249 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

Guglio08 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Nah, that doesn't really explain why the relays blowing up were a part of the vision. It would work if the relays were destroyed only in the 'destroy' ending, as that would show the commitment you're talking about, but it doesn't matter if the relays are destroyed in the control and synthesis ending. Choosing those endings also show a commitment to ending the cycle no matter what.

The Catalyst specifically says that every choice will blow up the Relays. It doesn't "make sense" because the whole thing is a fabrication of Shepard's subconscious while he lies in the rubble, half dead.

You still aren't explaining why the relays being destroyed was included in the first place. i know that the Catalyst specifically states every choice will blow up the relays; what's the point of that?

Why is the relay destruction a part of the vision? Don't give me 'it's because Shepard is half dead and isn't thinking straight', or whatever. Everything else has a clear purpose and reason for being a part of the vision (according to the theory). So what's the reason that the destruction of the mass relays is included? Because it happens for every decision, it's essentially pointless. It doesn't affect your choice at all.

[Monochrome Wench]

Why even tell shepard the relays will be destroyed at all, indoctrination theory or not? Because the child wants to trick you. Make you study the options carefully and choose the one that has the most beneficial effects for you (and the reapers)

[Zeleras]

Hey, I haven't read the entire thread so I apologise if this was already mentionedbut I believe the indoctrination theory for one reason alone.

The Catalyst tells Shepard that destroying all synthetics will also destroy him as even he is part synthetic, after this he wakes up in the rubble so even if you believe he somehow found his way to the rubble from the citadel then he should be dead because he just killed all synthetic life in the galaxy.

[111987]

Monochrome Wench wrote...

Why even tell shepard the relays will be destroyed at all, indoctrination theory or not? Because the child wants to trick you. Make you study the options carefully and choose the one that has the most beneficial effects for you (and the reapers)

How does it trick you? The fact that it happens no matter what means it's a non-factor in your decision making process.

[Guglio08]

111987 wrote...

You still aren't explaining why the relays being destroyed was included in the first place. i know that the Catalyst specifically states every choice will blow up the relays; what's the point of that?

Why is the relay destruction a part of the vision? Don't give me 'it's because Shepard is half dead and isn't thinking straight', or whatever. Everything else has a clear purpose and reason for being a part of the vision (according to the theory). So what's the reason that the destruction of the mass relays is included? Because it happens for every decision, it's essentially pointless. It doesn't affect your choice at all.

Firstly, I would appreciate you not being hostile? I understand the "endings" are rage-inducing and all that but I'm trying to explain it as best I can :/.

Secondly, it's about sacrifice. The Catalyst says, "Destroy will take out all synthetics." Which means EDI and the Geth. It also says, the Relays will blow up. If Shepard does nothing, then he has accomplished nothing. Choosing Destroy means that, even though he's going to lose some of his friends, and effectively erase some of his victories, he's accomplishing his goals. He's willing to sacrifice his own life and more to end  the cycle, the right way.

[111987]

Guglio08 wrote...

111987 wrote...

You still aren't explaining why the relays being destroyed was included in the first place. i know that the Catalyst specifically states every choice will blow up the relays; what's the point of that?

Why is the relay destruction a part of the vision? Don't give me 'it's because Shepard is half dead and isn't thinking straight', or whatever. Everything else has a clear purpose and reason for being a part of the vision (according to the theory). So what's the reason that the destruction of the mass relays is included? Because it happens for every decision, it's essentially pointless. It doesn't affect your choice at all.

Firstly, I would appreciate you not being hostile? I understand the "endings" are rage-inducing and all that but I'm trying to explain it as best I can :/.

Secondly, it's about sacrifice. The Catalyst says, "Destroy will take out all synthetics." Which means EDI and the Geth. It also says, the Relays will blow up. If Shepard does nothing, then he has accomplished nothing. Choosing Destroy means that, even though he's going to lose some of his friends, and effectively erase some of his victories, he's accomplishing his goals. He's willing to sacrifice his own life and more to end  the cycle, the right way.

I didn't realize I was being hostile. I apologize if I offended you.

You really aren't getting what I'm talking about though. I understand why choosing destroy shows how Shepard is willing to make a sacrifice to end the cycle. But the other endings require a sacrifice from Shepard as well, do they not? They kill him.

And you still have yet to explained why destroying the mass relays would be a part of the vision...I'm sorry but I don't know how else to explain what I'm asking.

[Smiley556]

111987 wrote...

Guglio08 wrote...

111987 wrote...

You still aren't explaining why the relays being destroyed was included in the first place. i know that the Catalyst specifically states every choice will blow up the relays; what's the point of that?

Why is the relay destruction a part of the vision? Don't give me 'it's because Shepard is half dead and isn't thinking straight', or whatever. Everything else has a clear purpose and reason for being a part of the vision (according to the theory). So what's the reason that the destruction of the mass relays is included? Because it happens for every decision, it's essentially pointless. It doesn't affect your choice at all.

Firstly, I would appreciate you not being hostile? I understand the "endings" are rage-inducing and all that but I'm trying to explain it as best I can :/.

Secondly, it's about sacrifice. The Catalyst says, "Destroy will take out all synthetics." Which means EDI and the Geth. It also says, the Relays will blow up. If Shepard does nothing, then he has accomplished nothing. Choosing Destroy means that, even though he's going to lose some of his friends, and effectively erase some of his victories, he's accomplishing his goals. He's willing to sacrifice his own life and more to end  the cycle, the right way.

I didn't realize I was being hostile. I apologize if I offended you.

You really aren't getting what I'm talking about though. I understand why choosing destroy shows how Shepard is willing to make a sacrifice to end the cycle. But the other endings require a sacrifice from Shepard as well, do they not? They kill him.

And you still have yet to explained why destroying the mass relays would be a part of the vision...I'm sorry but I don't know how else to explain what I'm asking.

I do think I get what you mean. What you mean to say, if it was a hallucination/indoctrination, what does destroying the relays on all choices add? Why include that at all? am I right? If not I apologise. To answer that from my point of view, I'm not sure what it adds, you might be right with the fact that it could be left out. Thing is shepard has to make a choice, so wether all 3 options destroy the relays or all 3 options keep the relays intact doesnt really effect the choice much. It does add a sense of something is not right. If the relays were not destroyed the ending at face value would make more 'sense'. The relays being destroyed has been pointed out as a massive plothole, 'plotholes' like this can be seen as a hint that something is not right. It might be on of the many hints Bioware put in there to tell you something is of and it might not all be real.

Modifié par Smiley556, 15 mars 2012 - 11:01 .

[Guglio08]

111987 wrote...

I didn't realize I was being hostile. I apologize if I offended you.

You really aren't getting what I'm talking about though. I understand why choosing destroy shows how Shepard is willing to make a sacrifice to end the cycle. But the other endings require a sacrifice from Shepard as well, do they not? They kill him.

And you still have yet to explained why destroying the mass relays would be a part of the vision...I'm sorry but I don't know how else to explain what I'm asking.

I don't know what you're asking then. The Catalyst says they will explode, so that's what Shepard has to go on. In my opinion, it shows that he's willing to make a choice at all, knowing that the relays explode and not knowing what happens after that. 

All the choices lead to his death. Destroy would (supposedly) kill him because he's part Synthetic (as The Catalyst explains), Synthesis vaporizes him in the beam, and Control... I don't actually know what occurs in this ending, I didn't choose it or watch it on youtube so I'm just going off of what others have said. But he dies, apparently.

But he knows that the Relays explode. Which is effectively the end of galactic travel. The Normandy crashes on a jungle instead of being lost in space to show that they survived (in Shepard's mind).

Personally I don't even see the Relays "exploding" so much as "spreading their energy" and then just collapsing. I guess it's to propogate the energy wave that does whatever you chose it to do.

[JasonTan87]

Naarad wrote...

If you bend it enough, you could even justify that Shepard is in fact a unicorn.

That's why you get a three colored rainbow; Red, green and blue!

[111987]

Smiley556 wrote...

111987 wrote...

Guglio08 wrote...

111987 wrote...

You still aren't explaining why the relays being destroyed was included in the first place. i know that the Catalyst specifically states every choice will blow up the relays; what's the point of that?

Why is the relay destruction a part of the vision? Don't give me 'it's because Shepard is half dead and isn't thinking straight', or whatever. Everything else has a clear purpose and reason for being a part of the vision (according to the theory). So what's the reason that the destruction of the mass relays is included? Because it happens for every decision, it's essentially pointless. It doesn't affect your choice at all.

Firstly, I would appreciate you not being hostile? I understand the "endings" are rage-inducing and all that but I'm trying to explain it as best I can :/.

Secondly, it's about sacrifice. The Catalyst says, "Destroy will take out all synthetics." Which means EDI and the Geth. It also says, the Relays will blow up. If Shepard does nothing, then he has accomplished nothing. Choosing Destroy means that, even though he's going to lose some of his friends, and effectively erase some of his victories, he's accomplishing his goals. He's willing to sacrifice his own life and more to end  the cycle, the right way.

I didn't realize I was being hostile. I apologize if I offended you.

You really aren't getting what I'm talking about though. I understand why choosing destroy shows how Shepard is willing to make a sacrifice to end the cycle. But the other endings require a sacrifice from Shepard as well, do they not? They kill him.

And you still have yet to explained why destroying the mass relays would be a part of the vision...I'm sorry but I don't know how else to explain what I'm asking.

I do think I get what you mean. What you mean to say, if it was a hallucination/indoctrination, what does destroying the relays on all choices add? Why include that at all? am I right? If not I apologise. To answer that from my point of view, I'm not sure what it adds, you might be right with the fact that it could be left out. Thing is shepard has to make a choice, so wether all 3 options destroy the relays or all 3 options keep the relays intact doesnt really effect the choice much. It does add a sense of something is not right. If the relays were not destroyed the ending at face value would make more 'sense'. The relays being destroyed has been pointed out as a massive plothole, 'plotholes' like this can be seen as a hint that something is not right. It might be on of the many hints Bioware put in there to tell you something is of and it might not all be real.

Yes, you are understanding what I was trying to get at. Sorry to everyone if I was being unclear.

Thank you for your response. I suppose it could just be another hint, but I don't know, that answer doesn;t fully satisfy me.

[Naarad]

JasonTan87 wrote...

Naarad wrote...

If you bend it enough, you could even justify that Shepard is in fact a unicorn.

That's why you get a three colored rainbow; Red, green and blue!

Brilliant!

[Dougremer]

Nothing happened guys. No dream, no ending, nothing. It's just a game
The Cake is a lie.

[Smiley556]

111987 wrote...


Yes, you are understanding what I was trying to get at. Sorry to everyone if I was being unclear.

Thank you for your response. I suppose it could just be another hint, but I don't know, that answer doesn;t fully satisfy me.

To be fairly honost the answer doesnt fully satisfy myself either, it was just the best I could think of. The thing is its allot more satisfying answer than just accepting it as a plothole in my opinion

[111987]

Smiley556 wrote...

111987 wrote...


Yes, you are understanding what I was trying to get at. Sorry to everyone if I was being unclear.

Thank you for your response. I suppose it could just be another hint, but I don't know, that answer doesn;t fully satisfy me.

To be fairly honost the answer doesnt fully satisfy myself either, it was just the best I could think of. The thing is its allot more satisfying answer than just accepting it as a plothole in my opinion

That's the main reason I find myself leaning towards the indoctrination theory...I just can't fathom how the writers would create such blatant plot holes at the end of the game.

[Naarad]

111987 wrote...

That's the main reason I find myself leaning towards the indoctrination theory...I just can't fathom how the writers would create such blatant plot holes at the end of the game.

It's the side effect of trying to be "thought-provoking". You (as a writer) need to go so much into the phylosophical that pretty much ignore 99% of what you did previously. Because a though-provoking ending is contained on itself. LOST did the exact same thing. And there was no crazy theory about it, though they did manage to actually provoke thoughts. Bioware failed on that ground.

[Smiley556]

111987 wrote...

Smiley556 wrote...

111987 wrote...


Yes, you are understanding what I was trying to get at. Sorry to everyone if I was being unclear.

Thank you for your response. I suppose it could just be another hint, but I don't know, that answer doesn;t fully satisfy me.

To be fairly honost the answer doesnt fully satisfy myself either, it was just the best I could think of. The thing is its allot more satisfying answer than just accepting it as a plothole in my opinion

That's the main reason I find myself leaning towards the indoctrination theory...I just can't fathom how the writers would create such blatant plot holes at the end of the game.

Id be pissed at Bioware for the plotholes too, IF there wasnt another explenation that removes pretty much all the plotholes. I find it allot more reasonable to believe the story was intended, and I find it a HUGE asumption that Bioware suddenly dropped so many plotholes as an explenation to the face value ending. And I dont like asumptions, I'm an agnost, I base my ideas on evidence, and I dont have opinions about things I dont have evidence for (I will never say god does or doesnt excist nor have an opinion about it, cos I dont have evidence to prove either). Evidence ingame points to indoctrination, the assumption that bioware screwed up point in the other direction. 

[MustacheManatee]

In regards to the Mass Relays: If this was previously stated, I apologize for repeating, but in Arrival, it was established that destroying a Mass Relay would also destroy the system the relay was in.
This leads to two potential conclusions.
Either the relays are not destroyed, and this is the indoctrination dream sequence I think it is, or the relays are not actually destroyed, just "turned off".
A potential fourth game set 100 years or so in the future, where one relay suddenly turns back on is a great catalyst for a new Mass Effect plot.

[Sciffan]

I've seen a few people mention the star child taking a form that Shepard can understand... Doesn't that mean that the star child would have to be in Shepard's mind already to draw forth that image. Otherwise it is just completely random. There has to be some mental connection that either existed before Shepard meets the star child or upon meeting the star child. And knowing Reapers that means some "lovecraftian" mind manipulation is going on.

[Newnation]

I think there's a difference between ramming an astroid into a relay to destroy it and being destroyed the way they were when you use the crucible.

[Thalvi]

 One other ending that would be a viable option:
"The Reapers should have, initially, been a force of good created by the original advanced race that designed the relays to intervene on organics behalf should synthetics/a malevolent force opposed them. However, one Reaper - the rogue AI Sovereign (Harbinger and Sovereign switch places) - overrode the builders' control and indoctrinated the rest of the Reapers resulting in the builders' destruction. Sovereign then subverted the Reapers purpose: The Reapers would play god and harvest species to bolster their ranks.
The Red Ending destroys the Reapers for good - JUST the reapers. Relays intact, geth intact, et cetera.
The Blue Ending overwrites Sovereign's indoctrination protocols over the Reapers and restores the Reapers to their original purpose: the protection of organics. Shep becomes the God Emperor of Mankind."

This one would actually involve Harbinger again. 

[Shunt Mcblunt]

Naarad wrote...

Shunt Mcblunt wrote...

Because even after the crash when EVA tried to attack you You had rounds but all after being hit by the Beam you had unlimited Clips. You would think that all your Thermal Clips would be spent but Unlimited ammo. Sorry it was Dream time. Isn't Ignorance Bliss!

PS: Quit Trolling - We have our views and you have yours lets keep it like that.

Yeah, call the guy using common sense a troll, that always works

Gameplay decission for the EVA fight is that you can't save Kaidan/Ashley. It makes no sense to have unlimited ammo. Gameplay decissions do exist, you are just not willing to accept them because then you can't argue with me. 

Naarad

First off you are the one with no touch within reality. Reality is ones own perception. So if people believe in their reality, you can only change it with fact. Since the game creators are keeping thier mouth shut regarding the ending we have no facts other than the ones shown. Here are the Main facts:

1. He has unlimited AMMO
2. The ending had things that were off that would have been caught thru playthrus.
3. You only live if you Destroy.
4. The kid lied and said you will die if you destroy.
5. The kid did not want you to destroy. He wanted you to Merge or Control.
6. You posted this topic just so people will state the facts so you can ignore them. IE> Troll
7. No matter how many facts we post here you do not care to learn because you are close minded. IE> Troll.


I think you need to learn the difference.

[Newnation]

Thalvi wrote...

 One other ending that would be a viable option:
"The Reapers should have, initially, been a force of good created by the original advanced race that designed the relays to intervene on organics behalf should synthetics/a malevolent force opposed them. However, one Reaper - the rogue AI Sovereign (Harbinger and Sovereign switch places) - overrode the builders' control and indoctrinated the rest of the Reapers resulting in the builders' destruction. Sovereign then subverted the Reapers purpose: The Reapers would play god and harvest species to bolster their ranks.
The Red Ending destroys the Reapers for good - JUST the reapers. Relays intact, geth intact, et cetera.
The Blue Ending overwrites Sovereign's indoctrination protocols over the Reapers and restores the Reapers to their original purpose: the protection of organics. Shep becomes the God Emperor of Mankind."

This one would actually involve Harbinger again. 

I wouldn't mind the red option for destroy. I would also have liked it if you could argue with the Catalyst about proving him wrong. If you brought peace between the Geth and Qurians, you could point out how you united everyone including the geth to fight the reapers and if synthesis is indeed the next phase in evolution than organics and synthetics should evolve on their own without him.

As for the unlimited ammo thing, where are people getting this it was a dream thing from? Until Bioware says otherwise I'm just going to assume that the unlimited ammo thing was done to make the level more cinematic. If you run out of ammo before getting to the Catalyst then you can't do the destroy ending now can you.

Modifié par Newnation, 16 mars 2012 - 01:49 .

[Guglio08]

Arguing with the Catalyst would have been pointless. He's the antagonist. His position is inherently wrong from Shepard's perspective.

[Rockpopple]

Naarad wrote...

While I understand there's plenty of people that just plain hate the ending in all its forms since the moment the Catalyst comes up, let's put this clear (IMO):

A theory that has as many assumptions and  outside justifications going around to give it sense is as bad as the ending itself for the lack of context.

If you bend it enough, you could even justify that Shepard is in fact a unicorn. Really, you can hate the ending all you want, but making up a whole justification that is based on one assumption after the other doesn't really give it validity.

It's a cool theory, I'll give you that, but sadly it lacks as much proof as the actual ending does lack context.

Name one assumption that Indoc Theory makes, other than the assumption that Shepard was being Indoctrinated and never left London?

The truth of the matter is that Indoc. Theory fits every single aspect of the ending almost flawlessly. All the plot holes and nonsensicle happenings of the endings make sense, and it does so without adding any new facts to the endings.

If you're not bothered to look it up and actually learn about it, then of course you're gonna say that it has as many holes or there's no proof. But you'd be mistaken.

[Newnation]

Guglio08 wrote...

Arguing with the Catalyst would have been pointless. He's the antagonist. His position is inherently wrong from Shepard's perspective.

I'm just saying it would have been great to try. After all the crap you've gone through in the three games I don't think Shep would just say "Hey, you're right." without  arguing with it like you can Saren and the Illusive Man.

I'm still not behind this theory. People point out these things as evidence:
A. Shep was uncouncious for a little while and hurt.
B. The reapers were trying to control him/her through their dreams
C. Shep has spent a considerable amount of time around reapers and reaper tech.
D. You don't see Anderson enter the portal and he describes things that seem familiar to Shep ex. collector base
E. The Illusive Man appears
F. The reapers show Shep what happens to his crew.

a. He/she may not have been hurt but Shep was unconcious for a good while during arrival around a reaper artifact and if you don't take out all the security coming after you then the artifact itself knocks you out. After coming to Shep isn't indoctrinated in any way. He/she (sorry I keep doing this. I don't play as femshep and I don't want to affend anyone that does.) even stops by and says **** off to Harbinger after. Not to mention both protheian vi's on Illos and Thessia don't sense that he/she's been indoctrinated.

b. I guess people are saying this because they have the child in them. It isn't unheard of for people to have the same nightmares and continuations of nightmares when you're under a great deal of stress.

c. Shep's squad have almost spent as much time around reapers and reaper tech as he/she has and none of them showed the signs besides stress that people are pointing out for Shep.

d. Just because you don't see Anderson enter the portal or laying in the field doesn't mean he didn't enter or survive it. You see a lot of marines either dieing or trying to crawl to safty. Also Anderson isn't as banged up as Shep is so he didn't take a lot of the brunt of the blast unless he's also Superman.

e. I'm guessing this one is just bad writing. I have no idea how he got there but he was in the citedal. The IM wasn't in his own base so you had to encounter him somewhere. He's been a step ahead of Shep throughout most of the game. He could have been the one to move the citedal for all we know. (This is a assumption just like the theory.)

f. This one is what gets me. How do you know Shep was seeing what was happening to his/her crew? This could be big fat case of dramatic irony...maybe not because I don't even what the really happens by the end.

Also, a lot of people said the catalyst lies when he tells you that you'll die if you pick destroy. The only time I got that dialog was when my galactic readiness was stuck at 50% and I couldn't get the perfect ending. Otherwise he just says something like all synthetics will die. You yourself are partly synthetic.

That is why I can't get behind the he/she was indoctrinated theory. I wish Bioware would respond to the endings or release a post game dlc or something.