312 réponses à ce sujet

[Huuntelaar]

Very, very good video.

[RedSpectrum47]

Watched it, it was quality. Explained a lot and had more "reality" to it than the IT

[ShadowFaction]

I have to say OP, that possibility has been on my mind for quite some time, but you certainly presented it better than I ever could.

Well done!

Modifié par ShadowFaction, 05 mai 2012 - 12:44 .

[PoisonMushroom]

Top notch stuff. I like the place you give IT in this as well. It doesn't necessarily have to be one big dream, where every detail needs explaining and justifying. The crux of it is, you're either doing what you've been trying to do all trilogy, or you're tricked into doing what your enemies have been trying to do all trilogy. There's your indoctrination right there.

The only way this works is if the other options are appealing, and to a lot of people they. Control could potentially work out fine, synthesis could be brilliant in ways we can't fathom. There's enough room to maneuver around the information given that they could be good fates for the galaxy. Even if to me their not. It's interesting that if we use the evidence given throughout the trilogy into account, they do become quite sinister options.

Having said this, whilst your interpretation does make the endings more justifiable and interesting, there's still a lot wrong with the ending. I think the choices fit really oddly in the narrative. This interpretation is one of the few that justify it, but the entire mood of the ending is still mismatched with what's going on.

Also we're made to speculate on an ending with many inconsistencies, which is a big problem. If you want an ambiguous ending, you need to make sure the rules are set out consistently. We fumble around in ignorance and at any moment we could fall right into a plot hole. It damages the credibility of information we are given before. Is there any significance to fact that sovereign calls themselves 'the pinnacle of existence and evolution' and the catalyst calls synthesis 'the final stage in evolution', or is it just another plot hole and inconsistency. Hopefully this is where the EC can bring back some credibility. I've rambled enough anyway. This was a really good watch, thanks for making it.

Modifié par PoisonMushroom, 05 mai 2012 - 12:52 .

[FatalX7.0]

If it needs to be explained so much, it sucks butt.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 05 mai 2012 - 12:43 .

[PoisonMushroom]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

If it needs to be explained so much, it sucks butt.

Did you actually watch it? The OP takes Bioware's role into account.

[Jorji Costava]

Just wanted to start out by saying I think this is a really good discussion. I'll try to go through each point in turn:

pro5 wrote...

The fact is that if Bioware did plan this out they would have planted clues in the game to guide the player to the correct decision in the end. Where would they plant those clues in a dialogue-driven game? In the dialogue of your companions.

Fair points here, but I'm considering things from the point of view of The Question: "On the basis of Shepard's information, what is the least bad choice?" From that point of view, considerations of foreshadowing and authorial intent have no significance. Considerations about what happens after the decision (i.e. Shepard surviving the destroy ending) are also irrelevant. For instance, Shepard cannot suppose that Destroy is the best option because it was clearly foreshadowed by the Creators of Existence, or something.

If you don't understand the final decision in terms of the Question, then you're metagaming. That's not necessarily bad, and I don't mean to tell anyone that there are right or wrong ways to play the game, but I think it would be objectionable if, in order to arrive at the correct, decision, one had to metagame. Yet unless I'm mistaken (which to be fair, happens quite often), that seems to be what your interpretation suggests.

pro5 wrote. . .

The Reapers are your enemy, defeating them remains your dead-set goal for 3 games. Then, in the last minute of the 3rd game, a new party appears which uses words "we" and "us" when referring to your enemy. This new party starts out by telling you something you know from experience is a lie (synthetics and organics cannot coexist). Then it proceeds to offer you 3 choices, without giving any significant details about how exactly those choices will work out (and those little details he does give are untrustworthy because he just lied to you). The ONLY real certain thing about them from his explanations is that your enemy doesn't survive in option C, while it continues to exist in options A and B.

If you really are convinced that synthetics and organics can coexist, isn't that just more reason to prefer control? Control is the only option that preserves both synthetics and organics while not messing with their natures in some bizarre way. Destroy just wipes them out. From that point of view, Destroy represents a deeper form of moral hypocrisy than Control. Of course, you could suppose, and seem to be supposing, that Star Kid is lying about this. But if he's lying, I don't see how there's any possible basis for making any choice (yes, I know I'm not the first person here to make this argument, but I haven't yet seen a persuasive response). You seem to suppose the following:

"Star Kid is telling you the total truth when he says that the Destroy option will wipe out the Reapers, but everything else he says about the options is completely false."

That strikes me as incredibly unlikely. Why would Star Kid be truthful only about the thing that presumably he least wants you to know about?

pro5 wrote. . .

The fact that TIM, the person who was arguing most passionately for using Reaper tech, was indoctrinated doesn't give you pause?

I'm not sure how this addresses any of the points I made in (3). I don't think you want to commit yourself to the claim that within the context of ME, using reaper tech is always wrong., because it straightforwardly entails:

a. It's wrong to make Thanix cannons
b. It's wrong to use the Reaper IFF.
c. It's wrong to complete the Crucible.
d. It was wrong for the Geth to attain individuality by using the reaper code.

(a)-(d) strike me as highly implausible. If they're true, then Shepard is a moral monster just in virtue of having gotten to the ending. As for TIM, I think that the reasons why it was wrong for him to try to take control of the reapers had less to do with cliches like "We're not ready!!!" and more to do with the fact that (i) he pursued ethically repugnant means of attaining this goal (i.e. Sanctuary) and (ii) he had ignoble motivations (i.e. 'The collector base would have allowed us to secure human dominance against the reapers and beyond!'). Unless your Shepard is a rabid speciesist, then (i) and (ii) don't apply to him.

pro5 wrote. . .

Reason 1: Lore of the ME universe from the first 2 games is not ignored / forgotten (it is if the ending is literal)
Reason 2: Most important logical incosistencies and contradictions in the ending turn out to be intentional (if the ending is literal, the amount of those is staggering).
Reason 3: Core themes of the ME universe from the first 2 games are not ignored / forgotten (they are if the ending is literal)
Reason 4: While such writing twist would not necessarily make a good ENDING for a game, it would still be a brilliant writing twist and an impressive example of breaking the 4th wall between the writers and their audience (if the ending is literal, then the writing is ... well ... of very low quality).
Reason 5: If it was intended, it means that the real ending is yet to come (if the ending is literal, then the Extended Cut will do nothing except spray salt all over the wound).

These are all really interesting points. I'm not quite sure how they all work unless you're fully embracing IT. For instance, suppose you choose destroy. Doesn't it follow on your view that everything which happens afterwards is 'real?' (i.e. Reapers destroyed, etc.). In that case, we still have the Normandy crashing plothole, the relays blowing up, etc. I'm probably just misinterpreting you, though. Didn't have time to go through the video and look for the text parts again.

Lastly, I guess my main concern is that I wish the whole "TIM wanted X, therefore X is bad" argument would just go away (this comment isn't directed at you in particular; the argument has cropped up about 5,623 times on these boards). Control has a lot of problems (not the least of which is "How can you control something if you're dead?"), and I'm open to the possibility that when all the considerations are weighed, Destroy wins out. But the fact that TIM liked control isn't even close to being a knockdown argument. The principle "If a bad person liked X, you ought not do X" is just not a sensible way to think about moral issues. I think the ending is bad enough; the prospect that it might be encouraging poor reasoning just makes it that much worse. Anyways, I hope this discussion has been as interesting for you as it has been for me.

[FatalX7.0]

PoisonMushroom wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

If it needs to be explained so much, it sucks butt.

Did you actually watch it? The OP takes Bioware's role into account.

Did I watch it?

Nope.

There have been numerous "clarifications" and "explanations" in videos and articles and blogs and whatever else you can think of.

Modifié par FatalX7.0, 05 mai 2012 - 01:19 .

[PoisonMushroom]

osbornep wrote...

Lastly, I guess my main concern is that I wish the whole "TIM wanted X, therefore X is bad" argument would just go away (this comment isn't directed at you in particular; the argument has cropped up about 5,623 times on these boards). Control has a lot of problems (not the least of which is "How can you control something if you're dead?"), and I'm open to the possibility that when all the considerations are weighed, Destroy wins out. But the fact that TIM liked control isn't even close to being a knockdown argument. The principle "If a bad person liked X, you ought not do X" is just not a sensible way to think about moral issues. I think the ending is bad enough; the prospect that it might be encouraging poor reasoning just makes it that much worse. Anyways, I hope this discussion has been as interesting for you as it has been for me.

I think the 
"TIM wanted X, therefore X is bad" argument is valid on two levels, at least if you expand on it.

A) We've been told and shown that controlling the reapers is impossible many times (even our own character has been telling us it's a bad idea). TIM's failure to control comes only 5 minutes before we have the opportunity ourselves. Every piece of evidence we have points to it being a flawed solution, from a practical sense. The only new information we get that supports it as a viable option comes from the Catalyst. This brings the choice down to a question of what you trust more, the evidence that's already been given or the Catalyst and the possibility that the crucible has the power to do it. Evidence wise, the illusive man serves as a final reminder that it's a bad idea and the game doesn't really give you any reason to trust the Catalyst, infact many of his comments before your choice make him seem untrustworthy, plus he controls the guys who've been killing your friends all game.

From a narrative perspective, it makes no sense. I think this is perhaps what most people mean when they say "TIM wanted X, therefore X is bad". It's a bit of an immersion breaking moment for me, when an option that's pursued by the villain becomes one we can choose, based on no new information, except a few vague words from the Catalyst. It gains meaning if there's a significant reason why control might work this time but not before but the only thing we have to go on is what the Catalyst says about TIM already being indoctrinated. It's a big point that could give credibility to the choice, but it's underplayed and doesn't really justify why Shepard would contradicts his own beliefs to choose it. It would be more justifiable within the narrative if it was an option that Shepard had considered throughout, but instead he'd been against the concept since day 1, so if we choose it we're massively contradicting our own character's beliefs and past actions.

I can see why some people pick it though. If the Catalyst can be trusted it's a pretty good solution. You could just fly all the reapers in the sun, or something if you really wanted to.

Modifié par PoisonMushroom, 05 mai 2012 - 01:40 .

[PoisonMushroom]

FatalX7.0 wrote...

PoisonMushroom wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

If it needs to be explained so much, it sucks butt.

Did you actually watch it? The OP takes Bioware's role into account.

Did I watch it?

Nope.

There have been numerous "clarifications" and "explanations" in videos and articles and blogs and whatever else you can think of.

There are. Many of them aren't worth watching. This one is.

It doesn't try and justify plot holes or anything like that. It just shows that given all the evidence we're given the game pretty much gives you only one logical option, yet people still choose the other two simply because they're swayed by what the Catalyst says. 

Modifié par PoisonMushroom, 05 mai 2012 - 01:48 .

[RMP _]

It could just be laziness on Bioware's part, but the problem with your theory is that all endings are presented as happy endings whatever you chose. Watching the control ending, Shepard does actually get the reapers to stop attacking and leave. If it was a trick along, why did it work for Shepard?
Same with synthesis, the reapers leave, and no one looks like a freaky abomination. The three crew mates that step off the Normandy don't even seem to notice or care of their change.

Modifié par RMP _, 05 mai 2012 - 02:13 .

[Stump01]

Good video, although it could've used a voiceover.

I do agree with many of your points, I just don't see how anyone could choose something besides Destroy.  If you really tried to see the situation through Shepard's eyes, how could you trust Starchild at all?  Yes, the cinematics may show Control and Synthesis working, but why would you think that either would work before you used the Crucible?  You just spent 2.99 games arguing against Control and Synthesis, and then based on a few sentences from some character you've never met before, you suddenly believe either one will stop the Reapers?  Choosing C or S just doesn't make any sense to me.

[nategator]

Stump01 wrote...

Good video, although it could've used a voiceover.

I do agree with many of your points, I just don't see how anyone could choose something besides Destroy.  If you really tried to see the situation through Shepard's eyes, how could you trust Starchild at all?  Yes, the cinematics may show Control and Synthesis working, but why would you think that either would work before you used the Crucible?  You just spent 2.99 games arguing against Control and Synthesis, and then based on a few sentences from some character you've never met before, you suddenly believe either one will stop the Reapers?  Choosing C or S just doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, you could have picked/tricked into S if you were heavily influenced by Battlestar Galactica.  The numerous references to that work (Battlestar news, the memorial wall, Tricia Helfer voicing an android, cycles of death and rebirth after thousands of years) could make the player believe that Mass Effect was pushing the same theme -- endless war was the enemy and in order to break the cycle, one had to merge human and machine.  Plus Shepard & co's continuous utilization of reaper tech were all setups/suggestions for the player to believe that reapers were not all bad, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.  All it took was Shepard sacrificing himself for the universe to achieve peace and harmony...suckers.

In many ways, if the theory advanced in the video is correct, that destroy is the only option against a genocidal "other", then what Bioware has done is offer a direct refutation of Battlestar Galactica and other sci-fi ilk that argue understanding and acceptance are the answer and not war.  It's a fitting response by a FPS RPG. 

Modifié par nategator, 05 mai 2012 - 05:06 .

[nategator]

Great video and much more persuasive then indoctrination theory. Also, more likely to fit with the recent EC DLC comments from Bioware.

A&B also remind me of the Morinth storyline. For those without a renegade bone in your body, if you choose to save her over Samara, then after the suicide run you have the option to take her up on her offer to try seeing if you are strong enough to survive mating with her because of your "willpower." If I remember correctly, the game during your initial encounter has you repeatedly resist her advances, which you have to pass to get the showdown between Morinth and Samara. Then, post suicide mission, when presented with Morinth's offer, you have the option to resist (saying something to the extent I'd rather live) but if you decide to believe Morinth's bs then she kills Shepard and the player gets a Mission Failure.

In many ways, the renegade is the only option theory is the same as the Morinth. You are trained throughout the game to have Shepard argue against compromise with the reapers and reaper tech. Then, at the end, you are offered the opportunity to compromise.

To clear things up, if the theory presented was also Bioware's intent it should simply provide the player a similar Mission Failure screen if the player chooses A or B, while preserving the easter egg ending for option C. Throw in some epilogue cut scenes of the supporting cast, and Bioware will probably placate its fan base and salvage the franchise.

[Kr0gan]

Occam's Razor, that's all.

[nategator]

Also, thought I would add a PDA message you get right after the soldier advising the woman about a tournaquit (right after Liara) in the darkened hallway room, and before the Wrex speech. I think this almost easter egg PDA adds further support to the Destruction only option theory. This quote may only be 98% accurate since I had to write it down:

-----Begin Message
People go into that place and come out not the same not human anymore

Can hear the voices crawling inside the back of my skull whispering they won't

Stop why won't it stop until I go where the others went get turned into one of those things

Oh go please makeit stop make it stop make it sto!!!

Won't listen to the voices won't go in there. Can make it stop. Know what to do.

---End message

If the "place" they go into is actually the beam then what Shepard experienced was a trap by the Reapers to take him to that "place", turn him into "one of those things", and then send him back as Reaper Shepard. Instead, by shooting the Catalyst (Shepard having the option because the Crucible was docked with the Catalyst) he sets off a chain reaction to eliminate the Reaper threat.

A slightly different interpretation is also based on a semi-easter egg detail.  After the Cerbus base attack it is noted in the War Assets that the Alliance has taken the Human Reaper's heart and instealled it to the Crucible as its power source.  Think about this for a second.  The Crucible is powered by the heart of a human proto-Reaper.  The Crucible has thus become tainted with Reaper tech.  Fast forward to the Catalyst.  What if the child was not the Catalyst, as it claimed, but merely a VI projection of the human proto-reaper?  Just at the end, the Human Reaper (who one of your companions felt was watching him during the base run) projects a VI representation to trick Shepard into using the Crucible incorrectly.  

Modifié par nategator, 05 mai 2012 - 05:46 .

[SC0TTYD00]

Yes, I agree that this is possible too. That the endings are there to make you doubt your final choice.

After my second play through I don't believe that IT is true (although the evidence would work)

I think the final choice, is the reapers last attempt to bargain with you and try and change your mind by just confusing you.

[pro5]

osbornep wrote...

Fair points here, but I'm considering things from the point of view of The Question: "On the basis of Shepard's information, what is the least bad choice?" From that point of view, considerations of foreshadowing and authorial intent have no significance. Considerations about what happens after the decision (i.e. Shepard surviving the destroy ending) are also irrelevant. For instance, Shepard cannot suppose that Destroy is the best option because it was clearly foreshadowed by the Creators of Existence, or something. 

If you don't understand the final decision in terms of the Question, then you're metagaming. That's not necessarily bad, and I don't mean to tell anyone that there are right or wrong ways to play the game, but I think it would be objectionable if, in order to arrive at the correct, decision, one had to metagame. Yet unless I'm mistaken (which to be fair, happens quite often), that seems to be what your interpretation suggests.

I would argue that "the least bad choice" would be the one that seems to pose the least risk at the moment of Shepard's making the decision. I can't fathom considering Control as such, because mere moments before, the "Catalyst" told Shepard that "they" were controlling TIM, who'd been advertising Control. He just outright goes and says that: "...we were already controlling him.".

If they were controlling him, his agenda was really their agenda. The Reapers would condition him against any line of thought that could possibly go against their design. If Reaper-controlled TIM says that Control is a good solution, then the Reapers consider Control a good solution. I'm not sure how else to interpret the situation, it seems a very straightforward logical conclusion to me.

Any solution that benefits my enemy is unacceptable to me, thus Destroy is really the only option left. It's that simple.

Is your line of reasoning that TIM was not fully under Reaper control? That some part of him was still fighting off the Reaper indoctrination and thinking "against the current"? But how can you be sure of that? The decision Shepard is making supposedly affects the whole galaxy and literally everyone you've ever known and cared about. Are you ready to stake all that on the slim hope that TIM was not fully controlled?

I'm sure as hell not. Not after hearing him shout "They're too strong!"...

osbornep wrote...


 Control is the only option that preserves both synthetics and organics while not messing with their natures in some bizarre way. Destroy just wipes them out. From that point of view, Destroy represents a deeper form of moral hypocrisy than Control.

Shepard was ready to die before starting the final push. EDI was ready to die to defeat the Reapers. The Geth were ready to fight and die for their freedom. Everybody knew the risks. The price-tag on Destroy (if it's to be believed) is horrible, no arguments there. But the alternatives seem to be solutions that the Reapers have been manipulating you to choose. Picking them is self-defeating.

osbornep wrote...



I'm not sure how this addresses any of the points I made in (3). I don't think you want to commit yourself to the claim that within the context of ME, using reaper tech is always wrong., because it straightforwardly entails:

a. It's wrong to make Thanix cannons
b. It's wrong to use the Reaper IFF.
c. It's wrong to complete the Crucible.
d. It was wrong for the Geth to attain individuality by using the reaper code.

This is a good point, and (a,c and d) are all something I've been wondering about when playing ME3.

My take on it, in short, is: "It was necessary" (EDI voice).
(a) Without Thanix cannons, there is no fighting the Reapers at all - no choice.
( Without Reaper IFF, there is no stopping the Collectors from completing the Human Reaper - no choice.
When TIM addressed EDI on the Cerberus base, he argued that she controlled Eva's body, instead of destroying it. Her answer is: "It was necessary". Do TIM's arguments change EDI's mind and make her pro-Control? No. Same situation here - there is no evident alternative to those decisions, they were necessary.

When deciding between Control and Destroy, there is a CLEAR alternative to Control, and one that fulfills our goal of defeating the Reapers, no less. It comes with what appears to be a nasty price-tag, but "victory never comes without making difficult choices."

I have to admit that © and (d) both didn't sit well with me at all when I was playing.

© When I read in the War Room that the core from that proto-Reaper was used in the Crucible, my first thoughts were: "Wha-?? Who the heck authorized that?! That's insane...".

(d) And when Legion showed Shepard "the upgraded" version of the Geth mind, the game did not offer me a dialogue option I really wanted to speak. Shepard could either side with the Geth and agree that the image looks "like a real AI", or say something that made him sound as anti-synthetic racist. I'm not racist, and I really like Legion and the Geth, but that image *really* disturbed me. I wanted to voice my concern that using "Reaper code" to obtain such upgrades was not a good idea, but alas the game did not have that option.

osbornep wrote...



These are all really interesting points. I'm not quite sure how they all work unless you're fully embracing IT. For instance, suppose you choose destroy. Doesn't it follow on your view that everything which happens afterwards is 'real?' (i.e. Reapers destroyed, etc.).

I intentionally never go further in the video to theorize what exactly happened in the ending scenes. It is up for debate and I cannot bring up any in-game evidence to back up those theories anyway. We'll have to wait for EC to answer those questions. And I do actually believe that the ending cinematics are NOT what really happens as result of our choices. Check out this thread - my belief is that Bioware have pulled off something similar in ME3 again. It would not be their first experiment with the "false endings".

osbornep wrote...



Lastly, I guess my main concern is that I wish the whole "TIM wanted X, therefore X is bad" argument would just go away (this comment isn't directed at you in particular; the argument has cropped up about 5,623 times on these boards).

Then you should be glad, because that is not the argument that I'm using. 
My main point of discontent with Control, the point that *nullifies* this option for me completely is "Reapers wanted X, therefore X is bad". And since the Reapers controlled TIM, TIM was conditioned to "want" what the Reapers want. Simple logic.

I'm not entirely opposed to Control in principle. TIM's arguments throughout ME2 and ME3 for using the enemy's own technology against them make good sense. They are tempting and appealing. But ultimately, I believe, it's a trap, same as Synthesis.

osbornep wrote...


 Anyways, I hope this discussion has been as interesting for you as it has been for me.

It is interesting! You've brought up many good points. I don't agree with all of them, but it's a good discussion - I wish BSN had more of this sort. If Mac Walters is reading this, he should be proud - we're following his designs for speculation to the letter! :happy:

Modifié par pro5, 05 mai 2012 - 04:41 .

[Zaalbar]

Great video bro, It gave me food for thought.

[Leafs43]

Every instance of combining organics and synthetics into some sort of hybrid has gone horribly wrong in the Mass Effect franchise.


Synthesis is the worst choice.

[pro5]

An off-topic comment 'cause it's interesting: 

For those of you who are interested in keeping track of Bioware's responses on Twitter, you might want to follow Billy Buskell - @ehlien. He is an associate producer on the ME franchise, and he's been generous (compared to say M.Gamble) with comments and replies to tweets relating to the ending reactions.

Modifié par pro5, 05 mai 2012 - 04:49 .

[Ombot]

Leafs43 wrote...

Every instance of combining organics and synthetics into some sort of hybrid has gone horribly wrong in the Mass Effect franchise.


Synthesis is the worst choice.

Overlord DLC.

[Leafs43]

Ombot wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Every instance of combining organics and synthetics into some sort of hybrid has gone horribly wrong in the Mass Effect franchise.


Synthesis is the worst choice.

Overlord DLC.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing.


Overord DLC shows how awful the results can be.

[Ombot]

Leafs43 wrote...

Ombot wrote...

Leafs43 wrote...

Every instance of combining organics and synthetics into some sort of hybrid has gone horribly wrong in the Mass Effect franchise.


Synthesis is the worst choice.

Overlord DLC.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing.


Overord DLC shows how awful the results can be.

Apologies. Agreed.

[Richard 060]

Something to consider when assessing the morality behind choosing 'synthesis':

Imagine picking this:




...and somewhere, there are pre-spaceflight civilisations (i.e., not of interest to the Reapers this cycle) on a level akin to this:



(Neanderthal Man)


...or even better, this:



(the Spanish Inquisition)



Now, riddle me this:

How exactly would 'primitive' (by Citadel race standards) civilisations like this be able to cope with suddenly being made 'part-synthetic', when it's unlikely they even have a notion of 'synthetic life' to begin with?

I could go on at length about the physical or social ramifications (imagine a huge religious schism between those who see it as a gift from 'above', and those who see it as a hellish curse - yikes...), but you get the idea.


So, with that in mind, what is the moral justification of doing this to an unsuspecting galaxy? Aside from the fact that it's completely disregarding free will and freedom of choice for every living thing in existence, would life be able to handle the change at all, or would it simply doom all lifeforms unable to adjust to a radically different status quo?