5087 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

NorDee65 wrote...



I imagine the writers - who I assume (!!) to have at least some knowledge of the game lore - tried to have put a spin on the original "Dark Energy"-plotline, and failed subsequently (and I fully understand that, because the whole plotline was quite iffy, to start with). And thus they seemed to have agreed on a new ending and started unraveling the plot backwards, symbolised by the Catalyst and its "reasoning".

Picking the end as the beginning of developing a plot so late into the game/s serves its own problems because you suddenly have to wonder not only how and why to stop the Reapers, but also how to get Shepard into this position where she more or less (re-) acts under remote control*. Maybe it would have worked better if they could have taken their on sweet time with it. As it stands they tried to pound a square thing through a round thing.

*Just to clarify, an example: Shepard is by now a seasoned veteran of many battles, and yet just accepts that she is to run through an open field without even attempting to go behind cover occasionally (as she advised everyone to do on Tuchanka, for instance) to escape the Reaper's death-ray (and there was cover, not much, but maybe sufficient to hide one or two people behind...)? When I saw that open field the first time I thought "no way will my Shepard mad-dash through there" and than she did, with unsurprising consequences. But she had to, because the (new) plotline demanded that she be injured, maybe even traumatised when meeting the end.

Maybe it was the writers way of saying "goodbye Shepard, this is your curtain call!" or maybe Shepard was supposed to be in a vulnerable state of mind, or whatever. If the writers had taken the "real" Shepard into consideration they might not have taken this abrupt and immersion breaking approach, but the plotline demanded it and they delivered. Now, I do not mind the fact that Shepard gets injured (badly if I am to believe that one scene where she looks at her bloody hand/arm), but I want it to mean something, like the fight on the asteroid in "Arrival", that was epic. But to just run into a deathray? No, not logical nor epic.

That whole scene and the aftermath are part of the problem or begin the problems with the ending.  It's sad that Marauder Shields is the best thing about it.  Even if Shepard quickly determined there was no other way but to run through that open area, well they all would have made a quick plan for some to try and draw fire in order to get Shepard through.

The big thing is that that scene is where logic seems to be tossed in the dumper.  After Shepard is hit, voices say no one survived.  Ok, an "I don't know if anyone survived" would have made more sense.  And then a retreat is ordered.  Retreat for who and to where?  If they didn't survive, no one is in immediate harm's way, and retreat isn't an option anyway.  Somebody has to try to get up to the Catalyst.  Even if they didn't, it's already clear that there's nowhere to run.

Of course all this is punctuated by a whimpy spineless Shepard that listens to and believes the Reaper's puppet master.  Yeah, right. Shepard should have said s/he didn't believe the kid at the very least.  But, we get an "I don't know" and "The Illusive Man was right".  Ugh.  And we have 3 choices that are like deals with the devil.

The cake is a lie, if you believe the kid has the cake.  Otherwise, yes the promise of the cake is a lie.

[Hawk227]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I can't see any reason why, if IT was planned, the whole "you didn't act fast enough, the crucible was destroyed" ending resulted in a game over with no actual end cutscene or save state. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing an easter-egg opportunity of that caliber to go unused. They could have done a Chrono Trigger style "this is what will happen if you don't act" scene (similar to what played if you let the timer run out on Arrival). This wouldn't expose the seams of the trick at all, but would provide a more convincing experience. Having the "destruction of the crucible" result in a game-over, "you just got traditionally blowed-up" resume screen is a ridiculously obvious missed opportunity, especially considering they went out of their way to give you a "time ran out" consequence in a past DLC.

I don't know, I think that goes both ways. Such an "Arrival"-style cinematic would've worked really well in the literal game as well. I think the question is why have a time limit at all? Was it a constraint with the engine?

I'm sorry if this is just deflecting, I guess I don't fully see what you're envisioning.

Secondly, if the Crucible is lying about the effects of the destroy pipe, why does he lie in such a patently moronic way, a way guaranteed to not sway a huge, huge proportion of Shepards (something like 60-80% based on polls I've seen.) Of people who didn't even remotely suspect IT, more than 50% seem to have chosen destroy. Do you think the same proportion would have chosen Destroy if, say, the Earth was on the chopping block rather than the Geth and Edi? I don't think so. That hitting destroy would destroy the earth is as plausible, or more plausible than destroying the Geth and Edi, and it would actually work on some significant portion of Renegades.

I guess it's a question of how many people they wanted to "indoctrinate". They have to have some collateral damage to make people consider the other options, but if that collateral damage is too high, what's the reaction? What defines too high? Again, I'm probably deflecting. You make a good point. If the catalyst was lying to push you off the destroy pipe, why not pick Earth? Agreed.

The reason these things would have to be tighter for IT to really work is this: IT is asking you to hit a "commit genocide" button.

I've brought up the "Cobb's wife" allegory a half-dozen times, and no IT adherent has ever addressed it. Are you sure enough that you're dreaming to commit suicide? Are you sure enough that you're dreaming to commit genocide?

In a game where the player inhabits the role of the person committing suicide or genocide, presenting this question sloppily is both unfair and artistically lazy.

Full Disclosure, In a daze at the end of my first playthrough I picked control, so this is all hindsight is 20/20 stuff.

That being said, I think Destroy is always the right option. If you could trust the Catalyst absolutely, Control* would probably be best because the only collateral damage is the relays, but I don't think you can trust him absolutely. The Reapers, left unabated, will commit genocide on every organic species that ever exists. The other two options leave them alive. The only way to be sure, is to pick destroy. It sucks, I don't like it at all. It makes my War-Hero Shepard into a war-criminal. Thematically it goes against everything before it.

From an IT perspective, it isn't supposed to be a gamble... I don't think. It isn't "normally I'd pick control, but I think this is an hallucination, so I'll try destroy". It's supposed to be a test of your resolve and your perception. Did you realize how surreal all of this is? Did you realize that the Catalyst has contradicted everything you already know? Can you trust him? Then do what you came here to do.

Strange Aeons pointed out 70+ pages ago that this is a decision made in a vacuum. Prior to this decision we always had two squadmates that we knew and trusted giving us their opinions. I noticed on my recent playthrough that there's a lot of dialogue from squadmates and allies throughout the game that amount to "Keep your resolve. Don't show the Reapers mercy. This war is only won with dead Reapers." Near the end of the game, both Samara and Javik basically tell you not to waver in the face of tough decisions, and not to show the Reapers any mercy. While totally circumstantial, this fits in really well with IT. The decision at the end isn't made in a vacuum. We've had squadmates prepping us for this all game long. I don't think the idea is to totally troll every-player, but to test how well you've been paying attention. If you're perceptive, you're supposed to see the illusion, and make the "appropriate" choice.

[delta_vee]

Nyoka wrote...

You have rejected every enemy. Saren, Sovereign, TIM, Harbinger, the destroyer on Rannoch, and even the Prothean VI when he starts with the defeatist talk - that we can't win, that we should be preparing beacons to warn the next cycle, yadda yadda. You can just interrupt him and say "we will stop them" and walk out on him. That is a renegade interruption if I recall well.

3DandBeyond wrote...

Of course all this is punctuated by a whimpy spineless Shepard that listens to and believes the Reaper's puppet master.  Yeah, right. Shepard should have said s/he didn't believe the kid at the very least.  But, we get an "I don't know" and "The Illusive Man was right".  Ugh.  And we have 3 choices that are like deals with the devil.

This is a large part of why I think the Catalyst was meant to be taken at its word. The conversation pattern, including and especially the inability to challenge its statements, resembles the dialogue restrictions of other characters in positions of authority within the game (Anderson, TIM circa ME2, Hackett, etc).

iamthedave3 wrote...

It's the same as developing any sort of critical skills. Someone who indulges in movie studies can never quite watch a movie the same way again, because there's always that moment where they know what's going on behind the movie and a part of their brain goes 'you, director, are lame'.

 

This happens to me with games with increasing frequency.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

On the other hand, I do consider the planets andcodex and Cerberus News Network to be "required reading." Those microfictional jaunts provide some really important worldbuilding that you get nowhere else. 

So yeah. I'm not sure why I draw the line there, but I do.

I think it's a product of those pieces of microfiction being intrinsic to the game, as opposed to tie-in media which is intrinsic to the setting (in theory) but extrinsic to the game itself.

If it were a book which came with the game, I might consider it intrinsic in the same manner as the old-school feelies (miss you, Wing Commander manual!), which were quite frequently required reading to progress in the game.

Hawk227 wrote...

I don't know, I think that goes both ways. Such an "Arrival"-style cinematic would've worked really well in the literal game as well. I think the question is why have a time limit at all? Was it a constraint with the engine?

I think it's just to force you into a decision. If doing nothing gave an end-game of the Reapers winning, few people would fail to reload and pick something. Putting it as "critical mission failure" and reloading the save without going through an extended sequence of Reaper victory is, as far as I can tell, just an attempt not to waste anyone's time.

I guess it's a question of how many people they wanted to "indoctrinate". They have to have some collateral damage to make people consider the other options, but if that collateral damage is too high, what's the reaction? What defines too high? Again, I'm probably deflecting. You make a good point. If the catalyst was lying to push you off the destroy pipe, why not pick Earth? Agreed.

Even outside of IT, I wish they'd had Earth as the price of Destroy. It would be a matter of unfortunate proximity, not genocide. At least one of my Shepards would've accepted that cost.

Well, for one thing, there is a lot of evidence to support it. Much of it is circumstantial, some of it is unexplainable in any other light.

I'm with MrFob in thinking the "evidence" either way is actually indications and counter-indications, as opposed to outright evidence. If there were a previous segment somewhere along the way wherein the game established its ability to lie to the player (as opposed to characters lying to Shepard), then I'd accept that as actual evidence. The rest is somewhere between interpretation and heresay.

Modifié par delta_vee, 15 mai 2012 - 04:29 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Hawk227 wrote...

I don't know, I think that goes both ways. Such an "Arrival"-style cinematic would've worked really well in the literal game as well. I think the question is why have a time limit at all? Was it a constraint with the engine?

I'm sorry if this is just deflecting, I guess I don't fully see what you're envisioning.

I have a bunch of problems with the "crucible is destroyed" scene. If the ending is meant to be taken as written, then it is merely one rushed-feeling design decision among many. If IT is true, the "crucible is destroyed, resume?" scene is thematically nonsensical, unbelievably lazy, mechanically inconsistent, and shockingly negligent.

If the IT is true, the ending is meant to be a cleverly planned mental manipulation.

You expect me to believe that they thought to insert all the hundreds of "clues" that IT adherents propose as "truth," but never thought "oh hey, what happens if they refuse to participate, wait too long? We should make that a part of it."  You expect me to believe they thought out all the physical forms that the endings devices would take based on deeply considered metaphors and designed endings intended to symbolically portray those results, but never considered to apply this to what would happen if the player chose not to participate?

The designers did consider that some people would delay or attempt to examine more than one option... they prove this by icluding the "crucible is destroyed, resume" screen at all. If it merely didn't happen, there would be far fewer problems. That "the crucible is destroyed, resume?" exists, and exists in its current form, is what makes it so problematic.

If you believe in IT, you're saying that they intentionally crafted an intricate web of metaphor but completely failed to engage one of the most interesting and important aspects of it. You believe this is more plausible than the idea that the ending was merely rushed and unpolished.

Secondly, the thematic implications of  the "crucible is destroyed, resume" are absolutely  horrifying if you believe IT is true.

The game is saying that  refusing to participate in a system is less valuable than making a conscious decision to engage in violence.

it is saying that the quickest way to die or be brainwashed is to actually think about your options: remember the "citadel is destroye, resume" scren appears if you try to even look at more than one option. This is completely antithetical to everything we know about indoctrination, where careful consideration and mental engagement are the only things that can shake someone from its sway.

If IT is true, the ending says that single-minded hatred, racism, and willingness to murder people in order to achieve your goals are the qualities that make you most likely to resist indoctrination. This contradicts the fact that the two most thoroughly indoctrinated people we see are Saren and TiM, two people who started out as ruthless racists willing to murder thousands. It actually seems like this personality type is more likely to fall to indoctrination.

If IT is true, the existence of "the crucible is destroyed, resume" implies that the ability to think and consider your options, the desire to make an informed decision is the absolute worst thing you could do, something that will result in a failure so acute that you are introduced to nothingness, a horror so great that your only choice is to try again, with less thinking this time.

If IT isn't true, then refusing to engage reults in a "resume," and nothing more, simply because it was rushed.

I think that's more plausible and less sickening.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 15 mai 2012 - 06:53 .

[MinatheBrat]

3DandBeyond wrote...

That whole scene and the aftermath are part of the problem or begin the problems with the ending.  It's sad that Marauder Shields is the best thing about it.  Even if Shepard quickly determined there was no other way but to run through that open area, well they all would have made a quick plan for some to try and draw fire in order to get Shepard through.

The big thing is that that scene is where logic seems to be tossed in the dumper.  After Shepard is hit, voices say no one survived.  Ok, an "I don't know if anyone survived" would have made more sense.  And then a retreat is ordered.  Retreat for who and to where?  If they didn't survive, no one is in immediate harm's way, and retreat isn't an option anyway.  Somebody has to try to get up to the Catalyst.  Even if they didn't, it's already clear that there's nowhere to run.

Of course all this is punctuated by a whimpy spineless Shepard that listens to and believes the Reaper's puppet master.  Yeah, right. Shepard should have said s/he didn't believe the kid at the very least.  But, we get an "I don't know" and "The Illusive Man was right".  Ugh.  And we have 3 choices that are like deals with the devil.

The cake is a lie, if you believe the kid has the cake.  Otherwise, yes the promise of the cake is a lie.

This is a really good point. 

It just adds another layer of headscratching considering that the two squad-members who exited the Normandy after it crashed with the ending I got were the two squad members that were charging the beam with my Shepard.

So.... no one survived- yet Shepard did, Anderson did (looking healthy and not very burnt, btw) and my two ground-zero squad members -who also looked extremely unharmed and also very out-of-armor as they exited the Normandy.

So the logic that gets disregarded is not only the player's but also the game's own.

Modifié par MinatheBrat, 15 mai 2012 - 04:42 .

[edisnooM]

MinatheBrat wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

That whole scene and the aftermath are part of the problem or begin the problems with the ending.  It's sad that Marauder Shields is the best thing about it.  Even if Shepard quickly determined there was no other way but to run through that open area, well they all would have made a quick plan for some to try and draw fire in order to get Shepard through.

The big thing is that that scene is where logic seems to be tossed in the dumper.  After Shepard is hit, voices say no one survived.  Ok, an "I don't know if anyone survived" would have made more sense.  And then a retreat is ordered.  Retreat for who and to where?  If they didn't survive, no one is in immediate harm's way, and retreat isn't an option anyway.  Somebody has to try to get up to the Catalyst.  Even if they didn't, it's already clear that there's nowhere to run.

Of course all this is punctuated by a whimpy spineless Shepard that listens to and believes the Reaper's puppet master.  Yeah, right. Shepard should have said s/he didn't believe the kid at the very least.  But, we get an "I don't know" and "The Illusive Man was right".  Ugh.  And we have 3 choices that are like deals with the devil.

The cake is a lie, if you believe the kid has the cake.  Otherwise, yes the promise of the cake is a lie.

This is a really good point. 

It just adds another layer of headscratching considering that the two squad-members who exited the Normandy after it crashed with the ending I got were the two squad members that were charging the beam with my Shepard.

So.... no one survived- yet Shepard did, Anderson did (looking healthy and not very burnt, btw) and my two ground-zero squad members -who also looked extremely unharmed and also very out-of-armor as they exited the Normandy.

So the logic that gets disregarded is not only the player's but also the game's own.

That's actually a question I would like answered by BioWare: how at any point during production did the Normandy scene get a final OK? Nobody thought it didn't make sense?

I think that was when the ending may have really hit me full force. I was already annoyed about the Catalyst conversation and my being forced to choose a solution to a problem I didn't think existed, the game had already began to unravel for me.

But then I saw Joker in the Normandy in the middle of a Relay jump and I think I did an actual double-take. It was completely mind boggling. Then I saw Liara and Javik who had been two steps behind me exit the Normandy and I think I may have cursed.

[Hawk227]

@ CG Girl

To quote Commander Shepard at the pivotal moment: "I.... don't know".

I genuinely don't see a difference between "the crucible was destroyed, resume" in an IT interpretation vs. a literal interpretation. Either way, you are in a precarious position and have to make a decision quickly. If you dally bad things happen. This is also why I don't see a fundamental difference between "the crucible is destroyed, resume" and an Arrival style montage. Both are critical mission failures in which the player is likely to re-load and start over, the only difference apparent to me is one has a cinematic and the other doesn't. Either way the game punishes you for not acting quickly, for trying to think it through. Why is it a design flaw in one scenario, but "thematically nonsensical, unbelievably lazy, mechanically inconsistent, and shockingly negligent" in the other? The stakes are high either way. The allotted time to consider you options is short, either way. The decisions are (essentially) the same either way. You can choose between one horrifying choice that rids the galaxy of reapers, or two horrifying choices that don't rid the galaxy of reapers. The only difference is that in one scenario the choices are symbolic and in the other they're not. No matter what you choose, you are acquiescing to an atrocity. If you don't choose, it's game over, either way.

You're right that the most likely Shepard to break indoctrination is a heartless renegade (in this scenario), but that's not really the entire picture. I don't think TIM and Saren were indoctrinated because they were heartless renegades. TIM aspired to human domination of the galaxy. He was willing to do anything necessary, including utilize Reaper technology. He was power hungry and careless, and the Reapers convinced him that he could accomplish his goals if he did it their way. We don't really know the background of Saren being indoctrinated, but at some point he came in contact with Sovereign. Sovereign convinced him that the Reapers were going to obliterate organic civilization unless it submitted to them. Saren, not knowing better, I guess, took them at their word, believing he could work with the Reapers to shield organics (just turians?) from total destruction. They were indoctrinated, because they sided with the Reapers, not their penchant for murder. Destroy is a direct refutation of the catalyst's offer. Shepard is effectively calling their bluff, something neither TIM nor Saren were willing to do.

I will add, there are a lot of ways to come to that decision, not just being heartless renegade/sociopath. A lot of people that loved the Geth still picked destroy, absent of IT. They saw it as the only option to reliably free the universe of Reapers. Would they have greatly appreciated the Geth weren't collateral damage? Of course. But destroying the Reapers was their endgame. I would argue it was most people's endgame. People that already knew about IT or suspected something along those lines picked Destroy too. They did it because they didn't trust the Catalyst. They listened to his little tale and said "I call BS!" and hobbled over to destroy. Control and Synthesis only payoff if the Catalyst is forthright, and even then what is the payoff? Domination of an entire race? The player usurping the free will of the galaxy through some space magic wave of green light? But what if he's lying?

You're piling on destroy as though the alternatives aren't awful too. The choices are all repellant. Either the developers made them repellant on accident because they're just that oblivious, or they did it on purpose because they were supposed to represent Reaper choices.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I'll try to make it simple.

IT adherents think that a lot of thought was put into building a complex edifice of an ending.

Non IT people think that not a lot of thought was put into this.

Only in the case that not a lot of thought was put into it does the resume "ending" make any sense at all.

Also, you completely neglected to address the point I brought up about thinking about more than one ending. In your mind, what is happenind during the "the crucible was destroyed, resume?" scene in the context of IT? Is Shepard dying? Is she being indoctrinated? Why a cutscene for being indoctrinated but not one for dying? Or if she's indoctrinated if it takes too long, why no cutscene for that version of indoctrination? It makes no sense and it is inconsistent with the way that all the other supposed "failures" are presented.

If IT isn't true, it's still lazy and awkward, but so is the rest of the ending. It's not a glarzing moment of awkward laziness among an otherwise intricately constructed castle. IT adherents are aruging that the ending isn't lazy and moronic. Non-IT adherents argue that it is. Thus a lazy and moronic non-ending like "the crucible was destroyed, resume" is not jarring if you don't think IT is true. 

Can you not see how "the crucible was destroyed, resume" firing as soon as you make any attempt to even examine more than one device implies that rational thought and informed consideration are poisonous evils in the context of IT, while it does not imply that in the case of an actual space battle?

If you don't get this, I don't think I can get any simpler.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 mai 2012 - 12:37 .

[Xemnas07]

i seriously hope BW reads this, stop hiding behind artisitic integrity and own up to your mistakes

[delta_vee]

Hawk227 wrote...

Either way, you are in a precarious position and have to make a decision quickly. If you dally bad things happen.  [...] The decisions are (essentially) the same either way. You can choose between one horrifying choice that rids the galaxy of reapers, or two horrifying choices that don't rid the galaxy of reapers. 

The refusal to choose is a choice in itself.

"The only way to win is not to play."

What CG Girl is saying is that in fact the optimal choice in the context of IT is not to choose any of the options presented. To refuse to play the Catalyst's game* ("ceding one's agency at the critical hour" as it was put so eloquently upthread). The fact that the devs constructed the scene to eliminate this possibility suggests that either a) the message intended in the context of IT refused passive resistance in favor of active, malevolent violence, which is deeply problematic, or IT was not the intention.

I only say it was a time-saving device (to compel the player to choose quickly and not have to suffer through a long cinematic which would be immediately undone) because I personally am entirely convinced about the scene's intention to be taken as-is. I honestly hadn't thought of this counterpoint to IT before (thank you, CG Girl), but it's quite compelling.

* If indeed one believes the choices on offer are in fact the Catalyst's alone, and don't stem from the Crucible instead - I've seen plenty of people who view it as the Catalyst admitting defeat, and merely informing Shepard of the options at hand and the consequences thereof. The line "the Crucible changed me" supports this, as does the Catalyst's reluctance to trigger the Crucible in its own desired fashion and its seeming desperation to convince Shepard not to undo its eons-long work.

[KitaSaturnyne]

Hawk227 wrote...

Strange Aeons pointed out 70+ pages ago that this is a decision made in a vacuum. Prior to this decision we always had two squadmates that we knew and trusted giving us their opinions. I noticed on my recent playthrough that there's a lot of dialogue from squadmates and allies throughout the game that amount to "Keep your resolve. Don't show the Reapers mercy. This war is only won with dead Reapers." Near the end of the game, both Samara and Javik basically tell you not to waver in the face of tough decisions, and not to show the Reapers any mercy. While totally circumstantial, this fits in really well with IT. The decision at the end isn't made in a vacuum. We've had squadmates prepping us for this all game long. I don't think the idea is to totally troll every-player, but to test how well you've been paying attention. If you're perceptive, you're supposed to see the illusion, and make the "appropriate" choice.

In these cases though, all they're doing is support Shepard morally and reminding him/ her to keep him/herself focused on defeating the enemy. Saying these instances directly support IT and the idea that the Catalyst meeting is a dream is like Alanis Morrissette saying irony is rain on your wedding day.

[MrFob]

delta_vee wrote...

* If indeed one believes the choices on offer are in fact the Catalyst's alone, and don't stem from the Crucible instead - I've seen plenty of people who view it as the Catalyst admitting defeat, and merely informing Shepard of the options at hand and the consequences thereof. The line "the Crucible changed me" supports this, as does the Catalyst's reluctance to trigger the Crucible in its own desired fashion and its seeming desperation to convince Shepard not to undo its eons-long work.

I'd go so far as to say this is the only way the choices make sense if the endings are taken as is. Otherwise, I cannot
see a reason for the catalyst to include the destruction option in the choices for Shepard. I know many have focused on the genocideof the geth when talking about the destruction option but from the perspective of the catalyst, the geth are completely irrelevant and their destruction is just a side effect of the red shock wave which has the primary effect of destroying the reapers. It’s basically all amounting to the reapers and the catalyst committing suicide because they realize that their solution does not work.
If they were not defeated at that point but had their own ideas for the future, why place their fate so squarely in Shepard’s hands? Why not guide him towards Control or Synthesis exclusively?
The only answer that makes sense to me is that they acknowledge at this point that they failed and have to surrender. Does that mean Shepard wins? No really IMO because the decision is still made by the reapers/the catalyst exclusively. They allow Shepard to do whatever s/he does. In fact, Shepard and his/her forces are beaten at this point.
Thus, the only reason, Shepard can destroy the reapers is because they beat themselves. The faulty logic of their own agenda has finally caught up to the after millions of years. I think that is the true power of the crucible. It allows them to reconsider their actions and get out of th pattern they trapped themselves in.

[Hawk227]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

In your mind, what is happenind during the "the crucible was destroyed, resume?" scene in the context of IT? Is Shepard dying? Is she being indoctrinated?

Yes, Shepard is dying. In IT, Shepard is laying in a pile of rubble, burned, bloodied, helpless and (if the breath scene is to be believed) not breathing. Therefore it's fitting that there's a time limit.

The "crucible was destroyed" seems out of place, but what are the alternatives?

"Shepard just bled to death on Earth. Resume"?

As delta_vee has pointed out, submitting the player to a cutscene that will just be undone serves as annoyance more than anything.

I would like to add that I am not "IT adherents". That's a broad term that encompasses an entire spectrum of people and interpretations, of which I am only one. Many of the things attributed to "IT adherents" are not readily attributed to me. I have not said I think Bioware is the embodiment of brilliance, nor have I said that IT is absolutely right and you need to get onboard. I have not said that the ending (even in IT) is perfect and infallible, nor have I implied such. I've said that I don't think Bioware is this incompetent and oblivious. I have said that I think IT was a clever idea, that was (hypothetically) executed generally successfully. If that doesn't sound tepid to you, know that it is.

delta_vee wrote...

The refusal to choose is a choice in itself.

"The only way to win is not to play."

What CG Girl is saying is that in fact the optimal choice in the context of IT is not to choose any of the options presented. To refuse to play the Catalyst's game* ("ceding one's agency at the critical hour" as it was put so eloquently upthread). The fact that the devs constructed the scene to eliminate this possibility suggests that either a) the message intended in the context of IT refused passive resistance in favor of active, malevolent violence, which is deeply problematic, or IT was not the intention.

[snip]

* If indeed one believes the choices on offer are in fact the Catalyst's alone, and don't stem from the Crucible instead - I've seen plenty of people who view it as the Catalyst admitting defeat, and merely informing Shepard of the options at hand and the consequences thereof. The line "the Crucible changed me" supports this, as does the Catalyst's reluctance to trigger the Crucible in its own desired fashion and its seeming desperation to convince Shepard not to undo its eons-long work.

I have a different intepretation. To return to the comparison to Inception:

I envision the ending as being similar to what happens with Cobb in Inception. Shepard is Cobb, Harbinger is Arthur, and Anderson and Destroy are the subconcious elements that Arthur has little or no control over. The Reapers aren't offering you the destroy option, Shepard's own resolve is leaving an escape. It's portrayed as a destroy tube because Harbinger has just enough influence to plant that idea in Shepard's mind that its not actually an escape hatch, but rather a sinister device that will kill all his synthetic friends. The rest naturally lines up with CGG's comparison to Inception. Shepard can toil away in dream land forever, or at least until he dies of hypoxia/exsanguination, or he can physically escape. Sitting down and refusing to participate simply leads to the former. If you think that's highly problematic, I won't argue, but I'll point out that it is entirely present in the ending as is as well.


With that, I'm done posting about IT (perhaps done posting entirely) in this thread. It seems tempers are flaring, and I've noticed a conspicuous absence of many of the posters that drew me to this thread in the first place, coinciding with my increased contributions.

Modifié par Hawk227, 16 mai 2012 - 02:11 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Hawk227 wrote...

Yes, Shepard is dying. In IT, Shepard is laying in a pile of rubble, burned, bloodied, helpless and (if the breath scene is to be believed) not breathing. Therefore it's fitting that there's a time limit.

Then what's the point of continuing the indoctrination?

[Seijin8]

All sides of this issue have presented good and valid points, and therein lies (one of) the problem(s): There is no reading of the evidence that allows for *any* reasonable interpretation. It doesn't work logically in *any* direction.

Either it is real (not a hallucination), in which case, it makes no logical sense, or it *is* a hallucination, in which case the entire gameplay mechanic is at best, merely broken.

While I *like* the concept of IT, I have to apply Occam's Razor: Is it brilliance in disguise, or just sloppy and rushed? The only evidence that we have of this kind of brilliance hails from an era before EA took over BioWare (KoTOR). We have *lots* of proof the game was rushed and executed poorly.

Modifié par Seijin8, 16 mai 2012 - 02:19 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Hawk227 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

In your mind, what is happenind
during the "the crucible was destroyed, resume?" scene in the context of
IT? Is Shepard dying? Is she being indoctrinated?

Yes, Shepard is dying. In IT, Shepard is laying in a pile of rubble, burned, bloodied, helpless and (if the breath scene is to be believed) not breathing. Therefore it's fitting that there's a time limit.

The "crucible was destroyed" seems out of place, but what are the alternatives?

"Shepard just bled to death on Earth. Resume"?

The entire premise of IT is that things you see in the cutscenes are hallucinations related to things that are happening in real life.

There are two incredibly elaborate versions of this that last a long time for you falling to indoctrination.

But you dying? nothing. I'm not saying that it should be a "Resume" situation. I'm saying that if IT had been planned and done correctly, you'd get a similar cutscene that was similarly metaphorically relevant.

If it were part of IT, I'd expect to see the crucible destoryed, the citadel close its arms, and the reapers continue to attack earth. The Normandy might also be destroyed, perhaps bravely destroying one last Reaper. This would symbolize the Death of Shepard and the reapers' continued existence.

Also, bear this in mind:

Someone tested the "crucible is destroyed, resume" thing. If you stand in front of the child after he finishes speaking for a half hour, firing shells into his face or just picking your nose, it doesn't trigger the "the crucible is destroyed resume." It only triggers if you start moving, and then don't make a choice within a set time. Thus it is the decision to weigh the options in a reasoned manner and explore the possibilities that cause your death, not just "waiting too long and bleeding out."

I like the idea of IT, but if I assume that IT is true and I examine it thematically in the same way that drayfish examined the existing endings if taken as read, I find it equally troubling thematically.

Any situation where there is only one way out and that way out is not just sacrifice, but willingness to commit genocide to give yourself a chance at living... That's a Warhammer plot, not a Mass Effect one.

No matter what, the final lesson is this: you have to say out loud to yourself "I consider genocide acceptable in some situations" in order to "win" IT theory.  That is more revolting to me, personally, than any other possible ending.

Edit to clarify: I don't consider it revolting that anyone could make that decision - Mass Effect has always provided a decision-space where that was an option. I object to that decision being the absolute definition of mental strength and victory, with no other possible thing in shepard's head available to signifiy equivalent mental strength and conviction.

I'm sorry if I seem a bit angry. I just hadn't actually had a real reason to engage with the indoctrination theory thematically before it entered this thread, and the implications I have discovered are literally the most horrifyingly sociopathic fictional conceits I've ever encountered. I'm a little shell-shocked.

I like the concept of IT, but I never before realized that, in the form that IT is currently assumed to take, willingness to commit genocide to save yourself is presented as the apotheosis of mental fortitude, with every other possible choice (tolerance, compassion, self-sacrifice, conscientious objection) presented as nothing but weakness.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 mai 2012 - 02:49 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

Cheap joke that came to me at work.

What's the difference between Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3? One's an enthralling journey with a fantastic narrative, and the other is Mass Effect 3.

[delta_vee]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

...the implications I have discovered are literally the most horrifyingly sociopathic fictional conceits I've ever encountered. I'm a little shell-shocked.

Don't read any Peter Watts, then. Especially Blindsight. He'll halfway convince you sapience is a bad thing.

[CARL_DF90]

As much as I love to debate the merits of the Indoctrinatin Theory (accent on the word "Theory"), it would be best for everyone to stop debating about it (no pun intended) here on this thread. Good conversation or no it still derails the main point somewhat and I personally want to give NO ONE any excuse to lock it or otherwise attract any unwanted attention. I hope my fellow forumites can understand why I say this.

Modifié par CARL_DF90, 16 mai 2012 - 04:01 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

delta_vee wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

...the implications I have discovered are literally the most horrifyingly sociopathic fictional conceits I've ever encountered. I'm a little shell-shocked.

Don't read any Peter Watts, then. Especially Blindsight. He'll halfway convince you sapience is a bad thing.

I'm fine with bleak. I'm OK with the premise that everyone is jerks, and that jerks will be jerks... or, as Lord Vetinari put it:

"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people," said the man. "You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides."

The problem is not with the idea that all people are horrible, or that being horrible is profitable (though I'd have problems with these ideas if they were elevated as the most important themes in the context of this specific story). It's that the metaphor as presented portrays participation in an act of violence coupled with the willingness to commit genocide as the only possible quality that can be considered positive.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 mai 2012 - 04:09 .

[delta_vee]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

The problem is not with the idea that all people are horrible, or that being horrible is profitable (though I'd have problems with these ideas if they were elevated as the most important themes in the context of this specific story). It's that the metaphor as presented portrays participation in an act of violence coupled with the willingness to commit genocide as the only possible quality that can be considered positive.

Actually, that's exactly what reminded me of several of Peter's works. If you can, read his short story "Ambassador", or if you're so inclined (and not afraid of bleak) Blindsight is on his site, free and CC-licensed.

He's a really, really nice guy IRL, though, I swear.

Edit to add: It's not by any stretch that I think such a theme is appropriate in ME, at least not as a railroad. It's only that, given what you've said, the IT interpretation has a trace of the same line of thinking - and ending ME in a fashion remotely similar to Blindsight would be more of a travesty than we have now.

Modifié par delta_vee, 16 mai 2012 - 04:25 .

[Argetfalcon]

awesome

[edisnooM]

Not to disqualify anybody else's views on the endings and the implications thereof, but I wonder if might offer my view on the destroy ending.

When I first got to the ending and was presented with the choices I didn't care for any of them but destroy was the only one that to me I could ever consider choosing.

I did not think of destroy as genocide but rather as sacrifice. From what the Catalyst told me this choice would result in the deaths of all synthetics, including the Geth, EDI, and my Shepard.

I knew where my Shepard stood and would be willing to die to defeat the Reapers, I knew where EDI stood having declared her repulsion for the Reapers self preservation, and her willingness to die to defend her humanity. I also knew where Legion stood in staunch opposition to the Reapers and what they represented (also cut dialogue from a Geth Prime indicates the Geth's refusal to compromise any further with the Old Machines).

Because of this I believed that all affected parties would be willing to sacrifice themselves to stop the Reapers once and for all. Granted the breath scene threw a wrench in my view in that Shepard may have survived but the others not in which case I am annoyed, but if they all survived I am ecstatic (in your face glow boy).

What I disliked greatly was that my Shepard had to sacrifice all this to stop the Reapers. I had done everything "right" as far as I could tell. I had 7000 EMS. My Shepard had fought, and bled, and sacrificed, and hell even died over the course of the trilogy, but now he was forced to make a final sacrifice that seemed completely out of scale.

Anyway as I said I don't mean to declare my view better than anyone else's but I just thought I'd toss my two cents in.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

It can be both a genocide and a sacrifice, but the point is the same: no matter what, hitting that red cannister is voluntarily committing an act of genocide.

I mean, unless you either don't consider the Geth to count as living things, or they're already dead. Even if they're dead already, it would still possibly count as a genocide because we don't know how many actual AIs there are (see the CNN microfictional jaunt about the entire alien civilization that essentially lives in a version of the matrix housed in massive quantum computers. Are you murdering them too? Very likely.)

You have to sacrifice both your life and your belief that there is never an excuse for committing genocide on an innocent race.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 16 mai 2012 - 04:41 .

[edisnooM]

I wasn't trying to start a debate on whether or not it was or was not genocide (I did consider the Geth equals BTW). My point was that I thought that they would agree with sacrificing themselves to stop the Reapers.