4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Errant_Geth]

I'm just writing this to say that I'm finally getting over my shock at the endings and I'm trying to play this thing again.

After a lot of thought and a lot of ending cutscene watching on Youtube, I'm pretty well convinced that Control is the best way to go.

The way I envision the new state of the Reapers after Shepard is disintegrated / integrated into them, is that of a Gestalt consciousness in which Shepard is every Reaper at once. They lose their "each a nation" state of being and become a giant collective responding to a singular identity that Shepard's sacrifice helped to create.

[Seival]

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

Agree. We should concentrate on opposing "IT"ers 

That wont do you a lot of good, considering the truth behind the ending was decided long before any of these theories even popped up.  And if you try to talk anyone out of IT based on your rationalizations of the Control ending, you will only be laughed at. Personally (and please dont take offense to this), my suggestion is to enjoy the illusion of control while it lasts. But thats just me. 

I'll not try to talk any "IT"ers out of their theory. They should understand themselves that:

(1) Catalist isn't lying. It has no reasons to lie, because it could just let Shepard die. But instead it saved her life.
(2) Game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose.
(3) Endings already set in stone, nothing will change that. EC will just explain current endings.

...You just have to deal with it. "IT" is not an option.

[MegaSovereign]

Errant_Geth wrote...

I'm just writing this to say that I'm finally getting over my shock at the endings and I'm trying to play this thing again.

After a lot of thought and a lot of ending cutscene watching on Youtube, I'm pretty well convinced that Control is the best way to go.

The way I envision the new state of the Reapers after Shepard is disintegrated / integrated into them, is that of a Gestalt consciousness in which Shepard is every Reaper at once. They lose their "each a nation" state of being and become a giant collective responding to a singular identity that Shepard's sacrifice helped to create.

My interpretation of control is actually a bit different.

My view of it is that the Reapers were always individual nations, but they worked toward the same common goal. After Shepard took control using the Crucible, he becomes the new Catalyst and sets them a new goal for them to follow.

[Errant_Geth]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Errant_Geth wrote...

I'm just writing this to say that I'm finally getting over my shock at the endings and I'm trying to play this thing again.

After a lot of thought and a lot of ending cutscene watching on Youtube, I'm pretty well convinced that Control is the best way to go.

The way I envision the new state of the Reapers after Shepard is disintegrated / integrated into them, is that of a Gestalt consciousness in which Shepard is every Reaper at once. They lose their "each a nation" state of being and become a giant collective responding to a singular identity that Shepard's sacrifice helped to create.

My interpretation of control is actually a bit different.

My view of it is that the Reapers were always individual nations, but they worked toward the same common goal. After Shepard took control using the Crucible, he becomes the new Catalyst and sets them a new goal for them to follow.

"Lots of speculation" rings true here haha

I can see your angle as well, but I'm too big a fan of Ghost in the Shell and that's what influenced my theory.

Modifié par Errant_Geth, 13 juin 2012 - 08:18 .

[HellishFiend]

Seival wrote...

...You just have to deal with it. "IT" is not an option.

Seems to me that I'm not the one throwing things around and slapping the "fact" label on them. In any case, thanks for the discussion. I originally chose control in my intial no-spoiler playthrough, so I was just looking to gain some additional insight as to why you guys decided to stick with that option. But if I'm no longer welcome here, I'll leave. 

[MegaSovereign]

Errant_Geth wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Errant_Geth wrote...

I'm just writing this to say that I'm finally getting over my shock at the endings and I'm trying to play this thing again.

After a lot of thought and a lot of ending cutscene watching on Youtube, I'm pretty well convinced that Control is the best way to go.

The way I envision the new state of the Reapers after Shepard is disintegrated / integrated into them, is that of a Gestalt consciousness in which Shepard is every Reaper at once. They lose their "each a nation" state of being and become a giant collective responding to a singular identity that Shepard's sacrifice helped to create.

My interpretation of control is actually a bit different.

My view of it is that the Reapers were always individual nations, but they worked toward the same common goal. After Shepard took control using the Crucible, he becomes the new Catalyst and sets them a new goal for them to follow.

"Lots of speculation" rings true here haha

I can see your angle as well, but I'm too big a fan of Ghost in the Shell and that's what influenced my theory.

Yea. I hate how it's never clear about exactly how the Crucible can control the Reapers.

[Seival]

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

...You just have to deal with it. "IT" is not an option.

Seems to me that I'm not the one throwing things around and slapping the "fact" label on them. In any case, thanks for the discussion. I originally chose control in my intial no-spoiler playthrough, so I was just looking to gain some additional insight as to why you guys decided to stick with that option. But if I'm no longer welcome here, I'll leave. 

You are welcome here, because you explain your point of view constructively and without unnecessary emotions.

[Seival]

Control Ending Support Group was created

http://social.bioware.com/group/7485

[MerchantGOL]

i love that "nobody else dies today" sig, it was the reasoning for my choice in a nuttshell

[incinerator950]

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

...You just have to deal with it. "IT" is not an option.

Seems to me that I'm not the one throwing things around and slapping the "fact" label on them. In any case, thanks for the discussion. I originally chose control in my intial no-spoiler playthrough, so I was just looking to gain some additional insight as to why you guys decided to stick with that option. But if I'm no longer welcome here, I'll leave. 

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Seival]

incinerator950 wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

...You just have to deal with it. "IT" is not an option.

Seems to me that I'm not the one throwing things around and slapping the "fact" label on them. In any case, thanks for the discussion. I originally chose control in my intial no-spoiler playthrough, so I was just looking to gain some additional insight as to why you guys decided to stick with that option. But if I'm no longer welcome here, I'll leave. 

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

[Seival]

MerchantGOL wrote...

i love that "nobody else dies today" sig, it was the reasoning for my choice in a nuttshell

You are welcome to use the sig

...Added it to the OP by the way. But only large one for now. Not sure if middle and small will be readable.

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

Agree. We should concentrate on opposing "IT"ers 

That wont do you a lot of good, considering the truth behind the ending was decided long before any of these theories even popped up.  And if you try to talk anyone out of IT based on your rationalizations of the Control ending, you will only be laughed at. Personally (and please dont take offense to this), my suggestion is to enjoy the illusion of control while it lasts. But thats just me. 

I'll not try to talk any "IT"ers out of their theory. They should understand themselves that:

(1) Catalist isn't lying. It has no reasons to lie, because it could just let Shepard die. But instead it saved her life.
(2) Game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose.
(3) Endings already set in stone, nothing will change that. EC will just explain current endings.

...You just have to deal with it. "IT" is not an option.

if it's IT, then:
1) It has reason to lie, and it couldn't just let Shepard die, because it's not real.
2) Game states that after showing a massive time-skip. It's quite possible the Shepard stops the Reapers after waking up.
3) Prove it.

[Ageless Face]

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

[mass perfection]

Control Master Race.

[Seival]

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Modifié par Seival, 14 juin 2012 - 06:56 .

[Ageless Face]

Seival wrote...


Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Oh, believe me, that is also my  problem with the IT. That destroy is the only ending, that is. Saying that only one ending is the true one is pissing me off. If I did everything right, why should I be punished for it? I deserve to end the game on my own terms.

But still, we don't need to say that it's completley out of the ending concept. IT is actually saying that the ending is not the true ending, the concept to it is not what we think it is. I'm not a fan of the idea, But it's still possible.

And there are a lot of things to argue about. The evidences to the IT are one of them.Or why you don't like the IT, how would you interept the ending insted of the IT. 

[Seival]

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...


Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Oh, believe me, that is also my  problem with the IT. That destroy is the only ending, that is. Saying that only one ending is the true one is pissing me off. If I did everything right, why should I be punished for it? I deserve to end the game on my own terms.

But still, we don't need to say that it's completley out of the ending concept. IT is actually saying that the ending is not the true ending, the concept to it is not what we think it is. I'm not a fan of the idea, But it's still possible.

And there are a lot of things to argue about. The evidences to the IT are one of them.Or why you don't like the IT, how would you interept the ending insted of the IT. 

Agreed, some people are still arguing about "IT". And maybe they will continue to argue even after "IT" will be debunked completely with EC release. But all those pro-"IT"ers should understand that all they are trying to do is to justify their confusion by punishing all people, who liked the endings (or just want endings to be explained in more details).

BioWare proved that they will never allow some players' confusion to change the ending ideas, or punish some other players. And the prove was EC official announcement.

...Again, no offense to pro-"IT"ers. I respect their opinion, but I strongly disagree with it.

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

[estebanus]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

[KingZayd]

estebanus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

That would be good. Some combinations should lead to mission failure, but whichever choice you make it should be possible to win.

And I would like it, if (at least in some scenarios) Shepard has to paragon interrupt suicide (matching the sacrifice of Saren, TIM and [offscreen] Rana).

Modifié par KingZayd, 14 juin 2012 - 11:43 .

[Ageless Face]

estebanus wrote...


I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

estebanus! Nice to see you again :happy:. Kind of missed you.

I don't think that your idea is bad. I like it. Something like a charm or indimidate option will be a better idea than just complete indoctrination my opinion. Will be kind of sad if there won't be any drawbacks to destroy (yeah, I'm hard to please), but  A LOT of my dislike for IT will be dumbed down, I admit.

The problem is, that the base idea of IT is talking about that only destroy is the right option. The breath scene is talking about that Shepard is only alive there, and in the other endings, Shepard is indoc.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 14 juin 2012 - 12:09 .

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

estebanus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

That would be good. Some combinations should lead to mission failure, but whichever choice you make it should be possible to win.

If that means Control and Synthesis concepts will remain the same and will stop the Reapers (as they do now), then it will be against "IT" theory. If not, then it will be against main endings' concepts, which will never be changed. So, I suppose this is also not an option.

You should understand, that "IT"ers want literally convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. But a lot of people (including BioWare team) don't want this to happen. That's why "IT" is not an option, and never will be an option.

Modifié par Seival, 14 juin 2012 - 11:59 .

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

estebanus wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Seival wrote...

Let's be polite

Besides, he may change his mind about "IT" after EC release.

Everyone can believe what they want. And if someone would like to believe the IT even after the EC, it's their right to do so. And the IT can be true and BioWare planned it all along, even if we are not fans of the idea.

We can all just have a disscusion about the evidences of IT, no need to dismiss it all together. Just like we wouldn't want people to outright dismiss control.

Well, everyone can believe what they want indeed. And I don't really want to talk any "IT"er out of his theory, but the facts strongly suggest that "IT" is not an option. I mean that "IT"ers wanna convert two of existing endings into a critical mission failures, and leave only one ending (destroy) in the game. Which is against main ending concept. As we all know, game clearly states that Shepard stopped the Reapers no matter which ending she choose. And BioWare clearly stated that they will not change the endings' concepts. EC will just explain existing endings.

...I don't really want to insult any "IT"ers here. We really could argue about their theory before the EC official announcement. But now there is nothing to argue about, I suppose.

Actually I don't. After all decisions Shepard wakes up, he's indoctrinated (indoctrination doesn't just go away). The difference is in the degree of indoctrination when he wakes up. There is also a threshold before he becomes a pawn of the reapers. Also, Shepard isn't the only competent person on Earth now.

I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

That would be good. Some combinations should lead to mission failure, but whichever choice you make it should be possible to win.

If that means Control and Synthesis concepts will remain the same and will stop the Reapers (as they do now), then it will be against "IT" theory. If not, then it will be against main endings' concepts, which will never be changed. So, I suppose this is also not an option.

You should understand, that "IT"ers want literally convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. But a lot of people (including BioWare team) don't want this to happen. That's why "IT" is not an option, and never will be an option.

the choices would be a mental thing, not a physical thing. It's not against IT, as there is indoctrination going on. And can you prove it's against the main ending's concepts? Prove that Bioware didn't have indoctrination in mind when they wrote the ending we saw.

False. I'm an ITer, and i literally don't want to convert Control and Synthesis into critical mission failures. (But can you prove the Bioware team doesn't?)

Until you or the EC can prove these things, IT is an option and will always remain an option.

[KingZayd]

HagarIshay wrote...

estebanus wrote...


I told this to HagarIshay once, that it's completely possible for Shepard to still save the galaxy after control and synthesis. I'd like it to be something like constant renegade/paragon interrupts. In the end, Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save the galaxy.

estebanus! Nice to see you again :happy:. Kind of missed you.

I don't think that your idea is bad. I like it. Something like a charm or indimidate option will be a better idea than just complete indoctrination my opinion. Will be kind of sad if there won't be any drawbacks to destroy, but  A LOT of my dislike for IT will be dumbed down, I admit. If it will be done nicely, I would love it.

The problem is, that the base idea of IT is talking about that only destroy is the right option. The breath scene is talking about that Shepard is only alive there, and in the other endings, Shepard is indoc.

Yes I believe that Destroy is the "right" choice. But that doesn't necessarily mean the others doom you in your quest to save the galaxy. I think Destroy is what you're meant to do, and Control and Synthesis are options that are presented to lead you astray (through good intentions, or ego [or alternatively human bias like TIM... who also has the ego thing].
To me it feels as if Control was meant to appeal to your ego, and Synthesis was meant to appeal to your being unwilling to sacrifice the Geth. Obviously as we see in these threads, people's reasoning is more complex than that. But then with 3 choices you're never going to be able to satisfyingly deal with everybody's personal motives)