364 réponses à ce sujet

[fwc577]

pypse wrote...

Well, choosing any of the two "bad" options doesn't have to necessarily mean that you get indoctrinated and "lose the game". As far as I know, if your EMS is low enough you only get the destroy option (can someone verify this, please?).
The other two options, being unlocked by your fleet's military strength may mean that there's still someone out there able to get you out of this mess .

This is explained in indoc theory as your dream/hallucination takes some time to complete.

If your EMS is too low your entire force isi wiped out before you cmoplete the dream.

When you choose destroy in this scenario, everything in the galaxy is shown to be wiped out living and organic and you die in this ending.

It is said that it's a way that your mind basically copes with the failure and you die/lose.

[OdanUrr]

fwc577 wrote...

You can get a high EMS rating in SP it just takes more than 1 playthrough OR the data pad app.

What do you call a high EMS rating? Because we've mathematically proven you can get no more than 7,524 War Assets on Single Player alone. That's an EMS rating of 3,762.

[fwc577]

OdanUrr wrote...

steej wrote...

Ok, here goes;
According to the MassEffect wiki;
http://masseffect.wi...#Specifications
The relays can be activated and deactivated at will, even by organics.

Also the Citadel is "the control center for all the relays, enabling the Reapers to sever travel between clusters. Its reactivation is, fittingly, more complex than that of an ordinary mass relay, requiring either a coordinated effort by the keepers or manual intervention by a Reaper."

Judging by the fact they did not attack the citadel in ME3, nor did they post a guard on it but only moved it closer to their main forces would imply that they need the relays open and functional at all time (for some reason).

Hows that?

I'm guessing you know that doesn't explain why the Reapers would "need" the relays to be activated at all times. It is not what they've done before. Plus, it makes no sense that, having conquered the Citadel, they would move it closer to X. No, from a military standpoint, I'd shut the network down, post a considerable force to protect the Citadel, and then start culling one system at a time.

It's possible in the begining of the game they weren't sure where the citadel was.

In ME1 Sovereign is making a mad dash to activate the signal that turns the Reaper force on and teleports them all to the Citadel.  At this point maybe they wold have begun their culling by disabling the relays and going system to system.

Just speculation.

[Planeforger]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Ok.. that is far fetched.. but a team of 200+(?) people palying and testing this game.. did not for once mentioned.. "WTF is with these endings?" no.... people who's life carrear is making stories and have done so successfully years before.. suddenly forgot how to write stories... what did they get a stroke?

So what you're suggesting is that 200+ Bioware people played and tested the game, and were totally cool with it having a poorly-written ending...because they could make a better one later, and make even more money selling that ending to their desperate fanbase?

Which of those sounds better - accidental disappointment due to massive lapses of judgement, or deliberate disappointment due to unprecedented levels of DLC pimpage?

They definitely didn't have the 'real' ending ready at the time when they launched the game, otherwise they wouldn't have to wait until April to finish it.

...And yes, they could release it for free, but Microsoft patches cost heaps of money, and Bioware would be working for months (including expensive voice work) entirely out of pocket...so I don't know, I'll believe it when I see it.

This also sets a terrible precedent. I can think of plenty of games that launched before they were finished, but this is the upmost extreme example of that - and it's even worse if it was deliberate.

Modifié par Planeforger, 22 mars 2012 - 01:49 .

[OdanUrr]

fwc577 wrote...

It's possible in the begining of the game they weren't sure where the citadel was.

In ME1 Sovereign is making a mad dash to activate the signal that turns the Reaper force on and teleports them all to the Citadel.  At this point maybe they wold have begun their culling by disabling the relays and going system to system.

Just speculation.

At the beginning, maybe. Towards the end, not a chance.

[Ieldra]

fwc577 wrote...
Don't be mad at me because you would be wrong under indoc theory.

Why not? You want a new ending to invalidate the choice I made - and would make again - with my main Shepard. Why the hell would I NOT be mad at you?

As it stands, Indoc theory explains all plot holes and it is inline with the entire premise/motivationsn of Shepard through the entire series.  Just look at the dialogue I posted from the conversation with TIM on Mars where references to control and synthesis are rejected by a Shepard who isn't under the stress of indoctrination and are supported by a TIM currently on the path to indoctrination.

In fact, they aren't. "defeat" and "getting rid of" does not equal "destroy". All the options end the Reaper threat in one way or the other. Given that, secondary considerations become a factor. Also, at this point Shepard doesn't know that something like the green option is possible.

Call me a fundamentalist all you want, I paid attention to the story and when I got to the three options and took about 3 seconds to reflect on Green/Blue  thought to myself, why in the hell would I do either one of those? 

I took me about three seconds to decide this is NOT the option I want to take. I find the green option attractive because of the underlying transhumanist theme, and I find the blue option attractive because it keeps the most people alive and the Citadel intact. Whoever else wanted these options for which reason whatsoever is of no relevance. The merit of any idea is independent from those who support it.

[ashwind]

Ieldra2 wrote...
That an idea has been embraced by a villain does not make it bad or wrong. 

The same applies to the Synthesis. It may pose other ethical problems, but the fact that the idea of organic/synthetic hybrids is associated with Saren is a non-issue. It has absolutely no bearing on the validity and the ethics of the idea itself.

100% Agreed. 
Just because TIM and Saren have certain ideas does not make them "bad or wrong" 

Making any 1 of the choices the "correct" one cheapens the game more than the "bad" ending infinitely. It is like sitting for an exam.

However, I can understand the intentions of the people who think up and support the indoctrination theory. They basically wants to give Bioware a way to NULLIFY the entire ending so that Bioware can make a whole new ending and fit it in the current game. 

[Ieldra]

MadRabbit999 wrote...
Ok.. that is far fetched.. but a team of 200+(?) people palying and testing this game.. did not for once mentioned.. "WTF is with these endings?" no.... people who's life carrear is making stories and have done so successfully years before.. suddenly forgot how to write stories... what did they get a stroke?

I'd say it was the pressure of crunch time that lead to this disaster. There is some evidence the endings were put together at the last minute, and people make mistakes when under stress.

They should've made the most important part of the game - the end - first.

[MadRabbit999]

Planeforger wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Ok.. that is far fetched.. but a team of 200+(?) people palying and testing this game.. did not for once mentioned.. "WTF is with these endings?" no.... people who's life carrear is making stories and have done so successfully years before.. suddenly forgot how to write stories... what did they get a stroke?

So what you're suggesting is that 200+ Bioware people played and tested the game, and were totally cool with it having a poorly-written ending...because they could make a better one later, and make even more money selling that ending to their desperate fanbase?

Which of those sounds better - accidental disappointment due to massive lapses of judgement, or deliberate disappointment due to unprecedented levels of DLC pimpage?

They definitely didn't have the 'real' ending ready at the time when they launched the game, otherwise they wouldn't have to wait until April to finish it.

...And yes, they could release it for free, but Microsoft patches cost heaps of money, and Bioware would be working for months (including expensive voice work) entirely out of pocket...so I don't know, I'll believe it when I see it.

This also sets a terrible precedent. I can think of plenty of games that launched before they were finished, but this is the upmost extreme example of that - and it's even worse if it was deliberate.

There are things called "internal tests" or "Friends and Family" or "alpha" testing.. where for 1 hour or so, the whole company takes place into playing the game they are making... this has been true in every place I have worked so far. But ok... let' say they did not see the ending... the guys who storyboarded it,  animated it, scripted it and wrote it.. let's say about 20+ people...  did they all forget hwo to do their job all of the sudden? Nobody said "Hey Tim, wtf did you write here? How can this happen if that hasn't happened?"

They also stated there is no such things as the "real" ending... nor are they goign to add it, because these are the endings they intended, they said they are goign to explain them more... probably filling plotholes and dismissing the indoc theory altogether.

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 22 mars 2012 - 01:59 .

[SkinnyMcfatty]

Ieldra2 wrote...

SkinnyMcfatty wrote...
While i think this thread is well written, i believe the phrase "rational thinking person" might be abit much. In the context of the game, consider what's going on in general, and what's going on around you at any one point in time. Depending on how much you immerse yourself into the game, whether you really put yourself in the place of Shepard or simply have a play through going pure paragon/renegade you are playing it for different styles. Let's say you really love the game to the point where you put yourself in the place of Shepard and want to feel the choices you make are important. Well in that context how could you yourself really wrap your mind around the fact that billions of people are being killed/harvasted while you are making your decision. I think general rational thinking would go out the window.

Whether or not rational thinking goes out of the window for my Shepard is for me to say. Outward actions may be prescribed by the game, motivations may not. Also, you're making a decision about all intelligent organic life in the galaxy. The weight of that is easily as big as the deaths and weighs in favor of making an informed decision taking everything into account that you can know.  Apart from that, yes, I believe thinking clearly in such a situation is perfectly possible. Easier, in fact, than if one person was killed every minute in front of your eyes. 

Ok in this situation, did you account for being just nailed by a great big lazer beam having most of your armor cooked off your body, then shot, then shot again, then watch another one of your very closest friends bleed out beside you then while talking to some "god child" or call it what you will you are watching not "one" but literally thousands die if not more every minute right outside the window in front of your eyes. If in all that you can hold onto your "rational thinking" then your Shepard was stronger than mine. Mine wouldn't even need to hear the other 2 options, Mine would just want these things dead and gone. But hey that's just me.....in the context of the game.

Modifié par SkinnyMcfatty, 22 mars 2012 - 02:08 .

[FlyinElk212]

Just to clarify my thoughts on this matter, you're postulating that an Indoctrination Theory application to the real game would insult rational thinkers because it would invalidate the morally ambiguous "final choice", giving players a clear "right answer" in destroy?

Let me know if I'm wrong OP, I'd rather get your opinions right before I start commenting on it.

[jackyboy666]

People saying that Harbinger could of just killed Shepard if the Indoctrination failed, maybe its because Shepard overcomes the indoctrination process and cannot kill him through mind control? Just a thought?

[Eudaemonium]

Honestly, OP, I kinda agree. That said, I actually think they should just scrap the entire final part of the ending and write it again. They can have the same option, even, just have everything after the TIM/Anderson section be completely different, because everything up until that point was astounding. I like indoctrination theory, but I don't really think they should implement it. It serves, for me, as a way of rationalising the ending as something which isn't completely atrocious. If they are going to change the ending I'd rather have a completely new presentation, even if the underlying choices are the same. I'd be fine with a control/synthesis/destroy scenario if only it was portrayed in a much better way, i.e. sans Catalyst.

Honestly, I'd actually have liked it if there had only been a single ending (destroy) but then the fallout and epilogue told you the results of your various choices, tied to EMS or whatever. I don't think that's what they'll do, obviously, but that's what I woudl have preferred. Also, don't blow up the mass relays.

[Ieldra]

FlyinElk212 wrote...
Just to clarify my thoughts on this matter, you're postulating that an Indoctrination Theory application to the real game would insult rational thinkers because it would invalidate the morally ambiguous "final choice", giving players a clear "right answer" in destroy?

Let me know if I'm wrong OP, I'd rather get your opinions right before I start commenting on it.

No. Rational thinking does not equal moral ambiguity.

I think it is an insult to rational thinkers because the indoctrination theorists' choice for the "correct" option is based on the false reasoning that association with major villains makes the other options recognizable as being trick answers. The merit of ideas is independent from the morality of those who support them.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2012 - 02:29 .

[Sherbet Lemon]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

It's really funny when people against the only theory that makes any sense talk about how if it's true, then you don't have any choice in the ending.

First of all, we already don't have choice. We just have A, B, and C. That's not a choice. That's a script.

I'm going to disagree somewhat.  You DO have a choice.  You may not like that choice or agree with it's implementation; you may not find their ultimate conclusions compelling or believable, but they are still options.  Choosing Synthesis fundamentally changes sentient life across the galaxy.  That is a HUGE change and a major decision.  Destroy does exactly what it says it will do while Control functions essentially as a reset button.  The Galaxy will be forever changed regardless, it is essentially the future of the galaxy that Shepard is establishing.  To clarify:   will it be a future for a new race of synthetic/organic hybrids who despite their changed "dna" still will have some semblance of cultural distinctness, or will it be a future free from synthetic life and technological advancement that will be free to determine its own course of development instead of one dictated by ancient "godlike" machines, or will it be a world of ruled by caution, knowing that while the Reapers have left organic life behind, they are still out there somewhere perhaps watching, perhaps potentially returning.  In these endings there is potential for a completely different galaxy than the one we've seen in previous Mass Effects.  

Indoctrination theory places you in a box where essentially the false reality supersedes any quantifiable argument.  You can not argue with an illusion.  It is by its very nature a false premise and therefore impervious to argument due to it's very construction.  It places Shepard (and player) in an invisible box that can neither be seen or felt whereby the only way escape that box is to destroy the illusion.  Until you are presented with options after the dream's destruction, reality does not exist.  The player character shapes the reality with the tools given by the developers and in a game where "choice matters," it doesn't come across as clever or interesting, it comes across as trite, condesending and insulting.  Tricking the player into choosing a false reality is just as cruel as parts of the ending that we got.  This is my issue with indoctrination theory.  The only choice is to destroy the illusion and invalidates the prior choices when there is some merit in Synthesis and Control.

Look I get that ID explains the plotholes, and they give people hope for the things that they want, but it really is propogating one outcome only and that outcome is destroy.  

Modifié par Village Idiot, 22 mars 2012 - 02:38 .

[naledgeborn is back]

Listen to yourself, Ieldra! You... you're indoctrinated! 

[fwc577]

Ieldra2 wrote...

fwc577 wrote...
Don't be mad at me because you would be wrong under indoc theory.

Why not? You want a new ending to invalidate the choice I made - and would make again - with my main Shepard. Why the hell would I NOT be mad at you?

As it stands, Indoc theory explains all plot holes and it is inline with the entire premise/motivationsn of Shepard through the entire series.  Just look at the dialogue I posted from the conversation with TIM on Mars where references to control and synthesis are rejected by a Shepard who isn't under the stress of indoctrination and are supported by a TIM currently on the path to indoctrination.

In fact, they aren't. "defeat" and "getting rid of" does not equal "destroy". All the options end the Reaper threat in one way or the other. Given that, secondary considerations become a factor. Also, at this point Shepard doesn't know that something like the green option is possible.

Call me a fundamentalist all you want, I paid attention to the story and when I got to the three options and took about 3 seconds to reflect on Green/Blue  thought to myself, why in the hell would I do either one of those? 

I took me about three seconds to decide this is NOT the option I want to take. I find the green option attractive because of the underlying transhumanist theme, and I find the blue option attractive because it keeps the most people alive and the Citadel intact. Whoever else wanted these options for which reason whatsoever is of no relevance. The merit of any idea is independent from those who support it.

Please quote the dialogue from TIM if you want to argue "symantics" of "defeat" and "destroy" as TIM specifically says the word DESTROY when discussing Shepards approach to the situation.

Also, Saren and TIM are the metaphorical embodiements of Synthesis and Control.  When taking full Paragon/Renegade options, Shepard convinces them it is wrong and then they kill themselves.  If you convince TIM/Saren their wrong and they should kill themselves, and he has been hell bent on "defeating" the reapers, then why would he NOT choose to destroy them in the end?

If you want to argue a matter of choice and maybe you didn't convince Saren/TIM to kill themselves and maybe you choose options that would make you seem slightly more tolerant of control/synthesis options the fact remains their is still plenty of unavoidable dialogue in the game such as the ones I posted from the TIM/Shepard meeting in the Prothean Archives to show that effectively, Shepard is Destroy, TIM is Control, and Saren would be Synthesis (according to ME1).

TLDR, stop dancing around semantics despite the dialogue I posted showing Shepard should prefer destruction.

[kalle90]

Now that we hit it I can't also help but to wonder it. Assuming the Theory is right it's basically saying if you chose A or B it's game over but if you chose C you get to continue from the DLC...

Though Saren was able to walk around in real world even though he was synthetized. So maybe Shepard is able to "return" to earth anyway.
It would be interesting if these options meant you switched sides and Harbinger approached Shep "congratulating" him. Shep is now working for Reapers killing people until he meets his squad and then there's Sarenlike standoff which either ends in Shepard commiting suicide (and pixie dust killing Reapers) or Shepard killing his squad and allowing the cycle to go on. Of course it's all just a huge can of worms, most people would despise having to side with Reapers.

All I know is that doing a suicide because I'm indoctrinated and then having Garrus, Liara and the gang there saying farewells to Shep would be way more satisfying ending than what we got now.

[Ieldra]

naledgeborn is back wrote...
Control isn't "wrong". Synthesis isn't "wrong". Destroy isn't "wrong". What is "wrong" is the notion that Shepard would even consider coming to a compromise with the Reapers when he's had numerous examples of where that road leads throughout the series [indoctrination].

How is the blue ending "coming to a compromise"? You *control* them, damn it. As for the green ending, you change them. All that matters is that all options end the Reaper threat.

Granted, it requires that you believe the Catalyst, and that's an uncertain proposition and the reason why I want a fourth option. But if this is a false reality, then all choices are equally suspect.

You may not like that it "invalidates" your choice (I'm assuming you picked Synthesis) but the truth is the IT doesn't invalidate anyone's choice. It was an illusion, a weapon in the form of Shepard's own heroic ego to subvert him.

Again you force character traits on Shepard that should be left to the player. Why anyone prefers any option is not a matter for canon. I might make the same point using my pet peeve with the scene, the fact that I can't challenge the Catalyst. That I cannot challenge is it out of character for MY Shepard, but it would be presumptious of me to say it is also out of character for yours, even though it is plausible considering how the story went.

[kalle90]

fwc577 wrote...
When taking full Paragon/Renegade options, Shepard convinces them it is wrong and then they kill themselves.  If you convince TIM/Saren their wrong and they should kill themselves, and he has been hell bent on "defeating" the reapers, then why would he NOT choose to destroy them in the end?

Destroying also means the death of Geth. Uh that doesn't suit my Shepard. Besides Saren was going to launch the cycle anyway and harvest people. I don't think that is true synthesis.

Illusive Man did his own experiments and in general just doesn't seem like a type who can control anything. The magic boy assures Shepard can.

One big thing is that before Shepard didn't know anything about Reapers so it's natural to want to destroy them. Turns out they are compilations of old civilizations and supposedly have a task so even they are worth preserving.

Sure this comes down to that whether the last 10 minutes of the game were just trickery and deceit of players. Pretty ingenious as itself, but the lack of epilogue makes it moot. We really don't know the consequences of our actions. Especially supposing the entire Normany bit is just illusion as well.

[fwc577]

Ieldra2 wrote...

naledgeborn is back wrote...
Control isn't "wrong". Synthesis isn't "wrong". Destroy isn't "wrong". What is "wrong" is the notion that Shepard would even consider coming to a compromise with the Reapers when he's had numerous examples of where that road leads throughout the series [indoctrination].

How is the blue ending "coming to a compromise"? You *control* them, damn it. As for the green ending, you change them. All that matters is that all options end the Reaper threat.

Granted, it requires that you believe the Catalyst, and that's an uncertain proposition and the reason why I want a fourth option. But if this is a false reality, then all choices are equally suspect.

You may not like that it "invalidates" your choice (I'm assuming you picked Synthesis) but the truth is the IT doesn't invalidate anyone's choice. It was an illusion, a weapon in the form of Shepard's own heroic ego to subvert him.

Again you force character traits on Shepard that should be left to the player. Why anyone prefers any option is not a matter for canon. I might make the same point using my pet peeve with the scene, the fact that I can't challenge the Catalyst. That I cannot challenge is it out of character for MY Shepard, but it would be presumptious of me to say it is also out of character for yours, even though it is plausible considering how the story went.

As for your first point.

Through the entire journey, you see people who choose synthesis and control, and you see them fail and the Reapers win

Through the entire series, you question everything and try to understand it.  So you are magically going to take the catalysts word at face value and not question what he is telling you?

That seems to me exactly why they don't give you investigative options in this scene.

Do you trust what the creator of the reapers/possibly a reaper is telling you?  That Destroy option is going to end all synthetic life including the geth and even you who is partly synthetic.  Or control/synthesis which he paints in a far better light (not to mention the colors of the options)

Then require you to make a choice based on what has previously happened in the game.  Saren was on a quest to synthesis, he was indoctrinated and failed, Illusive man was on a quest to control, he was indoctrinated and failed.  This is why, if indoc theory is true, Destroy is the right option.  Also, as I posted that conversation with TIM earlier, Shepard and his choices prior to this scene should be destroy and NOT control or synthesis.

As for your second point,

The entire game of ME3 is out of your character considering all of the auto dialoge which paints Shepard as someone who wants to Destroy the Reapers.

[fwc577]

kalle90 wrote...

fwc577 wrote...
When taking full Paragon/Renegade options, Shepard convinces them it is wrong and then they kill themselves.  If you convince TIM/Saren their wrong and they should kill themselves, and he has been hell bent on "defeating" the reapers, then why would he NOT choose to destroy them in the end?

Destroying also means the death of Geth. Uh that doesn't suit my Shepard. Besides Saren was going to launch the cycle anyway and harvest people. I don't think that is true synthesis.

Illusive Man did his own experiments and in general just doesn't seem like a type who can control anything. The magic boy assures Shepard can.

One big thing is that before Shepard didn't know anything about Reapers so it's natural to want to destroy them. Turns out they are compilations of old civilizations and supposedly have a task so even they are worth preserving.

Sure this comes down to that whether the last 10 minutes of the game were just trickery and deceit of players. Pretty ingenious as itself, but the lack of epilogue makes it moot. We really don't know the consequences of our actions. Especially supposing the entire Normany bit is just illusion as well.

Yes, the Reaper/Catalyst/Controller of the Reapers says that it will be the death of all synthetic life and conveniently reminds Shepard that he is also part synthetic.

Yet. depending on choices, Shepard lives in the end, the Catalyst is lieing to you.

The lack of epilogue is exactly why everyone is screaming for Bioware to give ME3 an actual ending.  Whether it ends up being indoc theory or something else Bioware cooks up remains to be seen.  Regardless, that is not what this topic is about and feel free to make another topic.  This topic is about indoc theory and why someone doesn't like it, so don't hijack his/her thread.

[fwc577]

Also, another note about "Control"

In the AUTO Dialogue at the end with TIM.

When TIM talks about controlling the Reapers. Shepard rejects it saying "Because, we aren't ready"

So you're tellng me that 5 minutes later Shepard changes his tune and is willing to control the Reapers? Shepard has never seemed very indecisive through the 3 games.

[naledgeborn is back]

@ the homey Ieldra

I get where you're coming from but there are some traits about Shepard's character that are set in stone and unchanging. Uncompromising in the face of the Reaper threat is one of them. Shepard crying wolf and battling Reaper proxies for 3 games only to capitulate at the finish line is so OOC it's ridiculous. It's in direct contradiction to events and the characterization of Shepard preceding it. But as it stands it is canon and I feel that it needs to change. Same way we can't role play a cowardly or reluctant Shepard.

Now I'll give you an example I think we can both agree on: the collector base decision. Specifically, the exclamation, "I'm going to blow this place sky high". It is OOC for our Shepards, but it isn't an attitude that is in direct contradiction of Shepard's mannerisms.

The pyromanic space marine that loves blowing **** up is a part of his characterization that can be attributed as far back as Mass Effect 1. We may not like it, but it's there. Shepard bowing down to the whims of Harbinger's Starchild avatar isn't

And frankly I dislike the Synthesis ending because the philosophical allusion is so out of place that it seems like it was ripped off from Deus Ex. If they made a point of pushing the agenda from the beginning of the game (rather than an optional EDI/Joker romance), then sure I can see it. But the overarching message of Mass Effect is overcoming odds through unification and cooperation despite glaring differences and wide ranging diversity. This is the opposite message of the Synthesis ending which is "there can only be peace if we're all the same".

The fact that Shepard got that far completely ****s on Harbinger's/Starchild's logic.

Modifié par naledgeborn is back, 22 mars 2012 - 03:37 .

[fwc577]

Here, since you're so adamant about this and that control/synthesize isn't a "wrong" choice because of your Shepard.

Then explain to us, what choices did your Shepard make that he/she would prefer control/synthesis over outright destruction?