55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Goose]

IT simply states that the ending is
an indoctrination attempt. It doesn't say you can't or shouldn't become indoctrinated.

I thought the point of IT is that in new ending DLC only those who have choosen destroy with high EMS will have ''real'' ending. Everyone else will have lose their game.

[Lokanaiya]

Raistlin, I think he did. And the Crucible still "changed him." Guess the Citadel was low on power.

[paxxton]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Gonna repost my question again. Did the Catalyst in EC not refer to the Crucible as essentially simply beeing a giant Battery? I cant quite remember, so if anyone could answer it would be nice 

Yes, why are you asking?

[The Heretic of Time]

masster blaster wrote...

And I am not calling you stupid Heritac, just your Avatar.

I'm not that big actually. I'm a small stupid jellyfish. And no offense has been taken. This one is not that easily offended. 

[masster blaster]

Paxxton and Heritac. Bioware said Shepard becomes a Reaper that can Control the Reapers, and if you don't believe me look it up on the N7 collecters edition. Also shouldn't Shepard be on the Citadel, and call it his home. And Remember the Reaper built the Citadel, so I guess the Reaper built their ruler a house. Also you are missing the point. By picking Control you become a Reaper. Hence why the Citadel closes and why Shepard starts of with a Reaper voice. And Yes I know the catalyst has a Reaper voice too, but that does not mean the Catalyst is a Reaper.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Andromidius wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Gonna repost my question again. Did the Catalyst in EC not refer to the Crucible as essentially simply beeing a giant Battery? I cant quite remember, so if anyone could answer it would be nice 

It did, yes.

And some of us were guessing that it was that before anyway.  Would explain why its able to do things that the makers had no clue about, and how it can be used in three very different ways.

Which means a fourth option of turning it into an actual weapon isn't out of the question.

Thank you, but that fact makes the Crucible even more interesting.

When talking to the Thessia VI (cant remember its name) on TIM´s base it speculates that the Crucible was only later adapted to involve the Citadel, but if it is just a giant battery it would need to power something from the start which makes it curious. If indeed the cruicible did not incoporate the Citadel from the start then what was its original purpose, what was it supposed to power?

Off course the VI is only speculating as I doubt the Protheans had any real way of knowing (unless Reaper changed) but still i find this interesting.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:13 .

[Either.Ardrey]

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

No one wants to play with me.

If you're talking about MP then Either Ardrey (probably) and I will play later tonight. Send my your Origin and I'll add you. 

We beat reaper gold last night for the challenge 

Edit: this offer is for everyone who has ME3 on the PC btw!

Same goes for me, as Chriz aptly mentioned.

@ people who say ME is shallow: Read this

And lastly, I haven't seen this mentioned yet in this way, but I hope this clears the "only two scenarios, so I IT is wrong" debate. There is NOT only two. Limiting it to two interperetations limits possibilities of discovering truth. And I found a way to do this incredibly simply in very few words. In fact, only four unique words: Reject, Accept, Death, and Indoctrination.

Synthesis =  Accept Indoctrination, Accept Death
Control = Accept Indoctrination, Reject Death
Reject = Reject Indoctrination, Accept Death
Destroy = Reject Indoctrination, Reject Death

(I, by no means, believe or disbelieve this scenario. I'm just offering it as an alternative explanation to the "only two" argument.)

I like the SP DLC building idea BTW. Regardless of intention, it can be used to support IT or Literal. I don't know if it will end up that way or not, but it would be interesting if it did. It would definitely make a purchase decision possible for me.

[HellishFiend]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So, how is my sign offensive to you?

Why should it not be offensive to me?

Because it's just a silly blue banner based on a Mass Effect ending?

No but in all seriousness (super serious this time, not trolling), why do you think control and synthesis banners are offensive?

Interesting. What is your definition of silly? I'm curious as to how it applies in this context. Please elaborate. 

You first. I asked you a question first, twice. I already answered your previou question, it's only polite if you answer my questions now.

I'm not quite sure how you would come to that conclusion. Can you lay it out for me?

[FellishBeast]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

And I am not calling you stupid Heritac, just your Avatar.

I'm not that big actually. I'm a small stupid jellyfish. And no offense has been taken. This one is not that easily offended. 

Grasping at straws. <_<

[Andromidius]

Lord Goose wrote...

IT simply states that the ending is
an indoctrination attempt. It doesn't say you can't or shouldn't become indoctrinated.

I thought the point of IT is that in new ending DLC only those who have choosen destroy with high EMS will have ''real'' ending. Everyone else will have lose their game.

Actually, its up in the air whether Destroy is the 'correct' answer or not.

But honestly, I'd go as far to say yes.  And thay Control and Synthesis are both blantant traps that a lot have people have walked directly into.

[Andromidius]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Gonna repost my question again. Did the Catalyst in EC not refer to the Crucible as essentially simply beeing a giant Battery? I cant quite remember, so if anyone could answer it would be nice 

It did, yes.

And some of us were guessing that it was that before anyway.  Would explain why its able to do things that the makers had no clue about, and how it can be used in three very different ways.

Which means a fourth option of turning it into an actual weapon isn't out of the question.

Thank you, but that fact makes the Crucible even more interesting.

When talking to the Thessia VI (cant remember its name) on TIM´s base it speculates that the Crucible was only later adapted to involve the Citadel, but if it is just a giant battery it would need to power something from the start which makes it curious. If indeed the cruicible did not incoporate the Citadel from the start then what was its original purpose, what was it supposed to power?

Off course the VI is only speculating as I doubt the Protheans had any real way of knowing (unless Reaper changed) but still i find this interesting.

Indeed.  Which does actually suggest that it was all a Reaper plan all along - they planted the plans to be found, and make sure they can be found by each and every cycle so they waste resources building a power source for the Reapers.

And like suckers it seems every cycle falls for it.

[paxxton]

masster blaster wrote...

Paxxton and Heritac. Bioware said Shepard becomes a Reaper that can Control the Reapers, and if you don't believe me look it up on the N7 collecters edition. Also shouldn't Shepard be on the Citadel, and call it his home. And Remember the Reaper built the Citadel, so I guess the Reaper built their ruler a house. Also you are missing the point. By picking Control you become a Reaper. Hence why the Citadel closes and why Shepard starts of with a Reaper voice. And Yes I know the catalyst has a Reaper voice too, but that does not mean the Catalyst is a Reaper.

If the CE book states Shepard becomes a Reaper and in-game Shepard becomes the Catalyst who is not a Reaper, we have a contradiction. It means one of those statements isn't true. Given all the evidence for IT and the overall structure of the ending being in accordance with the Codex's description of indoctrination...well...the answer is obvious. IT. 

[masster blaster]

Yep that's the thing Paxxton. But right know I have to go my phone is about to die and I didn't bring my charger with me. So see ya in a bit guys and ladys.

[The Heretic of Time]

HellishFiend wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So, how is my sign offensive to you?

Why should it not be offensive to me?

Because it's just a silly blue banner based on a Mass Effect ending?

No but in all seriousness (super serious this time, not trolling), why do you think control and synthesis banners are offensive?

Interesting. What is your definition of silly? I'm curious as to how it applies in this context. Please elaborate. 

You first. I asked you a question first, twice. I already answered your previou question, it's only polite if you answer my questions now.

I'm not quite sure how you would come to that conclusion. Can you lay it out for me?

I asked you how control and synthesis signs offend you. You didn't answer but instead asked a question in return. I asked you the same question again, and again you avoided answering it and gave me a question back instead.

So, once more: Why and how do control and synthesis signatures offend you?

[Uncle Jo]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Thank you, but that fact makes the Crucible even more interesting.

When talking to the Thessia VI (cant remember its name) on TIM´s base it speculates that the Crucible was only later adapted to involve the Citadel, but if it is just a giant battery it would need to power something from the start which makes it curious. If indeed the cruicible did not incoporate the Citadel from the start then what was its original purpose, what was it supposed to power?

Off course the VI is only speculating as I doubt the Protheans had any real way of knowing (unless Reaper changed) but still i find this interesting.

Got it.

Starbrat : "The Crucible is a little more than a power source".

I think you have also to refer to what Vendetta (on Cronos) said about the catalyst:

Vendetta : "The catalyst (Citadel) enhances the dark energy transmissions and coordinate the mass relays network."

So IMO the citadel was a sort of powerboost to the Crucible, also allowing him to target the reapers wherever they were in the Galaxy.

[The Heretic of Time]

paxxton wrote...

If the CE book states Shepard becomes a Reaper and in-game Shepard becomes the Catalyst who is not a Reaper, we have a contradiction. It means one of those statements isn't true. Given all the evidence for IT and the overall structure of the ending being in accordance with the Codex's description of indoctrination...well...the answer is obvious. IT. 

I have the CE book and it doesn't state that Shepard becomes a Reaper as far as I know. On which page is it supposed to say that Shepard becomes a Reaper?

Also, keep in mind that book was made BEFORE Mass Effect 3 went gold. The original leaked scripts also said Shepard becomes a Reaper, but this is obviously changed in the final release of Mass Effect. Well, at least since the Extended Cut, which makes it very clear Shepard is not just a Reaper (which wouldn't make sense anyway), but instead he is the new Catalyst (which does make sense).

So the answer is obvious: Shepard is the new Catalyst in the Control ending, not a reaper. The CE book is wrong and so is the IT.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:26 .

[Either.Ardrey]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

And I find control/synthesis banners offensive. It says right here on my clipboard that users of such banners are 76% more likely to be indoctrinated.

How in the world are control/synthesis banners offensive?


And the only people who are indoctrinated are those who are part of the IT cult.

Would you stop calling us a cult please, we don't worship a false god we don't shave our heads and dance around nude ... well the last bit some of us might do ....

Who says you have to worship false gods and shave your heads and dance around nude? Worshiping a false theory is more than enough to qualify as a cult. 


Anyway, when I refer to the IT cult, I'm talking about this type of cult:

Cult:
"A cult references a group whose beliefs or practices are considered strange."

Guess what, that means you're a part of a cult, too.

In fact everyone's in a cult.

[paxxton]

Still, as I wrote earlier, IT shouldn't impose a single correct choice of the ending. Each of the available options allow the story to branch into diverse plotlines. While implementing such a concept would be challenging, it would also be incredibly awesome.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Thank you, but that fact makes the Crucible even more interesting.

When talking to the Thessia VI (cant remember its name) on TIM´s base it speculates that the Crucible was only later adapted to involve the Citadel, but if it is just a giant battery it would need to power something from the start which makes it curious. If indeed the cruicible did not incoporate the Citadel from the start then what was its original purpose, what was it supposed to power?

Off course the VI is only speculating as I doubt the Protheans had any real way of knowing (unless Reaper changed) but still i find this interesting.

Got it.

Starbrat : "The Crucible is a little more than a power source".

I think you have also to refer to what Vendetta (on Cronos) said about the catalyst:

Vendetta : "The catalyst (Citadel) enhances the dark energy transmissions and coordinate the mass relays network."

So IMO the citadel was a sort of powerboost to the Crucible, also allowing him to target the reapers wherever they were in the Galaxy.

No it is slightly later, found the exact quote now.

Vendetta: "At some point, it is difficult to pinpoint when, the Crucible plans were adapted to incoporate the use of the Catalyst."

This sentence makes little sense when sparkly tells you it is little more than a power source. If it is little more than a power source then waht was it powering before the incoporation of the Catalyst (Citadel)? Did they simply build a power source and hope it could stop the Reapers?

[The Heretic of Time]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

No it is slightly later, found the exact quote now.

Vendetta: "At some point, it is difficult to pinpoint when, the Crucible plans were adapted to incoporate the use of the Catalyst."

This sentence makes little sense when sparkly tells you it is little more than a power source. If it is little more than a power source then waht was it powering before the incoporation of the Catalyst (Citadel)? Did they simply build a power source and hope it could stop the Reapers?

You know what is also just a simple powersource yet an incredibly effective weapon? A bomb.

The Crucible could have been a gigantic bomb before it's function was altered, perhaps a huge EMP bomb that would affect all synthetics, like the EMP pulse weapons in The Matrix.

Just my 2 cents.

[paxxton]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

If the CE book states Shepard becomes a Reaper and in-game Shepard becomes the Catalyst who is not a Reaper, we have a contradiction. It means one of those statements isn't true. Given all the evidence for IT and the overall structure of the ending being in accordance with the Codex's description of indoctrination...well...the answer is obvious. IT. 

I have the CE book and it doesn't state that Shepard becomes a Reaper as far as I know. On which page is it supposed to say that Shepard becomes a Reaper?

Also, keep in mind that book was made BEFORE Mass Effect 3 went gold. The original leaked scripts also said Shepard becomes a Reaper, but this is obviously changed in the final release of Mass Effect. Well, at least since the Extended Cut, which makes it very clear Shepard is not just a Reaper (which wouldn't make sense anyway), but instead he is the new Catalyst (which does make sense).

So the answer is obvious: Shepard is the new Catalyst in the Control ending, not a reaper. The CE book is wrong and so is the IT.

Becoming a Reaper would make equal sense as becoming the Catalyst. Shepard's mind would just supersede Harbinger's.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

paxxton wrote...

Still, as I wrote earlier, IT shouldn't impose a single correct choice of the ending. Each of the available options allow the story to branch into diverse plotlines. While implementing such a concept would be challenging, it would also be incredibly awesome.

I beleive in a Synthesis and Control beeing "wrong" choices in terms of Indoctrination, but i dont consider them game over. Certain events, people, choices you made should enable a victory in spite of a wrong choice, but the wrong choice makes teh victory harder and more costly.

My own idea was the Rachni Queen as one such "safety net" as i like to call them. Essentially having the Rachni Queen alive and picking Control or Synthesis would result in her linking her mind to Shepard and helping him break free (she can mind link to living creatures and is immune to Indoctrination) but at the cost of the Queens life as she is forced to go into the war zone to get close enough.

Such "safety nets" could insure victory even if Shepard makes a wrong choice.

[masster blaster]

Or Heretic it does not and the catayst is meesing around with Shepard and making him/her believe Shepard picked the right choice and now Controls Shepard. Hence why we think he smiles when Shepard picks Control, and remember. The Catalyst is alive in Control, and Synthesis so makes you wonder. Why does the Catalyst even let Shepard Control the Reapers, and and in Synthesis. If the beings of light are real, then they will most likly kill everything in Synthesis because Shepard has tiped the balace of the galaxy over. And now the beings of light have to fix Shepard mistake.

Also if they want to continue to go in deep with the Mass Effect trilogy. They have to include Shepard's choice because that will determine of how things will be in the next cycle.

Oh and the weirdest of all in the EC other than the Breath scence, is the Stargzer.

One more Story has we know is about Shepard, and makes you think Shepards stroy is not over just yet.

[paxxton]

I think I've just got an idea for my new theory! A ground-breaking one!

Modifié par paxxton, 14 juillet 2012 - 09:33 .

[Lord Goose]

t means one of those statements isn't true.
Given all the evidence for IT and the overall structure of the
ending being in accordance with the Codex's description of
indoctrination...well...the answer is obvious. IT.

Can you name any instance of indoctrination with complex visions with many different actors, and actual choices, one of which allows you to break indoctrination attempt?

Also, name all those, who were managed to break indoctrination without suicide.