75 réponses à ce sujet

[captainbob8383]

 
Just wanted to point out one the major problems people have with the choices this ending offers. Most people instantly saw this ending made no-sense story-wise, but like it seems some actually didnt get it, so I’ll try to explain it simply.

First, one very important thing to understand, The Illusive Man and Saren were not “bad guys”, they were galaxy champions, just like Shepard. They did their best and did whatever it took to try to save the Galaxy.
But in the end, they failed, gave up, and even went back on everything they had stood for. Shepard is ‘just’ the third Champion to stand against the Reapers, he follows the footsteps of Saren and The Illusive Man.
Now if you look at what the Catalyst ‘offers’ you:

Control: The Illusive Man’s way of thinking. He thought Reapers shouldn’t be destroyed, that the only solution to the Reaper threat was to control them. The final purpose of this was The Illusive Man leading the Reapers. This choice was his mistake, which led him to indoctrination.

Synthesis: Saren’s way of thinking. He thought Reapers couldn’t be destroyed, that the only solution to the Reaper threat was to work with them. The final purpose of this was creating organics/synthetics hybrid beings, just like Saren became. This choice was his mistake, which led him to indoctrination.

Destruction: Shepard’s way of thinking. During the series he acknowledges Saren and The Illusive Man mistakes, and never ceased to tell them why they were wrong. Since the very first Mass Effect, his final goal has always been to destroy the Reapers.

… and ‘Destruction’ is the only choice that lead to the scene where we see Shepard breathing.


I think, this whole ‘godChild’ scene acts as a test for Shepard, for the player behind him. Saren and The Illusive Man, two great heroes, tried to stop the Reapers before Shepard, and failed, the game asks you if you understand why and challenge you to not repeat the same mistakes.

So in substance what is really this scene and what happens after it?
Well I don’t know, all of this could have been reality, indoctrination dream or whatever you want, that’s not the point of this thread.
All I know is that my interpretation is shared by a lot of people, and is quiet obvious if you’ve played the whole series and understood what it was all about.
For more we’ll have to wait Bioware April announcement …

Modifié par captainbob8383, 01 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[esalor]

I always thought Saren's belief in synthesis was a direct result of his indoctrination. He did want to save everyone after finding (or being led to) Sovereign but he was manipulated into thinking that the only way was to bow down and accept being 'improved'.
Not rejecting your post, just a clarification maybe.

[res27772]

One of my problems with the ending (and I agree you can associate the current ones with those characters) is that if those choices are associated with those characters and the Crucible supposedly 'changed' the Catalyst allowing 'new options' (its words not mine), what are these new options? Where were they?

[Darkslayer557]

+1, and that somehow is linked to Thane's prayer for Shepard. May the gods forgive this one for the destruction. Thane really understands shepard.

Modifié par Darkslayer557, 01 avril 2012 - 10:38 .

[captainbob8383]

esalor wrote...
I always thought Saren's belief in synthesis was a direct result of his indoctrination. He did want to save everyone after finding (or being led to) Sovereign but he was manipulated into thinking that the only way was to bow down and accept being 'improved'. Not rejecting your post, just a clarification maybe.

Yeah I actually agree with you. But what matters is that Saren was trick to believe, and ultimately choose that Synthesis was the way to go. In the end Synthesis represents his failure. And the way he was lured or tricked to choose it, remind us how the Catalyst presents control and synthesis to Shepard as good solutions, while previous Mass Effect clearly states the exact contrary.

[Biotic_Warlock]

Perhaps the first 2 games proved to be an easter egg.

[Grasich]

This is one of the biggest defenses (imo) for indoctrination theory. Unless Bioware had a massive derp moment, they should have realized that 2 out of the 3 endings were EXACTLY what 2 of the main antagonists of the series were indoctrinated into wanting.

[gekko513]

Destruction does not equal Shepard's way of thinking. He's thrilled about the peace between Geth and the Quarians if you choose that, even if the Quarians are equally as bad as the reapers seen from a synthetic point of view.

He wants to destroy the reapers early on for their actions as seen from the organics perspective. In the end he gets told the bigger picture. That changes the premisses. What then becomes Shepard's way of thinking is up to you to decide.

[Ieldra]

I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face or until people actually get it:

The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it.

Indoctrination uses people's ideals and subverts them.

(1) Saren believed in something like the Synthesis. "The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither". In itself that is not a bad goal. Reaper indoctrination made him believe the Reapers would realize it. He was wrong in the latter, but the idea can still have merit.

(2) TIM believed that controlling the Reapers was a viable way of ending the conflict. Guess what? He was right? The Catalyst confirms it. That he walked over heaps of corpses to get there makes him evil, but the goal of controlling the Reapers does not.

The "evilness" of a person does not infect their goals. Their goals may or may not be evil, but the means used to achieve them do not make them so.

As for what Shepard thinks, I define what my Shepard thinks. It's not for anyone else to say.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[gekko513]

Well said, Ieldra2

[Grasich]

gekko513 wrote...

Destruction does not equal Shepard's way of thinking. He's thrilled about the peace between Geth and the Quarians if you choose that, even if the Quarians are equally as bad as the reapers seen from a synthetic point of view.

He wants to destroy the reapers early on for their actions as seen from the organics perspective. In the end he gets told the bigger picture. That changes the premisses. What then becomes Shepard's way of thinking is up to you to decide.

I don't know about yours, but my Shep wasn't in the habit of believing ANYTHING the Reapers told him.

Let's change the context here a bit for perspective. Imagine, instead of the god-kid, Harbinger had appeared and told you the exact same things. Would you believe him for even an instant?

[Iwillbeback]

It is all Indoctrination.

[Verit]

captainbob8383 wrote...
Destruction: Shepard’s way of thinking. During the series he acknowledges Saren and The Illusive Man mistakes, and never ceased to tell them why they were wrong. Since the very first Mass Effect, his final goal has always been to destroy the Reapers.

… and ‘Destruction’ is the only choice that lead to the scene where we see Shepard breathing.

I totally agree, but what I don't get is why Bioware made the Destroy ending kill the geth and EDI. They were the ones that showed us that the Catalyst's assertion is wrong to begin with. Killing them betrays everything (at least a Paragon) Shepard stood for, just like the other two options. The option that actually fits the Shepard we know isn't there, and unfortunately I don't believe the IT holds any truth either. I can only see the current endings as a complete defeat for Shepard. The moment we choose one of the three options, the moment we let the Reapers decide the galaxy's future, is the moment Shepard abandons whatever he/she stood for.

[Azue]

Grasich wrote...

gekko513 wrote...

Destruction does not equal Shepard's way of thinking. He's thrilled about the peace between Geth and the Quarians if you choose that, even if the Quarians are equally as bad as the reapers seen from a synthetic point of view.

He wants to destroy the reapers early on for their actions as seen from the organics perspective. In the end he gets told the bigger picture. That changes the premisses. What then becomes Shepard's way of thinking is up to you to decide.

I don't know about yours, but my Shep wasn't in the habit of believing ANYTHING the Reapers told him.

Let's change the context here a bit for perspective. Imagine, instead of the god-kid, Harbinger had appeared and told you the exact same things. Would you believe him for even an instant?

This, the child form is obviously a trick to get Shepard to trust the reaper spokesperson.

[Grasich]

-Draikin- wrote...

captainbob8383 wrote...
Destruction: Shepard’s way of thinking. During the series he acknowledges Saren and The Illusive Man mistakes, and never ceased to tell them why they were wrong. Since the very first Mass Effect, his final goal has always been to destroy the Reapers.

… and ‘Destruction’ is the only choice that lead to the scene where we see Shepard breathing.

I totally agree, but what I don't get is why Bioware made the Destroy ending kill the geth and EDI. They were the ones that showed us that the Catalyst's assertion is wrong to begin with. Killing them betrays everything (at least a Paragon) Shepard stood for, just like the other two options. The option that actually fits the Shepard we know isn't there, and unfortunately I don't believe the IT holds any truth either. I can only see the current endings as a complete defeat for Shepard. The moment we choose one of the three options, the moment we let the Reapers decide the galaxy's future, is the moment Shepard abandons whatever he/she stood for.

This is one of the defenses for IT, that a Shepard that realized that the god-kid was full of crap and who wanted to destroy the Reapers, might do so on the premise that the Geth were allies, and so the god-kid was wrong. Therefore, the god-kid tells Shep that the Destroy ending will kill them, which might give Shep pause.

Another oddity is that the option available at very low EMS is the opposite of whatever alignment you were in ME2 (assuming god-kid is correct, and control is paragon while destroy is renegade). If you save the collector base (Renegade) you get control (Paragon?) while if you destroy it (Paragon) you get the destroy option (Renegade?)

[dreman9999]

captainbob8383 wrote...

 



I think, this whole ‘godChild’ scene acts as a test for Shepard, for the player behind him. Saren and The Illusive Man, two great heroes, tried to stop the Reapers before Shepard, and failed, the game asks you if you understand why and challenge you to not repeat the same mistakes.

crucible definition......
http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/crucible 

1. A vessel made of a refractory substance such as graphite or porcelain, used for melting and calcining materials at high temperatures.2. A severe test, as of patience or belief; a trial. See Synonyms at trial.3. A place, time, or situation characterized by the confluence of powerful intellectual, social, economic, or political forces:

[gekko513]

Grasich wrote...

gekko513 wrote...

Destruction does not equal Shepard's way of thinking. He's thrilled about the peace between Geth and the Quarians if you choose that, even if the Quarians are equally as bad as the reapers seen from a synthetic point of view.

He wants to destroy the reapers early on for their actions as seen from the organics perspective. In the end he gets told the bigger picture. That changes the premisses. What then becomes Shepard's way of thinking is up to you to decide.

I don't know about yours, but my Shep wasn't in the habit of believing ANYTHING the Reapers told him.

Let's change the context here a bit for perspective. Imagine, instead of the god-kid, Harbinger had appeared and told you the exact same things. Would you believe him for even an instant?

Well, yes, the motives of the Reapers seem very consistent. They leave the Citadel and the Mass Relays intact between cycles hoping for the organic civilizations to mature into being ready to end the cycles and the need for them as, the reapers see it. On the other side of the Crucible solution, you have the Reapers own attempts at working towards a synthesis, the harvesting and building of new synthetics modelled after organics with the right properties.

If I as Shepard were to try and make any sense of the reapers, those explanation are believable. Of course, the choice to appear as the child I remember from earth can definitely be seen as an attempt to manipulate me and make me more sympathetic towards their way of thinking. Just like the Illusive man hand picked sympathetic crew for the Normandy 2 in an attempt to gain my trust.

It doesn't make sense for the Reapers to be just pure evil. There must a motive behind their actions, so yeah, I'd believe it from the Harbinger as well.

[dreman9999]

gekko513 wrote...

Destruction does not equal Shepard's way of thinking. He's thrilled about the peace between Geth and the Quarians if you choose that, even if the Quarians are equally as bad as the reapers seen from a synthetic point of view.

He wants to destroy the reapers early on for their actions as seen from the organics perspective. In the end he gets told the bigger picture. That changes the premisses. What then becomes Shepard's way of thinking is up to you to decide.

If your facing an enemy that doesn't back down an always want to destroy or control you...What little choice do you have but to destroy them?

[Grasich]

gekko513 wrote...

Well, yes, the motives of the Reapers seem very consistent. They leave the Citadel and the Mass Relays intact between cycles hoping for the organic civilizations to mature into being ready to end the cycles and the need for them as, the reapers see it. On the other side of the Crucible solution, you have the Reapers own attempts at working towards a synthesis, the harvesting and building of new synthetics modelled after organics with the right properties.

If I as Shepard were to try and make any sense of the reapers, those explanation are believable. Of course, the choice to appear as the child I remember from earth can definitely be seen as an attempt to manipulate me and make me more sympathetic towards their way of thinking. Just like the Illusive man hand picked sympathetic crew for the Normandy 2 in an attempt to gain my trust.

It doesn't make sense for the Reapers to be just pure evil. There must a motive behind their actions, so yeah, I'd believe it from the Harbinger as well.

Then you are a much more trusting individual than I.

[dreman9999]

gekko513 wrote...

Grasich wrote...

gekko513 wrote...

Destruction does not equal Shepard's way of thinking. He's thrilled about the peace between Geth and the Quarians if you choose that, even if the Quarians are equally as bad as the reapers seen from a synthetic point of view.

He wants to destroy the reapers early on for their actions as seen from the organics perspective. In the end he gets told the bigger picture. That changes the premisses. What then becomes Shepard's way of thinking is up to you to decide.

I don't know about yours, but my Shep wasn't in the habit of believing ANYTHING the Reapers told him.

Let's change the context here a bit for perspective. Imagine, instead of the god-kid, Harbinger had appeared and told you the exact same things. Would you believe him for even an instant?

Well, yes, the motives of the Reapers seem very consistent. They leave the Citadel and the Mass Relays intact between cycles hoping for the organic civilizations to mature into being ready to end the cycles and the need for them as, the reapers see it. On the other side of the Crucible solution, you have the Reapers own attempts at working towards a synthesis, the harvesting and building of new synthetics modelled after organics with the right properties.

If I as Shepard were to try and make any sense of the reapers, those explanation are believable. Of course, the choice to appear as the child I remember from earth can definitely be seen as an attempt to manipulate me and make me more sympathetic towards their way of thinking. Just like the Illusive man hand picked sympathetic crew for the Normandy 2 in an attempt to gain my trust.

It doesn't make sense for the Reapers to be just pure evil. There must a motive behind their actions, so yeah, I'd believe it from the Harbinger as well.

I would not...I also don't see the reapers as evil, just miss guided.. The fact remains that they want to kill our indivisuality to save use.. As long as that is their goal, I'll never agree with anything they say.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 avril 2012 - 01:54 .

[esalor]

Am I forgetting Revelation and ME1?
Before meeting Sovereign, Saren was portrayed (and perceived by Anderson) as minimally an "ends justify the means", ruthless, operator of the Council. He was, at its worst, a sadist who enjoyed torturing people for information who also distrusted Humanity.
I don't remember him expressing any opinion on synthesis. He learns about an important artifact that can control and manipulate the Geth and goes looking for it at the end of Revelation. We infer that he finds Sov., realizes what is going on and the reaper indoctrinates him using the idea that only synthesis can save sentient life from reapers.
Am I missing something?

if the above is correct, yes, Saren represents Synthesis. But, if we are believing the Indoctrination theory, just as TIM's indoctrination took the form of a belief that he can control the Reapers, Saren's took the form that he can merge with them.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face or until people actually get it:

The merit of an idea is independent from the morality of those who support it.

Indoctrination uses people's ideals and subverts them.

(1) Saren believed in something like the Synthesis. "The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither". In itself that is not a bad goal. Reaper indoctrination made him believe the Reapers would realize it. He was wrong in the latter, but the idea can still have merit.

(2) TIM believed that controlling the Reapers was a viable way of ending the conflict. Guess what? He was right? The Catalyst confirms it. That he walked over heaps of corpses to get there makes him evil, but the goal of controlling the Reapers does not.

The "evilness" of a person does not infect their goals. Their goals may or may not be evil, but the means used to achieve them do not make them so.

As for what Shepard thinks, I define what my Shepard thinks. It's not for anyone else to say.

No one is saying anyone is truely evil. The entire thing with the reapers is just a conflict of morals.
The moraliy of organics vs that of machies. We see much of both moralitys in the game but the morality of the reapers is one of total control in the level of a machine. That is what we are fighting.

[Grasich]

Would also just like to throw in here that 3 of the times you see the kid he is directly next to, or below a "Warning", "Danger", and then "Caution" sign. You don't place a character in that kind of positioning 3 times in a row on accident.

[Verit]

Grasich wrote...
This is one of the defenses for IT, that a Shepard that realized that the god-kid was full of crap and who wanted to destroy the Reapers, might do so on the premise that the Geth were allies, and so the god-kid was wrong. Therefore, the god-kid tells Shep that the Destroy ending will kill them, which might give Shep pause.

I know it's a defense for the IT, but if Bioware had anything like this planned, we would have known by now. I could believe the IT was once planned but was scrapped due to lack of time, but that's about it. Bioware's defensive reaction is really telling that they had no backup plan.