155 réponses à ce sujet

[Unschuld]

Well, hopefully because they didn't want it to be an exact copy-paste of The Matrix, or just to make it a little more ambiguous. If the choice was that clear, who WOULDN'T choose destroy?

[razor150]

Malanek999 wrote...

You make some good points, but why do the notes say "end of FIRST matrix"?

Considering the first Matrix has nothing that compares to the ending of ME3 we'll have to assume Walter's forgot which movie the Architect was in. Unless they intended Shepard to fly through the sky like Superman. The only thing that might parallel is Neo getting shot by Agent Smith and then Neo willing himself back to life with Shepard getting fried by Harbinger and then somehow surviving a shot that kills Dreadnoughts. Everything else parallels Matrix 2 & 3.

[Whereto]

TSA_383 wrote...

Nah, has bugger-all to do with the validity of the thing, so long as it was from one of the two that wrote the ending.
I'd just stuck to the apparent tradition of blaming Hudson

It doesn't harm the validity of it, just it spread misinformation on an aspect of it. But I should comment of it being a good find, something I hadnt yet realized.

[UrgentArchengel]

You sir deserve some Alliance Blues, and a medal to pin on it.

[Unschuld]

razor150 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You make some good points, but why do the notes say "end of FIRST matrix"?

Considering the first Matrix has nothing that compares to the ending of ME3 we'll have to assume Walter's forgot which movie the Architect was in. Unless they intended Shepard to fly through the sky like Superman. The only thing that might parallel is Neo getting shot by Agent Smith and then Neo willing himself back to life with Shepard getting fried by Harbinger and then somehow surviving a shot that kills Dreadnoughts. Everything else parallels Matrix 2 & 3.

I think it was already mentioned, but the "end of First Matrix" comment could also be interpreted in these two ways:

1.) Neo "waking up" after being dead and finally seeing the Matrix as the green lines of code it really was.
2.) A reference to the first iteration of the Matrix that was created, not the first movie itself, which the Architect mentions in the second movie. 

Modifié par Unschuld, 08 mai 2012 - 05:54 .

[2484Stryker]

Simon_Says wrote...

2484Stryker wrote...

You've got a point, I suppose.  But my impression is that by choosing to destroy all "existing" synthetics (good & bad), Shepard is at least partially agreeable to the Catalyst's reasoning.

Not really. The cycle is broken for good. Synthetics may or may not survive (cause seriously, do you actually take what that thing says as trustworthy?) but organics can figure out for themselves how to make peace with synthetics.

It's more accurate to say that picking control or synthesis is more in line with agreeing with the Catalyst/reapers.

@OP: I already suspected a similarity but since I hadn't seen the films in years, yeah... You did good son. You did good.

This is where I have a problem.  If you can't trust the Catalyst (and I don't think you can, since he's the creator of the Reapers), then why would you even assume that the "destroy" option really does destroy synthetics?  Or if you assume that it may not, then why on earth would you pick anything?  This to me is why the ending is broken.

[Malanek]

Unschuld wrote...

razor150 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You make some good points, but why do the notes say "end of FIRST matrix"?

Considering the first Matrix has nothing that compares to the ending of ME3 we'll have to assume Walter's forgot which movie the Architect was in. Unless they intended Shepard to fly through the sky like Superman. The only thing that might parallel is Neo getting shot by Agent Smith and then Neo willing himself back to life with Shepard getting fried by Harbinger and then somehow surviving a shot that kills Dreadnoughts. Everything else parallels Matrix 2 & 3.

I think it was already mentioned, but the "end of First Matrix" comment could also be interpreted in these two ways:

1.) Neo "waking up" after being dead and finally seeing the Matrix as the green lines of code it really was.
2.) A reference to the first iteration of the Matrix that was created, not the first movie itself, which the Architect mentions in the second movie. 

Unschuld, it could be but I don't really see how either really relate to ME3. I think razor is on the correct track, Mac simply got the wrong movie, because in that case you can definitely see the similarities.

[TSA_383]

2484Stryker wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

2484Stryker wrote...

You've got a point, I suppose.  But my impression is that by choosing to destroy all "existing" synthetics (good & bad), Shepard is at least partially agreeable to the Catalyst's reasoning.

Not really. The cycle is broken for good. Synthetics may or may not survive (cause seriously, do you actually take what that thing says as trustworthy?) but organics can figure out for themselves how to make peace with synthetics.

It's more accurate to say that picking control or synthesis is more in line with agreeing with the Catalyst/reapers.

@OP: I already suspected a similarity but since I hadn't seen the films in years, yeah... You did good son. You did good.

This is where I have a problem.  If you can't trust the Catalyst (and I don't think you can, since he's the creator of the Reapers), then why would you even assume that the "destroy" option really does destroy synthetics?  Or if you assume that it may not, then why on earth would you pick anything?  This to me is why the ending is broken.

The catalyst doesn't want you to try to destroy the reapers, telling you this will lead to "Chaos". By choosing the destroy option, you're rejecting that reasoning, essentially saying that you will find a way to stop that from happening.

Let me remind you of the very last line Shepard has in ME2:

"I’m going to stop the reapers but I won’t sacrifice the soul of our species to do it."

[balance5050]

Malanek999 wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

razor150 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You make some good points, but why do the notes say "end of FIRST matrix"?

Considering the first Matrix has nothing that compares to the ending of ME3 we'll have to assume Walter's forgot which movie the Architect was in. Unless they intended Shepard to fly through the sky like Superman. The only thing that might parallel is Neo getting shot by Agent Smith and then Neo willing himself back to life with Shepard getting fried by Harbinger and then somehow surviving a shot that kills Dreadnoughts. Everything else parallels Matrix 2 & 3.

I think it was already mentioned, but the "end of First Matrix" comment could also be interpreted in these two ways:

1.) Neo "waking up" after being dead and finally seeing the Matrix as the green lines of code it really was.
2.) A reference to the first iteration of the Matrix that was created, not the first movie itself, which the Architect mentions in the second movie. 

Unschuld, it could be but I don't really see how either really relate to ME3. I think razor is on the correct track, Mac simply got the wrong movie, because in that case you can definitely see the similarities.

Allusions to the first Matrix, or the Matrix sequels?

 

[Leafs43]

It makes more sense than the ending.

[razor150]

Unschuld wrote...

razor150 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You make some good points, but why do the notes say "end of FIRST matrix"?

Considering the first Matrix has nothing that compares to the ending of ME3 we'll have to assume Walter's forgot which movie the Architect was in. Unless they intended Shepard to fly through the sky like Superman. The only thing that might parallel is Neo getting shot by Agent Smith and then Neo willing himself back to life with Shepard getting fried by Harbinger and then somehow surviving a shot that kills Dreadnoughts. Everything else parallels Matrix 2 & 3.

I think it was already mentioned, but the "end of First Matrix" comment could also be interpreted in these two ways:

1.) Neo "waking up" after being dead and finally seeing the Matrix as the green lines of code it really was.
2.) A reference to the first iteration of the Matrix that was created, not the first movie itself, which the Architect mentions in the second movie. 

#1. There is no parallel though, and if there was it was in the first game, not the third. There is no point in the 3rd game where Shepard realizes or becomes aware something he didn't before.

#2. Possible, except that the starchild and Architect conversations parallel quite nicely, which doesn't happen till the 2nd movie.

Modifié par razor150, 08 mai 2012 - 06:18 .

[Noelemahc]

Neo "waking up" after being dead and finally seeing the Matrix as the green lines of code it really was.

Alas, when Shepard wakes up, instead of realizing the Crucible is a Reaper trap, he decides to believe everything the Starchild says instead. Harbinger fried the WRONG neurons in his brain!

[dreman9999]

So even if the ending is real....Part of IT still right anyway... Control and synthesis is still indoctrination.

[Unschuld]

razor150 wrote...

Unschuld wrote...
I think it was already mentioned, but the "end of First Matrix" comment could also be interpreted in these two ways:

1.) Neo "waking up" after being dead and finally seeing the Matrix as the green lines of code it really was.
2.) A reference to the first iteration of the Matrix that was created, not the first movie itself, which the Architect mentions in the second movie. 

#1. There is no parallel though, and if there was it was in the first game, not the third. There is no point in the 3rd game where Shepard realizes or becomes aware something he didn't before.

 
Regarding Indoctrination, it could refer to Shepard waking up in the breath scene and realizing what just happened wasn't real. That's exactly what I'm referring to, and it does fit the parallel.

razor150 wrote... 
#2. Possible, except that the starchild and Architect conversations parallel quite nicely, which doesn't happen till the 2nd movie.

I think you misunderstood. I'm referring to the Architect's explanation about the FIRST Matrix (NOT the first movie) being a failure, and this being just another cycle.

Modifié par Unschuld, 08 mai 2012 - 06:35 .

[balance5050]

Unschuld wrote...

razor150 wrote...

Unschuld wrote...
I think it was already mentioned, but the "end of First Matrix" comment could also be interpreted in these two ways:

1.) Neo "waking up" after being dead and finally seeing the Matrix as the green lines of code it really was.
2.) A reference to the first iteration of the Matrix that was created, not the first movie itself, which the Architect mentions in the second movie. 

#1. There is no parallel though, and if there was it was in the first game, not the third. There is no point in the 3rd game where Shepard realizes or becomes aware something he didn't before.

 
Regarding Indoctrination, it could refer to Shepard waking up in the breath scene and realizing what just happened wasn't real. That's exactly what I'm referring to, and it does fit the parallel.

razor150 wrote... 
#2. Possible, except that the starchild and Architect conversations parallel quite nicely, which doesn't happen till the 2nd movie.

I think you misunderstood. I'm referring to the Architect's explanation about the FIRST Matrix (NOT the first movie) being a failure, and this being just another cycle.

The one that was "too perfect" that humans rejected it? or am I confused?

[Makrys]

Wow. Mind blown. Amazing work, OP.

I so hope this means the IT is true. God, it would make the ending so amazing!

[JKA_Nozyspy]

Oh great, so he took inspiration from one of the most confusing, unsatisfying and downright terrible trilogy endings in move history that basically ruined the Matrix Trilogy? Fantastic...

[Candidate 88766]

Whilst an interesting view, I can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't what mac was thinking for the simple fact that, as you pointed out and then ignored, the notes specifically refer to the end of the first Matrix, not the second one - the universes (ME and Matrix) are irrevocably changed in their endings, entering a "brave new world".

[Ultra Prism]

Well spoken ... then endings is open as EA would have wanted ... one more story for shepard meaning ... expansion or something else

[TSA_383]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Whilst an interesting view, I can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't what mac was thinking for the simple fact that, as you pointed out and then ignored, the notes specifically refer to the end of the first Matrix, not the second one - the universes (ME and Matrix) are irrevocably changed in their endings, entering a "brave new world".

I take it you've never read the ending of "Brave New World"?
It's an interesting book - you can probably pick up a copy for next-to-nothing since it's a classic.

Essentially, the "Controller" states that the reason he must eliminate people's emotions is that it will inevitably lead to peaks, highs and lows, and particularly crushing sadness. I don't have time to look through it right now but I'm pretty sure he refers to it as "chaos" as well.

The main character in then argues that emotions are a fact of life, but it wouldn't necessarily lead to chaos, that the sacrifice in taking away the possibility of emotion isn't worth the reward.

There are a few nods to the book in the ending of ME3 - pretty sure that's what "Brave New World" is referring to

And yeah, as I said, the first matrix thing doesn't quite work, but let's just remember these are just paper scribblings done during production, I was just trying to get a handle on what may have inspired the endings. If anyone else sees what he may have been referring to from the first matrix and it fits as well as this then that's great!

But, knowing that they were taking cues from the Matrix trilogy anyway, you'd be hard-pressed to say there's not an astonishing similarity between the Architect scene and the Catalyst scene...

Modifié par TSA_383, 08 mai 2012 - 07:30 .

[Silhouett3]

Lol community can't ever figure out what Mac Walters referred to in his notes to start with 

[Deputy Secretary of Awesome]

Great post, OP. The key theme going on between them seems to be control, but especially subtle control... control through choice.

What interests me is if there's another agenda to controlling/indoctrinating Shep. Is it just about stopping Shep, or are the Reapers trying to bring Shep around to their way of thinking for another purpose?

[TSA_383]

Deputy Secretary of Awesome wrote...

Great post, OP. The key theme going on between them seems to be control, but especially subtle control... control through choice.

What interests me is if there's another agenda to controlling/indoctrinating Shep. Is it just about stopping Shep, or are the Reapers trying to bring Shep around to their way of thinking for another purpose?

Exactly.
The thing that struck me about the ending when I first played the game was that it felt like you were being lured to come to London, and it felt like walking into a trap...

Quite what that purpose may be, I guess we'll find out in some months

[Bill Casey]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Hobbes's Leviathan

 their origin of "many being transformed into one" is relative to The Leviathan.

That would explain "Sovereign" and the "Leviathan of Dis"

[Bill Casey]

End of The First Matrix


If Shepard is successfully fighting off Indoctrination, I can see the parallels...
Shepard is The One...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 08 mai 2012 - 08:42 .