162 réponses à ce sujet

[JBONE27]

OdanUrr wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

Again, it is a complete 180 from the ending of the second game.  ME2 (destory the CB: Paragon; control the CB: Renegade).  And the CB isn't even a potentially sentiant being.  Unlike the Heretics in "A House Divided," we are not changing the way the Reapers think, we are basically enslaving them.  What was it that Saren said in the first game, "Isn't subserviance better than destruction?"  It's pretty clear that in the first and second games that it is not.  Owning another sentiant being is simply wrong.

First, it's not. You can't just argue that because we can destroy things in ME2 and that's the paragon choice, destroying something in ME3 must be the paragon choice as well. You need to look at the reason behind the destruction. Shepard's motives for destroying the CB in ME2 have to do with destroying the Human Reaper, because it was the result of the deaths of thousands of humans, maybe even your own crew. It was tainted, if you like, and Shepard would not bring himself to use such a weapon. On the other hand, your choices in ME3 are the result of the Crucible, a weapon designed and constructed through galactic cooperation, not mass murder.

An interesting point you bring up with Legion's LM in ME2. In ME2, you have the choice of reprogramming them or destroying them and this is actually a very complex decision. The first one might win you more allies sometime in the near future and the latter one will get rid of the immediate threat, but it goes beyond that. Reprogramming the Heretic Geth in ME2 is also a form of slavery. Would you rather die fighting or live as a slave? Perhaps you believe this is a question that doesn't apply to synthetics? They're not alive after all, right? They're just machines. This choice is actually quite similar to the choice you're forced to make in ME3.

And for the last part, that depends entirely on your Shepard, on what kind of wo/man s/he is. Destroy in ME3 comes at the expense of killing the Geth, a civilization that has now become "alive" upon Legion's upload of the Reaper code. There's also some mention, if memory serves, that technology will take several steps backward. On the other hand, you're offered to take control of the Reapers. You propose that would be akin to slavery and, in fact, the Reapers are already "slaves to the pattern." Moreover, Shepard would become a slave himself, forever trapped in the Citadel as, in all probability, the new Catalyst.

Right or wrong is up to the player.

1. You destroyed the CB as a paragon choice because the collectors liquified people to create more Reapers.  The Reapers have liquified countless people to create more Reapers and destroyed entire civilisations.  I'd say other than the potential sentiance, it's the same call.

2.  If you say that reprograming the Hertics is a form of slavery, then you're saying that education, upbringing, and corrective medication (anti-depressents, anti-psychotics, etc) are all forms of slavery.  I would like to see you make that argument.

3.  That is if you take the Star Child at his word, but he implies that Shepard dies with destruction.  (S)He does not.  It states that EDI dies with destruction.  She does not (I played through once, chose destruction; Joker exits, then Liara, and finally EDI).  Therefore we can assume that the only things that were actually destroyed were the Reapers, which you were trying to destroy since the first game and the mass relays, which get destroyed no matter which choice you make.  Therefore, your argument that the Geth, Reapers, EDI, Mass Relays, and Shepard are destroyed is invalid because it is untrue.

[OdanUrr]

JBONE27 wrote...

1. You destroyed the CB as a paragon choice because the collectors liquified people to create more Reapers.  The Reapers have liquified countless people to create more Reapers and destroyed entire civilisations.  I'd say other than the potential sentiance, it's the same call.

2.  If you say that reprograming the Hertics is a form of slavery, then you're saying that education, upbringing, and corrective medication (anti-depressents, anti-psychotics, etc) are all forms of slavery.  I would like to see you make that argument.

3.  That is if you take the Star Child at his word, but he implies that Shepard dies with destruction.  (S)He does not.  It states that EDI dies with destruction.  She does not (I played through once, chose destruction; Joker exits, then Liara, and finally EDI).  Therefore we can assume that the only things that were actually destroyed were the Reapers, which you were trying to destroy since the first game and the mass relays, which get destroyed no matter which choice you make.  Therefore, your argument that the Geth, Reapers, EDI, Mass Relays, and Shepard are destroyed is invalid because it is untrue.

1. Not really. You could always tell them to hit the nearest sun later on, but I understand where you're coming from.

2. This guy explains it better: 

3. The Catalyst implies Shepard might die because of his synthetic implants, but he doesn't know for sure. If he did, he would have told Shepard so. Just because Shepard survives at the end doesn't mean the Geth will too. Any assumption based on this is merely that, an assumption. EDI surviving would certainly be suggestive but we know this particular scene is not quite foolproof. If EDI does indeed survive, one could make the case that maybe the Geth survive too, but only a scene depicting this can be considered proof.

[wsandista]

OdanUrr wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

1. You destroyed the CB as a paragon choice because the collectors liquified people to create more Reapers.  The Reapers have liquified countless people to create more Reapers and destroyed entire civilisations.  I'd say other than the potential sentiance, it's the same call.

2.  If you say that reprograming the Hertics is a form of slavery, then you're saying that education, upbringing, and corrective medication (anti-depressents, anti-psychotics, etc) are all forms of slavery.  I would like to see you make that argument.

3.  That is if you take the Star Child at his word, but he implies that Shepard dies with destruction.  (S)He does not.  It states that EDI dies with destruction.  She does not (I played through once, chose destruction; Joker exits, then Liara, and finally EDI).  Therefore we can assume that the only things that were actually destroyed were the Reapers, which you were trying to destroy since the first game and the mass relays, which get destroyed no matter which choice you make.  Therefore, your argument that the Geth, Reapers, EDI, Mass Relays, and Shepard are destroyed is invalid because it is untrue.

1. Not really. You could always tell them to hit the nearest sun later on, but I understand where you're coming from.

2. This guy explains it better: 

3. The Catalyst implies Shepard might die because of his synthetic implants, but he doesn't know for sure. If he did, he would have told Shepard so. Just because Shepard survives at the end doesn't mean the Geth will too. Any assumption based on this is merely that, an assumption. EDI surviving would certainly be suggestive but we know this particular scene is not quite foolproof. If EDI does indeed survive, one could make the case that maybe the Geth survive too, but only a scene depicting this can be considered proof.

Don't try to argue with these people using logic, it doesn't work trust me
Also don't try to explain what role-playing is to them, seeing as they can't seem to comprehend the concept

Modifié par wsandista, 09 mai 2012 - 02:38 .

[Blastback]

Better than what is present now, that's for sure.

[H2Ape]

I'd be disappointed.

[JBONE27]

OdanUrr wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

1. You destroyed the CB as a paragon choice because the collectors liquified people to create more Reapers.  The Reapers have liquified countless people to create more Reapers and destroyed entire civilisations.  I'd say other than the potential sentiance, it's the same call.

2.  If you say that reprograming the Hertics is a form of slavery, then you're saying that education, upbringing, and corrective medication (anti-depressents, anti-psychotics, etc) are all forms of slavery.  I would like to see you make that argument.

3.  That is if you take the Star Child at his word, but he implies that Shepard dies with destruction.  (S)He does not.  It states that EDI dies with destruction.  She does not (I played through once, chose destruction; Joker exits, then Liara, and finally EDI).  Therefore we can assume that the only things that were actually destroyed were the Reapers, which you were trying to destroy since the first game and the mass relays, which get destroyed no matter which choice you make.  Therefore, your argument that the Geth, Reapers, EDI, Mass Relays, and Shepard are destroyed is invalid because it is untrue.

1. Not really. You could always tell them to hit the nearest sun later on, but I understand where you're coming from.

2. This guy explains it better: 

3. The Catalyst implies Shepard might die because of his synthetic implants, but he doesn't know for sure. If he did, he would have told Shepard so. Just because Shepard survives at the end doesn't mean the Geth will too. Any assumption based on this is merely that, an assumption. EDI surviving would certainly be suggestive but we know this particular scene is not quite foolproof. If EDI does indeed survive, one could make the case that maybe the Geth survive too, but only a scene depicting this can be considered proof.

1.  How is it any different?

2.  That doesn't actually explain anything.

3.  I already mentioned that it was the ending I got.  I cannot upload it since I use a 360, but it is still the ending I got.

[JBONE27]

wsandista wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

1. You destroyed the CB as a paragon choice because the collectors liquified people to create more Reapers.  The Reapers have liquified countless people to create more Reapers and destroyed entire civilisations.  I'd say other than the potential sentiance, it's the same call.

2.  If you say that reprograming the Hertics is a form of slavery, then you're saying that education, upbringing, and corrective medication (anti-depressents, anti-psychotics, etc) are all forms of slavery.  I would like to see you make that argument.

3.  That is if you take the Star Child at his word, but he implies that Shepard dies with destruction.  (S)He does not.  It states that EDI dies with destruction.  She does not (I played through once, chose destruction; Joker exits, then Liara, and finally EDI).  Therefore we can assume that the only things that were actually destroyed were the Reapers, which you were trying to destroy since the first game and the mass relays, which get destroyed no matter which choice you make.  Therefore, your argument that the Geth, Reapers, EDI, Mass Relays, and Shepard are destroyed is invalid because it is untrue.

1. Not really. You could always tell them to hit the nearest sun later on, but I understand where you're coming from.

2. This guy explains it better: 

3. The Catalyst implies Shepard might die because of his synthetic implants, but he doesn't know for sure. If he did, he would have told Shepard so. Just because Shepard survives at the end doesn't mean the Geth will too. Any assumption based on this is merely that, an assumption. EDI surviving would certainly be suggestive but we know this particular scene is not quite foolproof. If EDI does indeed survive, one could make the case that maybe the Geth survive too, but only a scene depicting this can be considered proof.

Don't try to argue with these people using logic, it doesn't work trust me
Also don't try to explain what role-playing is to them, seeing as they can't seem to comprehend the concept

How is enslaving a race more noble than destroying them when their end goal is to destroy you?

Was the American slave trade more noble than the Indian Wars? Or using the outline of "Shepard is just sending the Reapers far away," was the "Trail of Tears," more paragon like than the genocide of the Aulstrailian Aboriginals?

An argument can be made for synthisis as the real paragon choice because,
1. Nobody dies.
2. Everybody is improved (in a manner of speaking).

I however did not chose this because My Shepard wanted Liara to be as she has always been (at least in her eyes).  Though there is the fact that we don't know how combining synthetics and organics would change organics.  It could be that they would no longer have the ability to reproduce, or it would cause universal empathy, which while it would keep people from hurting eachother, it would also make everyone unable to act in any way if one person is sevearly injured by accedent.

With destruction you are sacrificing synthetics who have said that they would gladly give their lives to defeat the Reapers.  You are not forcing anyone to do anything against their will, and you can be more certain of the outcome.  

Also, they're synthetics (if the geth do die, which is uncertain, but Shepard and EDI do survive), which means that they can be rebuilt.  In fact, they can be rebuilt better, rebuilt without the baggage of the attempted destruction at the hands of their creators.

[AlanC9]

Jeez.... if you're going to post a link to that lame video, at least learn to use the link tag so we don't have to copy and paste it ourselves..

Edit: OK, thanks for fixing that. It's still lame.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 mai 2012 - 03:29 .

[AlanC9]

JBONE27 wrote...
Also, they're synthetics (if the geth do die, which is uncertain, but Shepard and EDI do survive), which means that they can be rebuilt.  In fact, they can be rebuilt better, rebuilt without the baggage of the attempted destruction at the hands of their creators.

I'm not sure synthetics are any more rebuildable than organics are. Legion can die for good, for instance. What you rebuild isn't the same being, even if it thinks it's the same and acts the same.

Which raises a question about Shepard, of course, but that's already in the game.

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 mai 2012 - 05:12 .

[Deltakarma]

Hmmmmmmmm
*rubs his chin*

Weeeeeeeeeeell..... the game is pretty much point a sign at the whole indoc. thing..... So that side of me would be like, "Ok".

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, it was cut in ME3..... so I would just look at the game on my menu screen on my 360 and watch into despair as I just know they added it to stop the complainers.

In all honestly, it needs to be pulled off like if it was the fist release of Mass Effect 3. It is close to impossible, but if pulled off, I will be happy.

[Icinix]

If they pulled it off well - it could be one of the defining points of gaming of all time.

Issues of distribution and requiring online connectivity aside, it would be a master stroke that would achieve something unique for games but also serve a business use in making people think twice before trading their games a week after purchase.

[Karlojey]

Personally, I would like to have an ending with rainbows and chocolate chip cookies.

The current endings, though dramatic and heart tearing, doesn't give a sense of accomplishment for me. I felt like all the work I've done was for nothing. They could've played it out like Dragon Age: Origins. You can die like a hero or survive with some doubt at the back of your mind because of the choice you made.

[Repearized Miranda]

Deltakarma wrote...

Hmmmmmmmm
*rubs his chin*

Weeeeeeeeeeell..... the game is pretty much point a sign at the whole indoc. thing..... So that side of me would be like, "Ok".

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, it was cut in ME3..... so I would just look at the game on my menu screen on my 360 and watch into despair as I just know they added it to stop the complainers.

In all honestly, it needs to be pulled off like if it was the fist release of Mass Effect 3. It is close to impossible, but if pulled off, I will be happy.

It was not cut. Where are you getting that? The game is a sign? The whole series is! They wouldn't have put so much into writing what some deem "nonsense" as that would invalidate - not what was shown in the ending (especially the "best" one) - but what was talked about since we came in contact with our first secondary villain, In fact, all of the secondary villians.

It always been there, but yeah, I get what you're saying because I'm not too fond of things being spelled out for me either; however, at the same time, I am willing to think instead of taking things at face value.

It's odd how manipulation is the real world and makes sense; however, in the fantasy world it doesn't. At least, the lot saying it doesn't. Harbinger Indoctrinating Shepard is no different than all the "human" villians trying to manipulate him/her - whether this game or previous ones!

As well as external struggles, we have internal struggles as well. Why is this so hard to fathom?

I take it as "Only persons not named Shepard can/should be affected!" Clearly, that's wrong because they wouldn't have put Shepard around this stuff to begin with; yet, Saren, Benezia, TIM, Amanda, Grayson, Leng ...

Four of these people are humans. Isn't Shepard human, too despite upgrades?

Of course, I can see where external manipulation can become an excuse; however, we can still resist it. Shepard either does or doesn't resist indoctrination. Four or five of the aforementioned overcame it - albeit in the worse way possible.

If the theory is ridiculous than so is the concept of influence/manipulation/resistance (which happens in reality daily) and many would argue that the latter concept is not!

I don't care if they explain this way or not - since they already have actually. If we're picking things out of thin air, then, I guess, the writers did, too since they wrote the codex entry or had example upon example thrusted upon us.

At the end of the day, they can't win because if they go with it, people won't like it or if they do, people will shun them for being predictable. And don't dare mention "Murphy's Law!" If they don't, it'll spawn more speculation and the rage will be orse than it is now.

[AlanC9]

Repearized Miranda wrote...
It was not cut. Where are you getting that? 

Probably from when the devs said that they had fooled around with the concept of an indoctrinated Shep early, but nodoby liked losing control of Shepard, so they dropped the idea.. Unfortunately, I don't still have a link to that interview.

[Kabl0wzasan]

Buzz Kill. However the endings as they were are just terribly written (full of plot holes and inconsistencies) and were poorly executed, and robbed the player of everything they played for.

If it was Indoctrination then the end of the game all took place in Shepard's head. Basically a dream sequence, and Shepard died not stopping the Reapers (the goal of the entire series). And it was not by player choice or fault, like even though I did everything right and had the highest level of whatever (cause it didn't matter) it was written as, well Reapers got Shepard, they won. Thank you for spending $200 and 200 hours on our games hope you enjoyed the Reapers winning and Shepard dieing, cause that's what happened (if Indoctrination is correct).

Ok you say, but what if I pick the red ending, that means Shepard's alive and when the new dlc hits we can all get the new ending new scenes explaining stuff.  Then ::sigh:: that means that the blue and green endings are wrong, and that you must always pick the red path to access the dlc content or whatever.  Then WHAT WAS THE POINT of kjflagf agjmvklmafkjvoiwemav afjwoifeivnoivniowu .... you know what?  It doesn't matter.  It was, the whole thing was extremely sloppy no matter what angle you approach it from.

Modifié par Kabl0wzasan, 10 mai 2012 - 06:25 .

[Repearized Miranda]

AlanC9 wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...
It was not cut. Where are you getting that? 

Probably from when the devs said that they had fooled around with the concept of an indoctrinated Shep early, but nodoby liked losing control of Shepard, so they dropped the idea.. Unfortunately, I don't still have a link to that interview.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about from a gameplay perspective which is what the dev was talking about.

I meant outside the gameplay realm. I believe "clunky" was the word used.

What I meant was that most want them to come out and state verbatum in the EC - that it was Indoctrination; however, we've seen this through the entire series with the other characters - even with Shepard! ("Gee! What'll happen if I play around with this stuff? Herp & Derp!") They by no means hid this from anybody!

And even now, most are saying that they do in fact lose control of Shepard when s/he ascends. Apart from the dialogue wheel appearing twice and you walking your desire pathway to a point where it becomes a cutscene - you have literally lost control of Shepard.

So, again, explain! You replace an idea which nobody likes with essentially the same idea which nobody likes - it's just not as detailed. Makes no sense!

There's nothing wrong with being obvious as sometimes being "cryptic" makes things worse!

Shepard yells to TIM that's he's Indoctrinated - wait, no that's code for something else!

Do you see how nonsensical this is. Either TIM is or he isn't and they clearly tell us he is or is slowing becoming like Shepard.

I think they may have dabbled a bit too much in the gray stuff more than they realize and it's diluted the substance of color.

[Repearized Miranda]

Kabl0wzasan wrote...

Buzz Kill. However the endings as they were are just terribly written (full of plot holes and inconsistencies) and were poorly executed, and robbed the player of everything they played for.

If it was Indoctrination then the end of the game all took place in Shepard's head. Basically a dream sequence, and Shepard died not stopping the Reapers (the goal of the entire series). And it was not by player choice or fault, like even though I did everything right and had the highest level of whatever (cause it didn't matter) it was written as, well Reapers got Shepard, they won. Thank you for spending $200 and 200 hours on our games hope you enjoyed the Reapers winning and Shepard dieing, cause that's what happened (if Indoctrination is correct).

Ok you say, but what if I pick the red ending, that means Shepard's alive and when the new dlc hits we can all get the new ending new scenes explaining stuff.  Then ::sigh:: that means that the blue and green endings are wrong, and that you must always pick the red path to access the dlc content or whatever.  Then WHAT WAS THE POINT of kjflagf agjmvklmafkjvoiwemav afjwoifeivnoivniowu .... you know what?  It doesn't matter.  It was, the whole thing was extremely sloppy no matter what angle you approach it from.

That is false though - given what follows as this is also what is upsetting people - because you do "defeat the Reapers and become a Legend!" and who can say no to the child that asks to hear "one more story"?

Also, with the blue and green being wrong. Well, what was your goal from the beginning - not to mention coming face to face with those endings in the previous games (Saren - green; TIM - blue) and telling them to stuff it?

But yes, at face-value something went wrong if you need to explain yourself or taking it at face-value is the actual problem. I would think it's the latter or they wouldn't do this.

[elecmanexe001]

wsandista wrote...

Unschuld wrote...


 

wsandista wrote...

Horrible, why should I be punished for roleplaying my paragon Shepard?

*facepalm*
That's the point of being tricked, and the whole point behind indoctrination. You *thought* you were doing the "right" thing.

Then what about renegade Shepards? They are doing whats right for their character, but they get rewarded for it?

Its funny, the main joke/complaint, "lolz 3 colors great ending" yet you want to follow a color to make all your decisions by. The point would be that the only option in that segment that is right (As in what is already buitl into the current game, shepard can live at the end of destroy) was right but then you would be given more after. Its not Paragon or Renegade choice at the end if IT is true and honestly it isnt either even if its not, its destroy, control, synthesis, you do not need to choose based on the color of your shepards mentality already anyway, destroy may in fact be the right thing for a paragon player to do in his/her mind and so on.

AlanC9 wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...
It was not cut. Where are you getting that? 

Probably
from when the devs said that they had fooled around with the concept of
an indoctrinated Shep early, but nodoby liked losing control of
Shepard, so they dropped the idea.. Unfortunately, I don't still have a
link to that interview.

The idea of indoctrinating Shepard was not cut, in fact you can argue it is already in the current ending with TIM to some extent at face value. They cut the reapers taking movement control away from Shepard, the gameplay element they were attempting not the idea. There is no difinitive answer if they went with indoctrination or not, I read that snippett as well.

Modifié par elecmanexe001, 10 mai 2012 - 06:49 .

[StElmo]

Ashep123 wrote...

Your thoughts?

Let me put it this way, I will:

A) Be buying DA3 at full price at launch with the collectors edition
Bow down to BioWare as ballsy narrative gods for pulling off the lying narrator trick - utter genius
C) Will forgive every other ME3 shortcoming
D) Start recommending Mass Effect to my friends again.
E) Tell the friends I warned off the series, to go get ME3

if it's not true and it's a literal interpretation that doesn't seal every plot hole?

The opposite of the above will occur.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Really I'd be overjoyed if they confirmed Indoctrination Theory. I'm open to what they come up with, but I'd delete the DLC if it confirmed that the original endings are exactly as you see them, ie are in fact reality.

[Andromidius]

If it is? Great, still need to fix everything else in the game though.

But it won't be. Unless they were lying again when they said they weren't changing the endings or adding new gameplay.

[AlanC9]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

Really I'd be overjoyed if they confirmed Indoctrination Theory. I'm open to what they come up with, but I'd delete the DLC if it confirmed that the original endings are exactly as you see them, ie are in fact reality.

You might not want to waste the bandwidth on a download, then.

[AlanC9]

elecmanexe001 wrote...
The idea of indoctrinating Shepard was not cut, in fact you can argue it is already in the current ending with TIM to some extent at face value. They cut the reapers taking movement control away from Shepard, the gameplay element they were attempting not the idea. There is no difinitive answer if they went with indoctrination or not, I read that snippett as well. 

Well, I didn't read it that way, but I'll take your word for it.