination comes in. However, the Catalyst isn't reasoning for Shepard to continue their work. If anything, he basically concedes defeat, on the premise that Shepard is standing there.

Why don't the Reapers just kill the synthetics then? 

If they are truly trying to prevent organic life from beig destroyed by synthetics, just destroy the synthetics. 

Don't forget that they also harm non intelligent (un worthy) species, harvesters and scions come to mind.

also wouldnt it become easier to harvest species BEFORE they become spacefaring? why wait?

[MaximizedAction]

blooregard wrote...

I've notice the anti IT guys have been showing up saying pro IT guys can't disprove *tweet or paraphrased answer in interview* yet they can't think of any reason why that can be seen running into the building that gets lasered by a reaper and the kid is just fine in the ventilation shaft or TIM's sudden shift in goals from controlling the Reapers to trying to convince you to accept his line of thinking.

Well Shepard doesn't need to be indoctrinated in the Reaper sense to hallucinate.

Before knowing about IT I assumed that the kid was indeed the Catalyst and was trying to help/warn Shepard in some superstitious way.
And TIM was indeed indoctrinated and the Reapers were using him to get Shepard on the Reaper's side or indoctrinate him.

Again, this was back in my first playthrough without IT in mind. So even back then there WAS some way to explain the kid and TIM in some creative way.
...then along came the breath scene. I think, this is the BEST support for IT we have. Without it...we'd have a hard time...

[balance5050]

llbountyhunter wrote...

also wouldnt it become easier to harvest species BEFORE they become spacefaring? why wait?

I just think they wait for populations to build, that way they have maximum food to harvest. They want to make each cycle count. It's like harvesting crop, you don't want to do it until it's absolutly ready for the picking.

Modifié par balance5050, 02 mai 2012 - 05:46 .

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

So by saying this you aren't really interested in the truth, rather you believe what you believe because you want to believe it

[His Name was HYR!!]

llbountyhunter wrote...

only 2 *flaws? 


1. if shepard becomes a bigger threat is it not logical to try harder to make him lose?
2. edi can survive at the end of destroy. liar.

1.) I don't follow.
2.) LOL yeah, because the writers couldn't make up their own minds about that. Patrick Weekes said it himself, he argued she should have died. Why the blatant inconsistency took place is beyond me, but knowing that, it's hardly ground to call him a liar.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

blooregard wrote...

I don't want the "widely different endings" or a "happy ending" hell I can honestly say at this point I don't even want "Multiple endings" I just want an ending(s) that make sense and gives me the closure I was promised.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Again, this is all fixed with I.T.

yeah cool

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

So by saying this you aren't really interested in the truth, rather you believe what you believe because you want to believe it

huh? The truth is they left it vague intentioanally so we can come to our own conclusions silly.

If I wasn't interested in te truth I wouldn't be here. If the EC totally kills indoc then I will be fine with that. I just don't see the ending being good without IT.

[balance5050]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

only 2 *flaws? 


1. if shepard becomes a bigger threat is it not logical to try harder to make him lose?
2. edi can survive at the end of destroy. liar.

1.) I don't follow.
2.) LOL yeah, because the writers couldn't make up their own minds about that. Patrick Weekes said it himself, he argued she should have died. Why the blatant inconsistency took place is beyond me, but knowing that, it's hardly ground to call him a liar.

EDI is synthetic, kid said that synthetics will die, EDI doesn't die, kid is a liar. DUH!

[SS2Dante]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

So by saying this you aren't really interested in the truth, rather you believe what you believe because you want to believe it

Once again you're being unfair. What he actually said was that since he finds IT more logical within the game world so as it stands it would be his headcanon. He did not say he would deny that it's wrong if the EC came out and denied it. You're allowing your own preconceptions of IT believers to spill over into conversation and it really makes civil discussion quite difficult.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

So by saying this you aren't really interested in the truth, rather you believe what you believe because you want to believe it

huh? The truth is they left it vague intentioanally so we can come to our own conclusions silly.

If I wasn't interested in te truth I wouldn't be here. If the EC totally kills indoc then I will be fine with that. I just don't see the ending being good without IT.

And yet your previous comment seems to contradict that.

[llbountyhunter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

only 2 *flaws? 


1. if shepard becomes a bigger threat is it not logical to try harder to make him lose?
2. edi can survive at the end of destroy. liar.

1.) I don't follow.
2.) LOL yeah, because the writers couldn't make up their own minds about that. Patrick Weekes said it himself, he argued she should have died. Why the blatant inconsistency took place is beyond me, but knowing that, it's hardly ground to call him a liar.

1. im sorry I dont know how to break it down any more than it already is.....

[dorktainian]

So could all of Mass Effects 1 to 3 be an elaborate hoax/lie right up to the part where Shep wakes up in the rubble? Have we been Indoctrinated by Bioware?

Mass Effect 1.  Saren has fallen to Indoctrination.  The beacons were beginning that process for Shep.  
Mass Effect 2.  Shep Dies (or does he?????) and is resurrected by TIM.
Mass Effect 3.  err......Reapers kinda attack..... Red Blue Green........ oh and Major Coates (where did he come from?) + Star Brat (????) oh and the mysterious hum onboard the Normandy.

We have seen what Bioware have wanted us to see in a way they wanted us to see it. We attacked the Collector base - even tho in the great scheme of things they were not a huge threat and the Alliance navy could have wiped em out (note conversation with Vega hinting at such). People keep dropping hints right throughout the game - asking if any of shepard still exists within his head. Why would Shep team up with TIM? It doesnt make any sense at all - even if TIM has saved his life (which is debatable), the simple explaination that 'they gave up on you' would not be enough to gain sheps loyalty. He is already being brainwashed. He would want to find out himself, ask questions to Alliance top brass himself. Find his old crew. Find the one he loves.

This is not the Shep from the beginning of ME1.

When Shep destroys the collector base - was this part of the indoctrination? Remember that he rescued 'his' crew from the collector pods, sacrificed some of his collegues along the way and for what? What was the end goal? To stop the Collectors? They wern't a real threat to humanity in general - but TIM had to have that Reaper tech.

The Crucible.

err..... We construct it - although we havent got the faintest idea how it works, or what would happen if it worked.  Why would we do that?  Wouldnt it be better to take our chances in conventional combat instead of pouring all resources into an object which may or may not work?  This for me was a trap to get all the military united (by an indoctrinated shep - who because of his indoctrination would not be able / willing to see that it might actually be a trap) and in one place so they could be obliterated all in one confrontation, allowing the reapers an easy task of mopping up and leaving the galaxy quickly.

The Outcry.

Yes the ending as it is sucks.  Bioware have said they are not going to change the ending - but expand on it to provide more clarity.  The only two ways they could do this is by....

1.  Confirming the ending is what it is.  It sucks big time.  Corporate suicide insues.
2.  The ending is correct - but not from the point of view we originally interpreted.  Things are not what they actually seem.  We've been indoctrinated people.  We've been suckered right good and proper and we bought it all hook line and sinker.  Shep is Alive and the final 20 minutes of ME3 were all Harbingers attempt to finally crush Sheps mind.  Only by getting the 'shep breathes' ending can you actually proceed with the 'true' confrontation.  Friends will become enemies.  Enemies will become friends.  Cats will love Dogs. Everything is not as we thought it was and this will cause major headaches for us all as we try to finish the 'real' Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par dorktainian, 02 mai 2012 - 05:55 .

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

So by saying this you aren't really interested in the truth, rather you believe what you believe because you want to believe it

huh? The truth is they left it vague intentioanally so we can come to our own conclusions silly.

If I wasn't interested in te truth I wouldn't be here. If the EC totally kills indoc then I will be fine with that. I just don't see the ending being good without IT.

And yet your previous comment seems to contradict that.

hes saying that he perfers IT, but he still wants the truth... i dont see the contradiction.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

So by saying this you aren't really interested in the truth, rather you believe what you believe because you want to believe it

huh? The truth is they left it vague intentioanally so we can come to our own conclusions silly.

If I wasn't interested in te truth I wouldn't be here. If the EC totally kills indoc then I will be fine with that. I just don't see the ending being good without IT.

And yet your previous comment seems to contradict that.

Headcanon and actual canon are two different things (if you have an imagination at least)

[SubAstris]

SS2Dante wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

So by saying this you aren't really interested in the truth, rather you believe what you believe because you want to believe it

Once again you're being unfair. What he actually said was that since he finds IT more logical within the game world so as it stands it would be his headcanon. He did not say he would deny that it's wrong if the EC came out and denied it. You're allowing your own preconceptions of IT believers to spill over into conversation and it really makes civil discussion quite difficult.

He has already discounted any comments by BW by saying "gameplay is the only thing that affects me"

[His Name was HYR!!]

balance5050 wrote...

if it's a ploy, why is his "bait" (synthesis/control) not available to the player at all by default whilst Destroy always is


-Why would Harby want to indoctrinate someone who sucks at putting together armies?

For his own continued existence, obviously?

If he's indoctrinating him, why doesn't he talk him into outright surrender and let the Reapers win? There's another flaw that comes to mind.

Also, no hints at the Catalyst being a liar. 

-Except that the whole game contradicts him. He also says that your synthetics will fail if you choose destroy, Shep can't live without synthetics yet, he can survive after choosing destroy. Also, EDI can walk out of the Normandy if you choose destroy according to Pat Weekes unofficial interview. Several clear signs you are being lied to.

So the writers wrote a blatant inconsistency. Not really proof. Weekes also said that he thought EDI should be destroyed. The man now in-charge of writing the ending extended-cut, mind you.

He never said Shepard's synthetics would fail and/or that he or she would die, he just notes that Shepard has cybernetic implants of his own. Maybe they did fail and he lived anyway. Who knows, lack of explanation is why we're here now. At the end of the day, though, this is a headcanon explanation until proven otherwise.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

So by saying this you aren't really interested in the truth, rather you believe what you believe because you want to believe it

Once again you're being unfair. What he actually said was that since he finds IT more logical within the game world so as it stands it would be his headcanon. He did not say he would deny that it's wrong if the EC came out and denied it. You're allowing your own preconceptions of IT believers to spill over into conversation and it really makes civil discussion quite difficult.

He has already discounted any comments by BW by saying "gameplay is the only thing that affects me"

I don't play, "Let's hang off every word of Bioware employee's!".... I play "Mass Effect 3"

[SS2Dante]

SubAstris wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Ok, but that doesn't mean all statements should be immediately discounted. If BW went as far as to putting out an official statement that IT was false tomorrow, would you think that IT was dead in the water?

Hypothetically even if they did that, the game still hints otherwise so it will still be my headconon but I wouldn't have my hopes up for the DLC

They won't do that though, gameplay is the only thing that affects me.

So by saying this you aren't really interested in the truth, rather you believe what you believe because you want to believe it

Once again you're being unfair. What he actually said was that since he finds IT more logical within the game world so as it stands it would be his headcanon. He did not say he would deny that it's wrong if the EC came out and denied it. You're allowing your own preconceptions of IT believers to spill over into conversation and it really makes civil discussion quite difficult.

He has already discounted any comments by BW by saying "gameplay is the only thing that affects me"

Yes, and he's allowed any interpretation he wants within the confines of his own understanding. You're making derisive assumptions about why he has this interpretation.

[SS2Dante]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

if it's a ploy, why is his "bait" (synthesis/control) not available to the player at all by default whilst Destroy always is


-Why would Harby want to indoctrinate someone who sucks at putting together armies?

For his own continued existence, obviously?

If he's indoctrinating him, why doesn't he talk him into outright surrender and let the Reapers win? There's another flaw that comes to mind.

Also, no hints at the Catalyst being a liar. 

-Except that the whole game contradicts him. He also says that your synthetics will fail if you choose destroy, Shep can't live without synthetics yet, he can survive after choosing destroy. Also, EDI can walk out of the Normandy if you choose destroy according to Pat Weekes unofficial interview. Several clear signs you are being lied to.

So the writers wrote a blatant inconsistency. Not really proof. Weekes also said that he thought EDI should be destroyed. The man now in-charge of writing the ending extended-cut, mind you.

He never said Shepard's synthetics would fail and/or that he or she would die, he just notes that Shepard has cybernetic implants of his own. Maybe they did fail and he lived anyway. Who knows, lack of explanation is why we're here now. At the end of the day, though, this is a headcanon explanation until proven otherwise.

As to the first question I'm not sure you really get indoctrination :S   Picking control or synthesis is basically doing just what you said. 

How come noone has brought up the bigass nuclear style explosion that Shepard somehow survives?

[llbountyhunter]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

if it's a ploy, why is his "bait" (synthesis/control) not available to the player at all by default whilst Destroy always is


-Why would Harby want to indoctrinate someone who sucks at putting together armies?

For his own continued existence, obviously?

If he's indoctrinating him, why doesn't he talk him into outright surrender and let the Reapers win? There's another flaw that comes to mind.

Also, no hints at the Catalyst being a liar. 


-Except that the whole game contradicts him. He also says that your synthetics will fail if you choose destroy, Shep can't live without synthetics yet, he can survive after choosing destroy. Also, EDI can walk out of the Normandy if you choose destroy according to Pat Weekes unofficial interview. Several clear signs you are being lied to.

So the writers wrote a blatant inconsistency. Not really proof. Weekes also said that he thought EDI should be destroyed. The man now in-charge of writing the ending extended-cut, mind you.

He never said Shepard's synthetics would fail and/or that he or she would die, he just notes that Shepard has cybernetic implants of his own. Maybe they did fail and he lived anyway. Who knows, lack of explanation is why we're here now. At the end of the day, though, this is a headcanon explanation until proven otherwise.

1.1. if shepard becomes a bigger threat is it not logical to try harder to make him lose?

2. shepard is half synthetic. half of him would die= the other half cannot live alone. starkid says it would destroy ALL synthetis, you can pick and choose.

bringing up something about the authors that is common knowladge isnt helping your point

[Rosewind]

He wouldn't talk Shep into out right surrender because Shep wouldn't go for it, he spends 3 years opposing them why would he do that. Harby needs to trick Shep into thinking he is winning but in fact he is being tricked into surrendering.