312 réponses à ce sujet

[Chashan]

OhoniX wrote...

This makes it rather obvious that more effort was put into Destroy with a wider range of results, ranging from horribad to "good". And the best result of Destroy as is pre-EC_is_ the one that requires the most EMS, therefore work, to achieve for both renegons and paragades, rendering your "effort"-argument rather moot.

The only thing that you can get out of the Destroy ending that "costs" more than he other endings is the "survive" portion, which is a personal victory for Shepard at the expense of the Geth. The other two endings do not have "survive" endings because self sacrifice were a necessary part of them.

Post-EC, it is debatable whether the apotheosis-ish nature of Control can be counted as "self-sacrifice" in that regard.

I have not watched the Director's Cut versions of Blue and Green yet - I am not certain I will, having arrived at an acceptable head-canon for Destroy - but apparently, they went for just those more utopic themes I mentioned: regarding Control, that is Apotheosis, Shepard's "transcending" to a plane of existence beyond mortals; Synthesis, Utopia, something I identified it as from the get-go (it was my very first choice playing through the game, I will not deny that).

I am still amazed they managed to do such an acceptable job of it, evening out the endings, making them all more palatable. Although some of the slides came across as somewhat cheap.

[pro5]

Ok, I think I've seen enough of EC and it's time to give an update to this thread.

First my thoughts on EC in relation to this thread and the interpretation in the video (also added this to the OP):

When making this video, I was sure the EC was going to make it obsolete soon by providing clarity and illustrating the ideology behind each choice better than any fan-made video ever could.

But it looks like this video is still as actual and useful now as ever, and will remain so - because Bioware, for reasons known only to them, chose to leave the ending ambigious and open to interpretation.

At least they made it clear *what* the Child really is... (EC spoiler alert: if you haven't tried shooting the kid or picking the new option to Reject his choices - you've missed a hell of a clue).

Oh, and the new wording of the Synthesis presentation by the Catalyst... It's brilliant, Bioware. Well done. I briefly considered making a new video just to spell it out for those who still can't make the connection, but why bother - this one already has all the puzzle pieces lined out... Hint: 30:27 and onwards in the vid.

[pro5]

Second, the "Did you like it?" question.

Before I answer it, I owe Bioware a hearty thanks for all the work they put into making the EC and giving it their best in trying to satisfy the fans. Casey Hudson said they were pouring their hearts and souls into the game, and it shows. Great job, and thank you!

I have to admit EC did not do what I expected it to. Instead of providing the promised "clarification" and "expanding" on the ending, Bioware chose to keep the ending basically what it was before: a truncated version of "Hordes of the Underdark" ending. Truncated, because in that NWN addon, we could have our earned actual ending upon picking the right choice. ME3 on the other hand, even with EC, offers me only a short clip of Shepard taking a breath. Fighting off indoctrination is great, but I kind of still want to know what happens after Shepard wakes up.

I can't help but feel there's a wealth of potential and opportunity in this ending that went unused. It's a shame.

[Ksandor]

They nearly indoctrinated me too! Thanks for this video. I think Bioware did this on purpose. The real Reaper challenge is on the intellectual level. They, Reapers or should I say Bioware... They wanted us to accept that Reapers are good (Control or Synthesis).

This is why I hated Stargate The Arc of Truth. Free will, freedom of choice... That's what makes us sapient and human.

Even if the cycle will repeat itself chaos should be our own choice and we can always assume that EDI and Geth survived too.

And the evil grin on Starchild's face. when Shepard did not choose the destroy option. And Reapers saying so be it, the cycle continues at the 4th rejection ending.

This just proves the indoctrination theory. At the last moment Reapers tried to indoctrinate Shepard.

Because if they really wanted Shepard for Synthesis why Harbinger tried to kill Shepard? And Shepard lives only at the Destroy ending.

This just proves the propaganda and brainwashing power of modern politics and marketing. If Bioware did this on purpose they really created a new form of artistic digital propaganda art.

It is both ironic and very dangerous. If I needed to watch a 40 min video to understand that the Destroy is the best ending and to stop myself being brainwashed...

Think about national elections and how politicians and businessmen brainwash us.

I consider Mass Effect series as an art form. Even if I hated the original endings. But this is art and doubly so!

Art of interactive media and art of indoctrination. The option which really scares me is this:

What if Bioware intended to do this all along? Hinting at the original ending and make us draw our own conclusions. And clarifying in a very subtle way at the EC? Didn't they say that the writers had intended to hint the endings originally?

God these guys are dangerous! But what a twist! Persuading people to chose Reapers in the form of control or synthesis.... Right at the end... Who could have thought that such a stupid ending could have such potential? Well the topic starter did obviously but if this indoctrination theory is true than we have to admit that Bioware is evil genius. That is too much even for me

It seems ME series should be a lesson to be taught at the schools. The ultimate evolution of life and as an example on how you can brainwash people....

Modifié par Ksandor, 27 juin 2012 - 08:52 .

[OhoniX]

See, told you Pro, the ending was the ending was the ending. The End. Time to pack it up and go home, and leave "indoctrination theory" to the "birthers," "truthers," and other assorted "nutters."

[buetzel]

Thanks for this video and the discussion that ensues. My first thought was: Yay! Great mindf*ck! Then I thought about it some more and I don't like what I thought out.

Just to put fuel into the fire of conspiracy theories in this thread:
What if we take this all a little too serious, put the Mass Effect franchise into a political context and look at the outcome of this discussion up to now? That is - I presume that Bioware is indeed indoctrinating the players, but for political reasons AND this video/thread was also intended by them. (Yeah, I know. Now it gets to be a full blown conspiracy theory.)


So we have a horde of people, who played the games, 

Some thought maybe that the control ending was the "right" one for them. The main character becomes what he is named for after all: a shepherd. The one protecting all other sapient races for eternity. Call him god if you are so inclined.

Some others maybe thought the synthesis ending "right" (like me by the way, without suspecting the "Reaper King" - as someone named him so eloquently - might be lying). They might have thought this really was a new way to end  the war against the reapers, which was not forseen by the reapers, to build a bright, utopian future for all sapient lifeforms while cooperating.

But after this video and the discussions above more and more players become convinced, that the only viable and correct option to end this war is destruction through superior firepower, accepting the collateral damage and even sacrificing friends, though clearly depicted there are other options. This all while denying the players the option for the biggest heroic act possible - the sacrifice of oneself for the greater good. Instead the own survival seems an argument for the correctness of the choice.

Is it just me or is this really even worse indoctrination than what was hinted at before?

So to put it short - we got 3 options:
- religion with the good willed invisible man in the sky, ultimately controlling everything
- pacifism and equal right to live for everyone without war and death - aka utopia
- war with superior weapons, ignoring the cost

What if this all was just propaganda for continuing the waging of war all around our little globe?

Thank you, but no thank you. I stay with my opinion, that synthesis was the "good" ending.

Modifié par buetzel, 29 juin 2012 - 12:20 .

[Alez Zinai]

OhoniX wrote...

See, told you Pro, the ending was the ending was the ending. The End. Time to pack it up and go home, and leave "indoctrination theory" to the "birthers," "truthers," and other assorted "nutters."

For me OP video was not about indoctrination - this theory was mentioned there at very end - as a possible "resolving method" to fix Mass Effect 3 ending, for me it was explanation why not extended Destroy ending is most logical and supported by characters from all trilogy (in short: all villains that wanted to control or to merge/synthesis were indoctrinated Reaper agents and even EDI and Geth did want to fight Reapers and sacrifice themselves in that fight), but by EC endings were CHANGED - obviously synthesis now for truly uniting organics and syntetics for improvment and understanding. So EC remove one of main reason to pick Destroy - poor writed Synthesis and Control

[OhoniX]

For me OP video was not about indoctrination - this theory was mentioned there at very end - as a possible "resolving method" to fix Mass Effect 3 ending, for me it was explanation why not extended Destroy ending is most logical and supported by characters from all trilogy (in short: all villains that wanted to control or to merge/synthesis were indoctrinated Reaper agents and even EDI and Geth did want to fight Reapers and sacrifice themselves in that fight), but by EC endings were CHANGED - obviously synthesis now for truly uniting organics and syntetics for improvment and understanding. So EC remove one of main reason to pick Destroy - poor writed Synthesis and Control

See, but I went Synthesis both times, and was satisfied both times. I don't think that the EC changed Synthesis in any way, it just explained it more. Pretty much everything that happened in the EC version were things that I already assumed to be true of the original version (although in the EC version they recovered from the effects much faster than I'd been assuming, and the Reapers were actually helpful, whereas I'd assumed that they would merely leave). But in broad strokes it pretty much did what I had already figured out that they would do, so from that perspective I don't think the EC was strictly necessary to justify the original endings, but I do think that they were pretty cool, and I got choked up a few times.

[Alez Zinai]

OhoniX wrote...
...
 I don't think that the EC changed Synthesis in any way, it just explained it more
...

Without these explanations endings can't withstand any critics and bring many speculations. And I must say that Synthesis CHANGED at EC: original version sounded like Saren - "union of flesh and steel strength of both weaknessness of neither" but after EC - it is all about organics enhancement  and synthetics understanding of organics. Latter being goal for Geth - Legion said that in ME2 and ME3. And former - it is interesting that at very begining of ME2 one of Miranda logs on Lazarus Project base states that Shepard was rebuilt using not tissue restoration but something called biosynthesis.

[OhoniX]

Without these explanations endings can't withstand any critics and bring many speculations. And I must say that Synthesis CHANGED at EC: original version sounded like Saren - "union of flesh and steel strength of both weaknessness of neither" but after EC - it is all about organics enhancement and synthetics understanding of organics. Latter being goal for Geth - Legion said that in ME2 and ME3. And former - it is interesting that at very begining of ME2 one of Miranda logs on Lazarus Project base states that Shepard was rebuilt using not tissue restoration but something called biosynthesis.

Well yes, if you read those, and the logs at the Cerberus base in ME3, and the Catalyst's dialog, it's clear that what the green ending turns people into is really no worse off than Shepard already IS by that point.

Basically, if you played the original endings and wanted to assume the worst, they gave you the option of doing so. If, on the other hand, you played the original endings with an open mind to the whole thing, then you could (as I did) easily assume the exact same scenarios that the EC presented. All EC did was solidify the potentials that the original ending offered, it didn't create any new outcomes.

[Alez Zinai]

OhoniX wrote...
...
Basically, if you played the original endings and wanted to assume the worst, they gave you the option of doing so. If, on the other hand, you played the original endings with an open mind to the whole thing, then you could (as I did) easily assume the exact same scenarios that the EC presented. All EC did was solidify the potentials that the original ending offered, it didn't create any new outcomes.

Agreed, poor (maybe even intended to be poor - remember "speculation for everyone") endings presentation made me assume the worst from them. And again agreed - no new outcomes (mind Refuse) - but their value and weight (in ingame consequences) were changed for me with EC release.

Modifié par Alez Zinai, 29 juin 2012 - 02:33 .

[pro5]

OhoniX wrote...

See, told you Pro, the ending was the ending was the ending. The End. Time to pack it up and go home, and leave "indoctrination theory" to the "birthers," "truthers," and other assorted "nutters."

EC made it clear in more ways than one that the Child represents the Reapers, not just some neutral AI who was controlling them. In other words, it pretty much confirmed all my reasoning in the video.

If you still don't realize that by choosing Synthesis you're admitting that the Reapers themselves (synthetic+organic hybrid) are the "ideal solution" which that was attempted before, it's your problem - I can't help you.

Believe what you will - I'm done arguing about this ending.

In 1982 the world saw the release of a movie called "Blade Runner", in which specially trained police units called Blade Runners were hunting down artificially created androids - Replicants. If was followed by years of arguments whether the main character - Deckard - was a replicant himself or not. Finally, 20 years later, it was revealed that he indeed was.

Well, guess what...
https://twitter.com/...377974838956032
(full conversation here)

I'm not sticking around for 20 more years on this forum. Or even 3 years, because I imagine that's how much it will take Bioware to create the sequel that's coming. I don't expect Shepard to be the main protagonist of the story there, but who knows.

Have fun. 

Modifié par pro5, 01 juillet 2012 - 11:01 .

[sushismygen]

Holy crap! Great work my friend!
Completly mind blowned atm. How did I not see it before?!

One does need to care for the detail in game though. I'm probably not the only one here to skip some dialogue here and there. No wonder it was hard to put together in retrospect.

The destroy ending was always the only choice for me but now, after watching your vid I just might be able to play ME3 again!

Thank you!