55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Arian Dynas]

Andromidius wrote...

Not sure what type of 'evidence' this is, but...

Think about the Catalyst's reactions to Shepard's choices.

1/ Destroy - while disapproving and implying/outright stating that Shepard will die along with EDI and the Geth, the Catalyst doesn't seem to react at all to this choice being made - it just leaves abruptly after the tube is shot.

2/ Control - encourages this as an alternative. Seems to like this option, and 'smiles' if you pick it - even though apperently you'll be replacing it as the commander of the Reapers and then go about ruining their plans by not dealing with the 'problem' anymore.

3/ Synthesis - heavily encourages this as the best solution and really wants you to do this. Picking this not only messes with the Reaper's plans of 'perfecting' everything into a Reaper, but also screws with the Reapers' own 'perfection'.

4/ Refuse - the Catalyst flips the table with annoyance and goes about killing everything again with renewed vigor.

Questions would be:
Why is the Catalyst indifferent to its own destruction and the end of its billions-year old work to 'bring order to chaos'?
Why is the Catalyst happy to be replaced by a being that doesn't share its views and will stop its billions-year old work and infact HELP spread the chaos that it so wanted to end?
Why is the Catalyst highly encouraging of a process that reduces the Reapers' own perfection, and how does this solution end the chaos if essentially the only thing that's changed is that organics now have green lights for eyes?
Why does the Catalyst flip its nut if you won't pick any of these three options that will harm the Reapers to a greater or lesser degree, and in all cases end the Reaper's billions-year old work?

My own answer: because picking Blue or Green means Shepard gives in to the Reapers' will. Destroy merely breaks the indoctrination attempt, and does no harm to the Reapers (hense why Starbinger - yeah, let's call him that again now - doesn't seem bothered when Shepard chooses it). Picking Refuse is a show of defiance that enrages the ego that Starbinger seems to have programmed into its software, an insult to its carefully crafted trap.

I could be wrong, but that's why we have SPECULATIONS FOR EVERYONE!.

I would argue that it takes Destroy so well because it, while not expecting you to take it, does see that as a realistic possibility, Shepard being Shepard and all.

Refuse infuriates it because it means Shepard goes against his own character, Shepard acts indescisive, meaning in the last moment, Shepard robs himself of one of the very traits the Reapers wanted in him, his descisiveness and determination.

[Arian Dynas]

Flog61 wrote...

I don't even know what to think anymore ^^

I just wish Bioware and the rEApers had put indoctrination theory in the original game.

Then it would have been obvious and we wouldn't be thinking about it.

[Andromidius]

Arian Dynas wrote...

I would argue that it takes Destroy so well because it, while not expecting you to take it, does see that as a realistic possibility, Shepard being Shepard and all.

Refuse infuriates it because it means Shepard goes against his own character, Shepard acts indescisive, meaning in the last moment, Shepard robs himself of one of the very traits the Reapers wanted in him, his descisiveness and determination.

#

I was actually going to add Destroy to 'giving into the Reapers' will', but the breath scene throws a spanner in that for me every time.  There's no way I can fit it otherwise.

[Rifneno]

byne wrote...

Speaking of that sort of crap, I'm still disappointed that I never got to play the version of ME1 that Fox apparently got to play.

Yknow, the one where you could choose who you wanted to have sex with, and how you wanted to have sex, and that showed full digital nudity?

That one sounded pretty awesome.

That whole incident was utterly hilarious. The best part was when Jack Thompson said FOX was full of crap and needs to do some fact checking before shooting their mouths off. Jack Thompson said that. That's like getting Hitler to call you a racist *******.

byne wrote...

I think the Chantry has good intentions, but are misguided and let the zealots lead the way too often.
They are not wholly evil.

That should prove I'm not Rifneno.

If you think I'm hard on the Chantry, you should see how I get about Witcher's Order of the Flaming Rose.

Dwailing wrote...

Why do I get the feeling that if Batman were here, he would have come to the same conclusion that we did?

I don't recall coming to the conclusion that serial killers should be allowed to continue killing.

BatmanTurian wrote...

hey guys, i don't know if any of you have seen this but I was looking for ME images and I found this curious image.

It seems someone put Miranda in the place of the Catalyst, gave her its animation and " glow ", and it shows the face the Catalyst makes after Shep chooses Control. Again, pardon me if you guys have seen this already.



EDIT: I could be wrong. Not sure.

I don't think it's what they said it is either. When I was digging around in the files for the ending looking for evidence I saw Starbinger's model and it's exactly the same as it was on Earth and the dreams and everywhere else we saw the kid. There's a visual effect applied to the ordinary model that makes it appear transparent with that gleam or shimmer around it. You could replace the kid's model with an elcor, it wouldn't make a lick of difference (aside from probably crashing when the engine tells the elcor to do a human animation and it replies "Confused; I do not have arms."). It'd still be just as transparent and impossible to be sure about facial expressions.

What we need to screw with to see the expression on his face is the visual effect applied to the model, not the model itself. Though how that would be done I haven't the foggiest.

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Edit: I'm on top again huh? Now this is just getting repetitive.

Kelly Chambers prefers to be on top.

Arian Dynas wrote...

byne wrote...

I kind of miss the old Arian wall-o-text mass reply.

So do I, but no one ever read or responded to them, and you claimed they were hard to quote, so I break it up now, just for you.

I hate people that post walls of text, mashing 15 hours worth of replies into one post. Who the f--*looks up* Oh damnit.

Crap, Arian's right too. Nobody's gonna bother with this. To hell with it, I'm gonna skip the next 5 hours worth of replies and just go back to killing Grelod the Kind over and over.

[MaximizedAction]

Andromidius wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

If we truly want to prove the point however, then we need to replace the model with that of the boy, otherwise we'd get complaints about it just being anyone and thus mutable.

Yep yep.  100%.

Also, StarMiri is creepy as all heck.

Yeah, let's insert rape-face Shep instead.

Andromidius wrote...

Not sure what type of 'evidence' this is, but...

Think about the Catalyst's reactions to Shepard's choices.

1/
Destroy - while disapproving and implying/outright stating that Shepard
will die along with EDI and the Geth, the Catalyst doesn't seem to
react at all to this choice being made - it just leaves abruptly after
the tube is shot.

2/ Control - encourages this as an alternative.
Seems to like this option, and 'smiles' if you pick it - even though
apperently you'll be replacing it as the commander of the Reapers and
then go about ruining their plans by not dealing with the 'problem'
anymore.

3/ Synthesis - heavily encourages this as the best
solution and really wants you to do this. Picking this not only messes
with the Reaper's plans of 'perfecting' everything into a Reaper, but
also screws with the Reapers' own 'perfection'.

4/ Refuse - the Catalyst flips the table with annoyance and goes about killing everything again with renewed vigor.

Questions would be:
Why is the Catalyst indifferent to its own destruction and the end of its billions-year old work to 'bring order to chaos'?
Why
is the Catalyst happy to be replaced by a being that doesn't share its
views and will stop its billions-year old work and infact HELP spread
the chaos that it so wanted to end?
Why is the Catalyst highly
encouraging of a process that reduces the Reapers' own perfection, and
how does this solution end the chaos if essentially the only thing
that's changed is that organics now have green lights for eyes?
Why
does the Catalyst flip its nut if you won't pick any of these three
options that will harm the Reapers to a greater or lesser degree, and in
all cases end the Reaper's billions-year old work?

My own
answer: because picking Blue or Green means Shepard gives in to the
Reapers' will. Destroy merely breaks the indoctrination attempt, and
does no harm to the Reapers (hense why Starbinger - yeah, let's call him
that again now - doesn't seem bothered when Shepard chooses it).
Picking Refuse is a show of defiance that enrages the ego that
Starbinger seems to have programmed into its software, an insult to its
carefully crafted trap.

I could be wrong, but that's why we have SPECULATIONS FOR EVERYONE!.

I don't think you're completely wrong. But your questions seem very pre-EC to me. I think, with the extra 'explainations' we're given, it is easier to interpretate the Catalyst's reactions with respect to a literal point of view. I think, that is because the Catalyst doesn't care so much for the Reapers, but more for the solution of the organics vs. synthetics problem. And according to him, Shepard being up there offers new solutions.
Of course, this still pokes new holes into the logic of the previous plot. But those remain to be tackled in SP DLC.

HOWEVER: the smile in Control doesn't make much sense in a generally (pre-EC, post-EC) literal interpretation, with IT it does, but then the indifference in Synthesis doesn't. Meh

EDIT: Hm, maybe if looking at it from the angle, that Reapers are slaves to the Catalyst, then that might explain his smile...hmmm. Leviathan DLC, where are you?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:02 .

[Andromidius]

MaximizedAction wrote...
HOWEVER: the smile in Control doesn't make much sense in a generally (pre-EC, post-EC) literal interpretation, with IT it does, but then the indifference in Synthesis doesn't. Meh

The whole thing doesn't make sense.  Its so damn confusing trying to work out what's supposed to be going on...

[Macross]

Andromidius wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I would argue that it takes Destroy so well because it, while not expecting you to take it, does see that as a realistic possibility, Shepard being Shepard and all.

Refuse infuriates it because it means Shepard goes against his own character, Shepard acts indescisive, meaning in the last moment, Shepard robs himself of one of the very traits the Reapers wanted in him, his descisiveness and determination.

#

I was actually going to add Destroy to 'giving into the Reapers' will', but the breath scene throws a spanner in that for me every time.  There's no way I can fit it otherwise.

See, I don't think it takes Destroy well at all. I'm not sure in the EC (I've only played it once) but in the original endings, the moment Shep starts shooting the tube Starbrats dissappears and it's less of a good choice/ or I dissapprove dissapearence and more of a 'connection has been servered' dissapearence.  So when Shep Destroy and rejects indoc, then Starbrat dissapears because Harbinger has lost control and influence over Shepards mind. (I thought that was the common interpretation of destroy)


As for Refuse. I don't want to think of refuse in relation to IT. If the endings are literally this...Harbingers 'SO BE IT' is just so goddam wierd, why the hell would Starbrat (yes, I use Harbinger and Starchil/Starbrat interchangablly) be pissed about Shepard refusing   and letting the cycle continue. And if it's IT then what does it mean? First time I saw it on youtube, I assumed that Shepard shot himself in the head or something (if related the IT), however, if both Refuse and Destroy are rejection's of Indoc, then it may have been added to kind of weigh the scales against Control and Synthesis. You know, 2 for 2 against kind of thing. 

[Arian Dynas]

I have said it before, I'll say it again, as far as I am concerned, Reject is Shepard being indecisive, being canny enough not to fall for Control of Synthesis, but not having the conviction to reject the Starchild's reality and choose Destroy.

Refuse requires belief that what he is telling you is the truth. Destroy requires you to disbelieve him, since with Destroy, as far as you know, you could do the exact same things you want to do with Destroy as you can with Control, continue to live on in some form AND no one has to die. Destroy is only appealing if you choose not to believe what you are being told, Reject requires you to believe everything you are told is the truth, and simply say that you do not like the options and demand a better one.

And yes, I agree with the assesment that the Guardian basically ragequits when you pick Destroy, since it DOES annoy him that you broke the indoctrination attempt, but he is far more angry at the fact that it has apparently broken you beyond all usefulness, to the point where you cannot commit to a choice, if you choose Reject.

[Andromidius]

Arian Dynas wrote...
And yes, I agree with the assesment that the Guardian basically ragequits when you pick Destroy, since it DOES annoy him that you broke the indoctrination attempt, but he is far more angry at the fact that it has apparently broken you beyond all usefulness, to the point where you cannot commit to a choice, if you choose Reject.

Sort of like a 'darn, I'll try again later' reaction if you pick Destroy?

I could go with that.  Shepard clearly can survive, and resisting indoctrination wouldn't suddenly make Shep immune to it.

Refuse is Shep giving up completely with indecisiveness, and so becomes a mindless wreck.

I'm happy with that conclusion

[Earthborn_Shepard]

Uuuuh I haven't been here for maybe 5 days. Is there still anything new happening?

[Macross]

@Arian Yeah, I like that explanation. Works for me and still makes more sense than the endings.

[Arian Dynas]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Uuuuh I haven't been here for maybe 5 days. Is there still anything new happening?

Stuff.

...

What, you want more?

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 08 juillet 2012 - 12:48 .

[Arian Dynas]

Andromidius wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...
And yes, I agree with the assesment that the Guardian basically ragequits when you pick Destroy, since it DOES annoy him that you broke the indoctrination attempt, but he is far more angry at the fact that it has apparently broken you beyond all usefulness, to the point where you cannot commit to a choice, if you choose Reject.

Sort of like a 'darn, I'll try again later' reaction if you pick Destroy?

I could go with that.  Shepard clearly can survive, and resisting indoctrination wouldn't suddenly make Shep immune to it.

Refuse is Shep giving up completely with indecisiveness, and so becomes a mindless wreck.

I'm happy with that conclusion

As am I, hence why I tout it. 

[Arian Dynas]

Anyway, can we get someone to confirm if Rifneno is right about the Catalyst effect making any model it is applied to transparent?

Might debunk this particular piece of evidence if so, either that or we need someone to remove the catalyst effect so we can just see the basic kid model and see what it's reactions are.

[CoolioThane]

In my dream last night, my mum blamed Casey Hudson for the financial crisis.

Thought it was pretty funny

[MaximizedAction]

CoolioThane wrote...

In my dream last night, my mum blamed Casey Hudson for the financial crisis.

Thought it was pretty funny

Poor Casey, gettin' all the hate in the real world as well as dreams.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 08 juillet 2012 - 01:03 .

[lythran9]

I also find it weird that TIM is being controlled by the reapers (if the citadel cut scene is real) yet he can control Shepard.... Surely by technicality the reapers can control Shepard? Again all depends if that scene actually happened!

[Lokanaiya]

Honestly, I'm confused. How is Reject Shepard being indecisive? He's not, at all. He just staying true to the themes of free will, self-determination, and doing the impossible. It's the only ending where he does this, actually. He's not just rejecting the Reapers themselves, he's rejecting everything the Reapers are and everything they stand for, and choosing to never, ever compromise with the Reapers at all. Destroy involves accepting, at least on some level, that Starbibger is telling the truth, and you never argue with him at all. You just accept what he says as truth.

Arian, you say that the reason Starbinger is mad in Reject is because Shepard is "going against his own character." Well, why would this matter to Harbinger? If it felt this, it would mean Shepard had its respect and it was mad Shepard was betraying that respect, which doesn't fit with anything Harbinger said about how we don't matter. Wouldn't it be angrier if Shepard resisted its greatest weapon? Again, if Harbinger was angry that Shepard was refusing to play ball or betraying his own ideals, that would mean that Harbinger had some sort of respect for Shepard, which he doesn't at all. Shepard is just some insignificant speck of dust that struggles against the wind, but in less than half a millenium, he and everything he knows or cares about will be gone, erased, and the Reapers will once again reign supreme, as we... They have for billions of years.

Ahem. Sorry. Looks like I got a bit carried away there adopting Harbinger's perspective.... 0.o

Anyways, something else that just occured to me, out of the three choices we have two that have tempted iconic people and another that everybody believes is the ONLY way to defeat the Reapers. Sound familiar? Remember that the Reapers are masters of manipulation and trickery.

I'd say that Reject has at least an equal chance of breaking indoctrination, if not greater. The only reason I say Destroy is still in the running for breaking indoc at all is the breath scene...

[SubAstris]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Honestly, I'm confused. How is Reject Shepard being indecisive? He's not, at all. He just staying true to the themes of free will, self-determination, and doing the impossible. It's the only ending where he does this, actually. He's not just rejecting the Reapers themselves, he's rejecting everything the Reapers are and everything they stand for, and choosing to never, ever compromise with the Reapers at all. Destroy involves accepting, at least on some level, that Starbibger is telling the truth, and you never argue with him at all. You just accept what he says as truth.

Have to agree

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

lythran9 wrote...

I also find it weird that TIM is being controlled by the reapers (if the citadel cut scene is real) yet he can control Shepard.... Surely by technicality the reapers can control Shepard? Again all depends if that scene actually happened!

No, not even the Reapers would from all we have shown be able to control Shepard the way TIM does it.

The closest the Reapers get is "assuming direct control" but that also seems to take control of the subjects brain and all motor functions. Also "assuming direct control" requires a fully indoctrinated subject from what we know, not just someone in the process. The way Shepard and Anderson is controlled they both remain fully aware and even more importantly both can still speak their mind.

It is unprecedented in Mass Effect.

[MaximizedAction]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Honestly, I'm confused. How is Reject Shepard being indecisive? He's not, at all. He just staying true to the themes of free will, self-determination, and doing the impossible. It's the only ending where he does this, actually. He's not just rejecting the Reapers themselves, he's rejecting everything the Reapers are and everything they stand for, and choosing to never, ever compromise with the Reapers at all. Destroy involves accepting, at least on some level, that Starbibger is telling the truth, and you never argue with him at all. You just accept what he says as truth.

Arian, you say that the reason Starbinger is mad in Reject is because Shepard is "going against his own character." Well, why would this matter to Harbinger? If it felt this, it would mean Shepard had its respect and it was mad Shepard was betraying that respect, which doesn't fit with anything Harbinger said about how we don't matter. Wouldn't it be angrier if Shepard resisted its greatest weapon? Again, if Harbinger was angry that Shepard was refusing to play ball or betraying his own ideals, that would mean that Harbinger had some sort of respect for Shepard, which he doesn't at all. Shepard is just some insignificant speck of dust that struggles against the wind, but in less than half a millenium, he and everything he knows or cares about will be gone, erased, and the Reapers will once again reign supreme, as we... They have for billions of years.

Ahem. Sorry. Looks like I got a bit carried away there adopting Harbinger's perspective.... 0.o

Anyways, something else that just occured to me, out of the three choices we have two that have tempted iconic people and another that everybody believes is the ONLY way to defeat the Reapers. Sound familiar? Remember that the Reapers are masters of manipulation and trickery.

I'd say that Reject has at least an equal chance of breaking indoctrination, if not greater. The only reason I say Destroy is still in the running for breaking indoc at all is the breath scene...

Finally!
I thought I was the only one with my interpretation of Refuse. And here you are, writing something that makes sense to me!

I see it the exact same way!

Somehow destroy seems less attractive to me when the Refuse ending exists. Sure, it might seem like something that was just added for the players who felt forced (duh) into picking a choice. But on the other hand, the implications of Refuse, the way it is presented by Bioware, is suspicious to me.

But mainly, Refuse is one of the rare times in ME3 where I recognized MY Shepard from the previous games, if only a glimpse of him. Seeing him fail in this ending, felt like someone b*tchslapped me and said "look, damnit, doesn't that seem at least a bit odd to you?"

[CoolioThane]

SubAstris wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

Honestly, I'm confused. How is Reject Shepard being indecisive? He's not, at all. He just staying true to the themes of free will, self-determination, and doing the impossible. It's the only ending where he does this, actually. He's not just rejecting the Reapers themselves, he's rejecting everything the Reapers are and everything they stand for, and choosing to never, ever compromise with the Reapers at all. Destroy involves accepting, at least on some level, that Starbibger is telling the truth, and you never argue with him at all. You just accept what he says as truth.

Have to agree

He chooses to do nothing.

In Destroy he chooses to destroy the Reapers, the aim from Mass Effect 1 throughout 2 and 3. 

Doing nothing is not destroying the Reapers, therefore succumbs to indoctrination.