4520 réponses à ce sujet

[HellishFiend]

Seival wrote...

The choices are already mental, and not physical. There are literally no "control rods", "glass tubes", or "pillars of light" on the Citadel's sheathing. The entire dialogue with the Catalist's Avatar happens inside Shepard's mind. I think it was clear from the beginning, just observe the "Catalist's chamber" for a while - this is not a "real chamber". And you don't need "IT" to explain that. There is just a conversation with the Catalist, no indoctrination involved in that. It's obvious that the Catalist just can't communicate with others in any other way. It has to "create images in your mind" to speak with you... It's something similar to the Protheans' beacons I suppose.

The main point of "IT" is not just about "mental conversation". "IT"ers literally want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game, so only Destroy will remain. But this never going to happen, believe me. If you think that Control and Synthesis must remain as they are, then you are not an "IT"er...

Thanks for saying that I'm welcome in the topic. I'll post where appropriate and try not to disrupt anything.

To address this post, I have another question for you. If you believe the Catalyst conversation takes place in Shepard's head, why do you trust what he says? He admits he's essentially the king of the reapers, and then goes on to use words like "we" and "us", to indicate he actually considers himself as one of them. Are you under the impression that Shepard's actions and/or the Crucible itself have suddenly turned him benevolent?

Also, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the core beliefs of IT. We dont want anything removed from the current ending, we simply think they are entirely symbolic decisions which have no physical consequences outside of Shepard's mind. 

[MegaSovereign]

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

The choices are already mental, and not physical. There are literally no "control rods", "glass tubes", or "pillars of light" on the Citadel's sheathing. The entire dialogue with the Catalist's Avatar happens inside Shepard's mind. I think it was clear from the beginning, just observe the "Catalist's chamber" for a while - this is not a "real chamber". And you don't need "IT" to explain that. There is just a conversation with the Catalist, no indoctrination involved in that. It's obvious that the Catalist just can't communicate with others in any other way. It has to "create images in your mind" to speak with you... It's something similar to the Protheans' beacons I suppose.

The main point of "IT" is not just about "mental conversation". "IT"ers literally want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game, so only Destroy will remain. But this never going to happen, believe me. If you think that Control and Synthesis must remain as they are, then you are not an "IT"er...

Thanks for saying that I'm welcome in the topic. I'll post where appropriate and try not to disrupt anything.

To address this post, I have another question for you. If you believe the Catalyst conversation takes place in Shepard's head, why do you trust what he says? He admits he's essentially the king of the reapers, and then goes on to use words like "we" and "us", to indicate he actually considers himself as one of them. Are you under the impression that Shepard's actions and/or the Crucible itself have suddenly turned him benevolent?

Also, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the core beliefs of IT. We dont want anything removed from the current ending, we simply think they are entirely symbolic decisions which have no physical consequences outside of Shepard's mind. 

You should give my interpretation/explanation thread a read.

Here is bit about the Catalyst (read the bolded part):

The Catalyst does not have direct control over the Reapers. In ME1, Sovereign made it clear that each Reaper were independent "nations" that worked together toward the same goal. The Reapers do not know that the Catalyst AI exists. The AI gave the Reapers one ultimate goal: Preserve organic life and stop Tech Singularity from happening. Once the Catalyst set the cycle, he went to "sleep" or "standby." Why? Because he believes his solution is perfect and there would not be a reason for himto update it since it is afterall a "cycle" which is suppose to repeat itself until the end of time. This also explains why Sovereign needed to go to the Citadel himself to reactivate the relay to dark space, hence keeping ME1's plot relevant.

Once the Crucible attached itself to the Citadel, the Catalyst AI woke up. The Crucible messes with the Catalyst's core programming so that it has to not only guide a free-willed organic to where the Crucible can be activated but also explain the Crucible's capabilities in a truthful manner. This explains why the Catalyst elevated Shepard up to the Crucible and also explains why the Catalyst would truthfully tell shepard how to destroy him and his solution. If the Crucible is badly damaged and or poorly constructed, the Catalyst is more reluctant to open up all the pathways to the different endings. TIM could never control the Reapers as he was indoctrinated and much of his goals were aligned with the Reapers.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 juin 2012 - 07:42 .

[HellishFiend]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You should give my interpretation/explanation thread a read.

Here is bit about the Catalyst (read the bolded part):

The Catalyst does not have direct control over the Reapers. In ME1, Sovereign made it clear that each Reaper were independent "nations" that worked together toward the same goal. The Reapers do not know that the Catalyst AI exists. The AI gave the Reapers one ultimate goal: Preserve organic life and stop Tech Singularity from happening. Once the Catalyst set the cycle, he went to "sleep" or "standby." Why? Because he believes his solution is perfect and there would not be a reason for himto update it since it is afterall a "cycle" which is suppose to repeat itself until the end of time. This also explains why Sovereign needed to go to the Citadel himself to reactivate the relay to dark space, hence keeping ME1's plot relevant.

Once the Crucible attached itself to the Citadel, the Catalyst AI woke up. The Crucible messes with the Catalyst's core programming so that it has to not only guide a free-willed organic to where the Crucible can be activated but also explain the Crucible's capabilities in a truthful manner. This explains why the Catalyst elevated Shepard up to the Crucible and also explains why the Catalyst would truthfully tell shepard how to destroy him and his solution. If the Crucible is badly damaged and or poorly constructed, the Catalyst is more reluctant to open up all the pathways to the different endings. TIM could never control the Reapers as he was indoctrinated and much of his goals were aligned with the Reapers.

I see. To be fair, that is probably the best non-IT related explanation I have seen for that particular element in the story. I'm not sure it has enough lore to fully support it, but it makes sense at least. 

[Ageless Face]

KingZayd wrote...

Well what really attracts me to IT is the fixing of perceived plotholes induced by the Starchild's existence. I wasn't convinced by the indoctrination theme videos, but later on watching some gameplay videos (I was basically arguing about why I hated the endings) I ended up convincing myself that indoctrination was meant to be a central theme to this game. My reason for destroy being the choice of least indoctrination stems from my belief that it represents a certain stubbornness that might in other cases be a problem, but against the reapers would be an asset. That said, with a face value interpretation, I can see why control would be seen as the best. Synthesis doesn't seem to deal with the issues it sets out to, if I think about it. And even then I think that issue is a misdirect.

Here's the thing, I don't accept that synthetics are any less corruptible than organics. It depends on the synthetic and the organic in question, and assuming Shepard's personality isn't changed (which I'm sure we'd all hope, or else who knows what could happen?), then I'd expect his corruptability shouldn't change either. If i remember correctly TIM was rejected because either "TIM shouldn't have that power" or "nobody should have that power". I think having this unmatchable force in the galaxy is a very dangerous risk to take, especially since this crucible is a 1 shot deal. Shepard might not be selfish now, but people change, and Shepard has.. forever to do so.

Well, It's true that destroy is the most stubborn of them all. It's also the most secure, it's justice, it's not to be convined by what ghostly kid tells you. I said it many times before, control and synthesis is to look at the most important ten minutes of the trilogy where that destroy is looking back to all the series. I guess I can understnad why IT is mostly destroy support. I don't like this fact at all, but I understand.

Synthetics are using logic more than emotions. That said, synthetics are immune to corruption. But it's true. If Shepard won't be an organic anymore, and actually become the new catalyst, if can mean that either Shepard is having a syntetic mind, Shepard won't be the same and can start doing the cycles all over again. Or that Shepard will keep his/her organic mind, and then Shepard is still in danger of corruption.

To that I can only answer that I believe if Shepard will keep his/her mind, then Shepard will be strong to resist temptations. If anything, Shepard will go crazy and decide to NEVER use the reapers, even when they will be needed the most. I think it's suits more to Shepard personality, since Shepard is still fearing the reapers. But you are right. I can't say for sure Shepard is immune. You need to put a lot of faith when you are picking control. 

[MegaSovereign]

I see. To be fair, that is probably the best non-IT related explanation I have seen for that particular element in the story. I'm not sure it has enough lore to fully support it, but it makes sense at least.

Thanks. I know it's purely headcanon but my goal of that thread was to explain the ending concepts in a more literal sense.

[Ageless Face]

^ ^ ^

Actually I think I read somewhere that BioWare original concept was of the crucible messing up with the catalyst's programming, and that's why he showed Shepard his new solutions. I don't remember where I read it, and I don't know if it's true. But you might be a little closer to reality than you'd think. Anyway the theory is making a lot of sense.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 14 juin 2012 - 08:04 .

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".

No. I'm saying all 3 were just symbols, reflections of Shepard's thinking. And Shepard is still unconscious in London having been nearly killed by Harbinger. And no, I believe the attempt to kill Shepard was genuine. Indoctrination started with Object Rho, but Shepard's mind was too strong and his indoctrination hasn't matured quickly enough unfortunately for poor Harby. So he tries to kill Shepard. Shepard being unconscious is left in a weakened state, and the Reaper taint is his mind influences his dream. It won't remove the choices from the game. The choices just have different consequences to what you expected. EC announcement said nothing about Destroy, Synthesis or Control actually happening. They said they would clarify the consequences of your choices.

And yes I am an ITer, and no I don't want to remove the choice for Control and Synthesis from the game. I in fact believe that Control and Destroy will be the two options at the end, as I said before.

Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement didn't also tell anything about if Shepard really quitted Virtual Reality Concensus. So nothing game showed after that really happened... Yes, you are telling me exactly the same thing.

Game shows what happened. There was no collusion. "IT"ers just don't wanna accept and understand the endings, so they are trying to adapt them to themselves, like other people who write "alternative endings" and think their writing is better then BioWare's.

...Do you really believe that "IT"ers really want Control to be the Control, or Synthesis to be the Synthesis? I'm afraid they are not. They only want those choices to be a hallucinations. You should study their ideology more carefully.

It is possible. Joker does ask you about this possibility And no... you said the EC announcement said certain things about control and synthesis. It does not. I was pointing out that what you said wasn't true.

As you said yourself, some of what we see didn't really happen. You say that the Starchild and conversation was a mental thing, and I'm sure we'd agree that TIM and Anderson didn't really activate the Crucible. Some of what we see is purely what Shepard sees.

No. Like I said, those choices are choices that stay, but they are not of the Crucible. They are of Shepard's imagination. This applies to destroy as well. IT is not an ideology (a system of ideas). It is an idea. An idea that says that this scene is not real, and that Shepard is undergoing indoctrination.

You still haven't answered my questions:
Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement said that the endings will remain the same, but will have additional cinematics to add more details. Also, EC announcement said that there will be a full-scale epilogue scene. There will be no "alternative interpretations".

Yes, I said that conversation with Catalist was mental, and that it was clear from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that the conversation didn't happen, or something during/after that conversation didn't happen for real. Game shows only something what really happened, not hallucinations.

That's the point. Crucible is the main plot device. Shepard chooses the option during the "mental conversation" with Catalist, and Crucible fires for real, not in a "dream". Removing this is against the endings' main concept. And this is not going to happen.

...The earlier cycles didn't even know what can the Crucible do. None of them knew. And if you wanna ask me how and why did they try to build it at all, then you should read my Crucible support thread to get the answer: http://social.biowar...ndex/12045178/1

Modifié par Seival, 14 juin 2012 - 08:18 .

[KingZayd]

HagarIshay wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Well what really attracts me to IT is the fixing of perceived plotholes induced by the Starchild's existence. I wasn't convinced by the indoctrination theme videos, but later on watching some gameplay videos (I was basically arguing about why I hated the endings) I ended up convincing myself that indoctrination was meant to be a central theme to this game. My reason for destroy being the choice of least indoctrination stems from my belief that it represents a certain stubbornness that might in other cases be a problem, but against the reapers would be an asset. That said, with a face value interpretation, I can see why control would be seen as the best. Synthesis doesn't seem to deal with the issues it sets out to, if I think about it. And even then I think that issue is a misdirect.

Here's the thing, I don't accept that synthetics are any less corruptible than organics. It depends on the synthetic and the organic in question, and assuming Shepard's personality isn't changed (which I'm sure we'd all hope, or else who knows what could happen?), then I'd expect his corruptability shouldn't change either. If i remember correctly TIM was rejected because either "TIM shouldn't have that power" or "nobody should have that power". I think having this unmatchable force in the galaxy is a very dangerous risk to take, especially since this crucible is a 1 shot deal. Shepard might not be selfish now, but people change, and Shepard has.. forever to do so.

Well, It's true that destroy is the most stubborn of them all. It's also the most secure, it's justice, it's not to be convined by what ghostly kid tells you. I said it many times before, control and synthesis is to look at the most important ten minutes of the trilogy where that destroy is looking back to all the series. I guess I can understnad why IT is mostly destroy support. I don't like this fact at all, but I understand.

Synthetics are using logic more than emotions. That said, synthetics are immune to corruption. But it's true. If Shepard won't be an organic anymore, and actually become the new catalyst, if can mean that either Shepard is having a syntetic mind, Shepard won't be the same and can start doing the cycles all over again. Or that Shepard will keep his/her organic mind, and then Shepard is still in danger of corruption.

To that I can only answer that I believe if Shepard will keep his/her mind, then Shepard will be strong to resist temptations. If anything, Shepard will go crazy and decide to NEVER use the reapers, even when they will be needed the most. I think it's suits more to Shepard personality, since Shepard is still fearing the reapers. But you are right. I can't say for sure Shepard is immune. You need to put a lot of faith when you are picking control. 

Ah, see we're coming at this from quite different sides, and coming pretty close to a consensus. I think it's possible that if Shepard genuinely was to gain this power, that he'd never use it (or use it wrongly), but I feel that this is a very risky bet to take, particularly since the lives of everyone in the galaxy depend on it. If we had a reasonable chance of fighting the Reapers without a crucible, I would be more inclined to take it. (although there'd still be the problem of me doubting the Starchild).

Personally while I understand and appreciate the desire to avoid unnecessary destruction (I did after all play as an almost pure paragon), I feel as if my (Shepard's) responsibility is to ensure as best I can, the safety of the galaxy. And to me, this is the safest option to pick. 

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".

No. I'm saying all 3 were just symbols, reflections of Shepard's thinking. And Shepard is still unconscious in London having been nearly killed by Harbinger. And no, I believe the attempt to kill Shepard was genuine. Indoctrination started with Object Rho, but Shepard's mind was too strong and his indoctrination hasn't matured quickly enough unfortunately for poor Harby. So he tries to kill Shepard. Shepard being unconscious is left in a weakened state, and the Reaper taint is his mind influences his dream. It won't remove the choices from the game. The choices just have different consequences to what you expected. EC announcement said nothing about Destroy, Synthesis or Control actually happening. They said they would clarify the consequences of your choices.

And yes I am an ITer, and no I don't want to remove the choice for Control and Synthesis from the game. I in fact believe that Control and Destroy will be the two options at the end, as I said before.

Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement didn't also tell anything about if Shepard really quitted Virtual Reality Concensus. So nothing game showed after that really happened... Yes, you are telling me exactly the same thing.

Game shows what happened. There was no collusion. "IT"ers just don't wanna accept and understand the endings, so they are trying to adapt them to themselves, like other people who write "alternative endings" and think their writing is better then BioWare's.

...Do you really believe that "IT"ers really want Control to be the Control, or Synthesis to be the Synthesis? I'm afraid they are not. They only want those choices to be a hallucinations. You should study their ideology more carefully.

It is possible. Joker does ask you about this possibility And no... you said the EC announcement said certain things about control and synthesis. It does not. I was pointing out that what you said wasn't true.

As you said yourself, some of what we see didn't really happen. You say that the Starchild and conversation was a mental thing, and I'm sure we'd agree that TIM and Anderson didn't really activate the Crucible. Some of what we see is purely what Shepard sees.

No. Like I said, those choices are choices that stay, but they are not of the Crucible. They are of Shepard's imagination. This applies to destroy as well. IT is not an ideology (a system of ideas). It is an idea. An idea that says that this scene is not real, and that Shepard is undergoing indoctrination.

You still haven't answered my questions:
Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement said that the endings will remain the same, but will have additional cinematics to add more details. Also, EC announcement said that there will be a full-scale epilogue scene. There will be no "alternative interpretations".

Yes, I said that conversation with Catalist was mental, and that it was clear from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that the conversation didn't happen, or something during/after that conversation didn't happen for real. Game shows only something what really happened, not hallucinations.

That's the point. Crucible is the main plot device. Shepard chooses the option during the "mental conversation" with Catalist, and Crucible fires for real, not in a "dream". Removing this is against the endings' main concept. And this is not going to happen.

...The earlier cycles didn't even know what can the Crucible do. None of them knew. And if you wanna ask me how and why did they try to build it at all, then you should read my Crucible support thread to get the answer: http://social.biowar...ndex/12045178/1

Like I said, the endings aren't changed. They aren't retconned. What changes is your understanding that it was a dream. EC announcement never said there will be no "alternative interpretations"

FIne the whole thing happened.. IN SHEPARD'S MIND. Just like when we saw Anderson and TIM activate
the Crucible. You say the observed the results don't take place in the dream. Saying that it being a part of the dream goes against the main concept of the endings is pure speculation.

If the Crucible is a massive Biotic Amp(which is certainly a fun idea.. maybe Bioware should have used it) , then why are there only 3 options? Why does Shepard have to choose to destroy the Reapers and the Geth, and not just the Reapers? Why can't he just target each reaper, one by one and explode them.

How do you do synthesis with biotic abilities? You can't even do it if you had Edward Elric's powers (from Full Metal Alchemist) due to the laws of equivalent exchange (unless you have a philosopher's stone on you).
How does Shepard biotically reengineer all life, to be partially synthetic and partially organic? Where does he get the extra material from? How does he know what he's doing? after all he's not exactly an expert. Why can't he use this biological expertise to create a (mecha) Shepard Colossus, with super biotic powers and eyes that shoot lasers (just for fun) , then explode all the Reapers with his mind?

[Seival]

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

The choices are already mental, and not physical. There are literally no "control rods", "glass tubes", or "pillars of light" on the Citadel's sheathing. The entire dialogue with the Catalist's Avatar happens inside Shepard's mind. I think it was clear from the beginning, just observe the "Catalist's chamber" for a while - this is not a "real chamber". And you don't need "IT" to explain that. There is just a conversation with the Catalist, no indoctrination involved in that. It's obvious that the Catalist just can't communicate with others in any other way. It has to "create images in your mind" to speak with you... It's something similar to the Protheans' beacons I suppose.

The main point of "IT" is not just about "mental conversation". "IT"ers literally want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game, so only Destroy will remain. But this never going to happen, believe me. If you think that Control and Synthesis must remain as they are, then you are not an "IT"er...

Thanks for saying that I'm welcome in the topic. I'll post where appropriate and try not to disrupt anything.

To address this post, I have another question for you. If you believe the Catalyst conversation takes place in Shepard's head, why do you trust what he says? He admits he's essentially the king of the reapers, and then goes on to use words like "we" and "us", to indicate he actually considers himself as one of them. Are you under the impression that Shepard's actions and/or the Crucible itself have suddenly turned him benevolent?

Also, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the core beliefs of IT. We dont want anything removed from the current ending, we simply think they are entirely symbolic decisions which have no physical consequences outside of Shepard's mind. 

It's very simple. Conversation with the Catalist is mental, and it was clear for me even when I've seen the endings very first time. But Shepard's body is still there, and still bleeding. In the end Catalist prolonged Shepard's life to talk to her. Or the whole conversation could take just a few seconds in a "dream". Catalist talked to Shepard, explained itself, and explained what/how she can do. But the Catalist could just let Shepard die, and not talk to her at all. That's why it has no reasons to lie...

...And please, don't tell me that Shepard was not wounded for real. Becouse it will just lead us to "Shepard never quitted Virtual Reality Concensus" thing again.

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".

No. I'm saying all 3 were just symbols, reflections of Shepard's thinking. And Shepard is still unconscious in London having been nearly killed by Harbinger. And no, I believe the attempt to kill Shepard was genuine. Indoctrination started with Object Rho, but Shepard's mind was too strong and his indoctrination hasn't matured quickly enough unfortunately for poor Harby. So he tries to kill Shepard. Shepard being unconscious is left in a weakened state, and the Reaper taint is his mind influences his dream. It won't remove the choices from the game. The choices just have different consequences to what you expected. EC announcement said nothing about Destroy, Synthesis or Control actually happening. They said they would clarify the consequences of your choices.

And yes I am an ITer, and no I don't want to remove the choice for Control and Synthesis from the game. I in fact believe that Control and Destroy will be the two options at the end, as I said before.

Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement didn't also tell anything about if Shepard really quitted Virtual Reality Concensus. So nothing game showed after that really happened... Yes, you are telling me exactly the same thing.

Game shows what happened. There was no collusion. "IT"ers just don't wanna accept and understand the endings, so they are trying to adapt them to themselves, like other people who write "alternative endings" and think their writing is better then BioWare's.

...Do you really believe that "IT"ers really want Control to be the Control, or Synthesis to be the Synthesis? I'm afraid they are not. They only want those choices to be a hallucinations. You should study their ideology more carefully.

It is possible. Joker does ask you about this possibility And no... you said the EC announcement said certain things about control and synthesis. It does not. I was pointing out that what you said wasn't true.

As you said yourself, some of what we see didn't really happen. You say that the Starchild and conversation was a mental thing, and I'm sure we'd agree that TIM and Anderson didn't really activate the Crucible. Some of what we see is purely what Shepard sees.

No. Like I said, those choices are choices that stay, but they are not of the Crucible. They are of Shepard's imagination. This applies to destroy as well. IT is not an ideology (a system of ideas). It is an idea. An idea that says that this scene is not real, and that Shepard is undergoing indoctrination.

You still haven't answered my questions:
Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement said that the endings will remain the same, but will have additional cinematics to add more details. Also, EC announcement said that there will be a full-scale epilogue scene. There will be no "alternative interpretations".

Yes, I said that conversation with Catalist was mental, and that it was clear from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that the conversation didn't happen, or something during/after that conversation didn't happen for real. Game shows only something what really happened, not hallucinations.

That's the point. Crucible is the main plot device. Shepard chooses the option during the "mental conversation" with Catalist, and Crucible fires for real, not in a "dream". Removing this is against the endings' main concept. And this is not going to happen.

...The earlier cycles didn't even know what can the Crucible do. None of them knew. And if you wanna ask me how and why did they try to build it at all, then you should read my Crucible support thread to get the answer: http://social.biowar...ndex/12045178/1

Like I said, the endings aren't changed. They aren't retconned. What changes is your understanding that it was a dream. EC announcement never said there will be no "alternative interpretations"

FIne the whole thing happened.. IN SHEPARD'S MIND. Just like when we saw Anderson and TIM activate
the Crucible. You say the observed the results don't take place in the dream. Saying that it being a part of the dream goes against the main concept of the endings is pure speculation.

If the Crucible is a massive Biotic Amp(which is certainly a fun idea.. maybe Bioware should have used it) , then why are there only 3 options? Why does Shepard have to choose to destroy the Reapers and the Geth, and not just the Reapers? Why can't he just target each reaper, one by one and explode them.

How do you do synthesis with biotic abilities? You can't even do it if you had Edward Elric's powers (from Full Metal Alchemist) due to the laws of equivalent exchange (unless you have a philosopher's stone on you).
How does Shepard biotically reengineer all life, to be partially synthetic and partially organic? Where does he get the extra material from? How does he know what he's doing? after all he's not exactly an expert. Why can't he use this biological expertise to create a (mecha) Shepard Colossus, with super biotic powers and eyes that shoot lasers (just for fun) , then explode all the Reapers with his mind?

Like I said, it was clear form the beginning that "dream" is only the Catalist Dialogue part. Everything else happens for real. And "alternative interpretation" = change. EC clearly stated that no changes will be made, only explanations.

Simple. What all biotics can do? They can crowd-control their enemies (Dominate), destroy them (Warp), or change their physical properties (Lift, Pull, etc). Moreover, biotics can do it selectively to avoid harming friendly targets.

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...


...And please, don't tell me that Shepard was not wounded for real. Becouse it will just lead us to "Shepard never quitted Virtual Reality Concensus" thing again.

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

None of us is saying Shepard wasn't wounded. We all agree that Harbinger shot us.

Control/Synthesis being critical mission failures is not at all a main concept of IT, not does IT state that this is the case. The EC announcement is compatible with IT.

[HellishFiend]

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".

No. I'm saying all 3 were just symbols, reflections of Shepard's thinking. And Shepard is still unconscious in London having been nearly killed by Harbinger. And no, I believe the attempt to kill Shepard was genuine. Indoctrination started with Object Rho, but Shepard's mind was too strong and his indoctrination hasn't matured quickly enough unfortunately for poor Harby. So he tries to kill Shepard. Shepard being unconscious is left in a weakened state, and the Reaper taint is his mind influences his dream. It won't remove the choices from the game. The choices just have different consequences to what you expected. EC announcement said nothing about Destroy, Synthesis or Control actually happening. They said they would clarify the consequences of your choices.

And yes I am an ITer, and no I don't want to remove the choice for Control and Synthesis from the game. I in fact believe that Control and Destroy will be the two options at the end, as I said before.

Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement didn't also tell anything about if Shepard really quitted Virtual Reality Concensus. So nothing game showed after that really happened... Yes, you are telling me exactly the same thing.

Game shows what happened. There was no collusion. "IT"ers just don't wanna accept and understand the endings, so they are trying to adapt them to themselves, like other people who write "alternative endings" and think their writing is better then BioWare's.

...Do you really believe that "IT"ers really want Control to be the Control, or Synthesis to be the Synthesis? I'm afraid they are not. They only want those choices to be a hallucinations. You should study their ideology more carefully.

It is possible. Joker does ask you about this possibility And no... you said the EC announcement said certain things about control and synthesis. It does not. I was pointing out that what you said wasn't true.

As you said yourself, some of what we see didn't really happen. You say that the Starchild and conversation was a mental thing, and I'm sure we'd agree that TIM and Anderson didn't really activate the Crucible. Some of what we see is purely what Shepard sees.

No. Like I said, those choices are choices that stay, but they are not of the Crucible. They are of Shepard's imagination. This applies to destroy as well. IT is not an ideology (a system of ideas). It is an idea. An idea that says that this scene is not real, and that Shepard is undergoing indoctrination.

You still haven't answered my questions:
Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

EC announcement said that the endings will remain the same, but will have additional cinematics to add more details. Also, EC announcement said that there will be a full-scale epilogue scene. There will be no "alternative interpretations".

Yes, I said that conversation with Catalist was mental, and that it was clear from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that the conversation didn't happen, or something during/after that conversation didn't happen for real. Game shows only something what really happened, not hallucinations.

That's the point. Crucible is the main plot device. Shepard chooses the option during the "mental conversation" with Catalist, and Crucible fires for real, not in a "dream". Removing this is against the endings' main concept. And this is not going to happen.

...The earlier cycles didn't even know what can the Crucible do. None of them knew. And if you wanna ask me how and why did they try to build it at all, then you should read my Crucible support thread to get the answer: http://social.biowar...ndex/12045178/1

Like I said, the endings aren't changed. They aren't retconned. What changes is your understanding that it was a dream. EC announcement never said there will be no "alternative interpretations"

FIne the whole thing happened.. IN SHEPARD'S MIND. Just like when we saw Anderson and TIM activate
the Crucible. You say the observed the results don't take place in the dream. Saying that it being a part of the dream goes against the main concept of the endings is pure speculation.

If the Crucible is a massive Biotic Amp(which is certainly a fun idea.. maybe Bioware should have used it) , then why are there only 3 options? Why does Shepard have to choose to destroy the Reapers and the Geth, and not just the Reapers? Why can't he just target each reaper, one by one and explode them.

How do you do synthesis with biotic abilities? You can't even do it if you had Edward Elric's powers (from Full Metal Alchemist) due to the laws of equivalent exchange (unless you have a philosopher's stone on you).
How does Shepard biotically reengineer all life, to be partially synthetic and partially organic? Where does he get the extra material from? How does he know what he's doing? after all he's not exactly an expert. Why can't he use this biological expertise to create a (mecha) Shepard Colossus, with super biotic powers and eyes that shoot lasers (just for fun) , then explode all the Reapers with his mind?

Like I said, it was clear form the beginning that "dream" is only the Catalist Dialogue part. Everything else happens for real. And "alternative interpretation" = change. EC clearly stated that no changes will be made, only explanations.

Simple. What all biotics can do? They can crowd-control their enemies (Dominate), destroy them (Warp), or change their physical properties (Lift, Pull, etc). Moreover, biotics can do it selectively to avoid harming friendly targets.

Like I said, that's your interpretation. No, it's not a change of the endings. You have your interpretation, we have ours. They can't both be true. Clarification from the EC can show that IT is true. It could also show the opposite.

Lifting and pulling isn't changing their physical properties. How does Shepard swap out all the parts without killing anyone in Synthesis? Why can't he create the super biotic Shepard Colossus with the eyes that shoot lasers? Why can't he destroy the Reapers without harming the Geth, when as you say biotics can do these things selectively to avoid harming friendly targets? Where does he get all the materials required to make the necessary changes for synthesis? Why is he limited to controlling the Reapers, instead of say.. controlling everything: organic, synthetic, organosynthetic?

Modifié par KingZayd, 14 juin 2012 - 09:15 .

[Seival]

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

[/quote]

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.
[/quote]

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.
[/quote]

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".[/quote]

No. I'm saying all 3 were just symbols, reflections of Shepard's thinking. And Shepard is still unconscious in London having been nearly killed by Harbinger. And no, I believe the attempt to kill Shepard was genuine. Indoctrination started with Object Rho, but Shepard's mind was too strong and his indoctrination hasn't matured quickly enough unfortunately for poor Harby. So he tries to kill Shepard. Shepard being unconscious is left in a weakened state, and the Reaper taint is his mind influences his dream. It won't remove the choices from the game. The choices just have different consequences to what you expected. EC announcement said nothing about Destroy, Synthesis or Control actually happening. They said they would clarify the consequences of your choices.

And yes I am an ITer, and no I don't want to remove the choice for Control and Synthesis from the game. I in fact believe that Control and Destroy will be the two options at the end, as I said before.

Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

[/quote]

EC announcement didn't also tell anything about if Shepard really quitted Virtual Reality Concensus. So nothing game showed after that really happened... Yes, you are telling me exactly the same thing.

Game shows what happened. There was no collusion. "IT"ers just don't wanna accept and understand the endings, so they are trying to adapt them to themselves, like other people who write "alternative endings" and think their writing is better then BioWare's.

...Do you really believe that "IT"ers really want Control to be the Control, or Synthesis to be the Synthesis? I'm afraid they are not. They only want those choices to be a hallucinations. You should study their ideology more carefully.[/quote]

It is possible. Joker does ask you about this possibility And no... you said the EC announcement said certain things about control and synthesis. It does not. I was pointing out that what you said wasn't true.

As you said yourself, some of what we see didn't really happen. You say that the Starchild and conversation was a mental thing, and I'm sure we'd agree that TIM and Anderson didn't really activate the Crucible. Some of what we see is purely what Shepard sees.

No. Like I said, those choices are choices that stay, but they are not of the Crucible. They are of Shepard's imagination. This applies to destroy as well. IT is not an ideology (a system of ideas). It is an idea. An idea that says that this scene is not real, and that Shepard is undergoing indoctrination.

You still haven't answered my questions:
Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?
[/quote]

EC announcement said that the endings will remain the same, but will have additional cinematics to add more details. Also, EC announcement said that there will be a full-scale epilogue scene. There will be no "alternative interpretations".

Yes, I said that conversation with Catalist was mental, and that it was clear from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that the conversation didn't happen, or something during/after that conversation didn't happen for real. Game shows only something what really happened, not hallucinations.

That's the point. Crucible is the main plot device. Shepard chooses the option during the "mental conversation" with Catalist, and Crucible fires for real, not in a "dream". Removing this is against the endings' main concept. And this is not going to happen.

...The earlier cycles didn't even know what can the Crucible do. None of them knew. And if you wanna ask me how and why did they try to build it at all, then you should read my Crucible support thread to get the answer: http://social.biowar...ndex/12045178/1[/quote]

Like I said, the endings aren't changed. They aren't retconned. What changes is your understanding that it was a dream. EC announcement never said there will be no "alternative interpretations"

FIne the whole thing happened.. IN SHEPARD'S MIND. Just like when we saw Anderson and TIM activate
the Crucible. You say the observed the results don't take place in the dream. Saying that it being a part of the dream goes against the main concept of the endings is pure speculation.

If the Crucible is a massive Biotic Amp(which is certainly a fun idea.. maybe Bioware should have used it) , then why are there only 3 options? Why does Shepard have to choose to destroy the Reapers and the Geth, and not just the Reapers? Why can't he just target each reaper, one by one and explode them.

How do you do synthesis with biotic abilities? You can't even do it if you had Edward Elric's powers (from Full Metal Alchemist) due to the laws of equivalent exchange (unless you have a philosopher's stone on you).
How does Shepard biotically reengineer all life, to be partially synthetic and partially organic? Where does he get the extra material from? How does he know what he's doing? after all he's not exactly an expert. Why can't he use this biological expertise to create a (mecha) Shepard Colossus, with super biotic powers and eyes that shoot lasers (just for fun) , then explode all the Reapers with his mind?

[/quote]

Like I said, it was clear form the beginning that "dream" is only the Catalist Dialogue part. Everything else happens for real. And "alternative interpretation" = change. EC clearly stated that no changes will be made, only explanations.

Simple. What all biotics can do? They can crowd-control their enemies (Dominate), destroy them (Warp), or change their physical properties (Lift, Pull, etc). Moreover, biotics can do it selectively to avoid harming friendly targets.[/quote]

Like I said, that's your interpretation. No, it's not a change of the endings. You have your interpretation, we have ours. They can't both be true. Clarification from the EC can show that IT is true. It could also show the opposite.

Lifting and pulling isn't changing their physical properties. How does Shepard swap out all the parts without killing anyone in Synthesis? Why can't he create the super biotic Shepard Colossus with the eyes that shoot lasers? Why can't he destroy the Reapers without harming the Geth, when as you say biotics can do these things selectively to avoid harming friendly targets? Where does he get all the materials required to make the necessary changes for synthesis? Why is he limited to controlling the Reapers, instead of say.. controlling everything: organic, synthetic, organosynthetic?

[/quote]

As I said, I strongly believe that different interpretation = change. A scene can have only one true interpretation.

Changing object's mass is clearly changing its physical properties. Who knows how deeply biotic powers can affect objects? Especially if the biotic powers were improved by 45km-long amplifier.

Modifié par Seival, 15 juin 2012 - 12:08 .

[KingZayd]

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

[quote]Seival wrote...

[quote]KingZayd wrote...

The game doesn't state the the Catalyst isn't lying and there were no indoctrination attempts during the conversation. Again, I'm an ITer and I don't want to remove control and synthesis from the game.

If IT is true, the endings wouldn't be changed, as indoctrination would have been what Bioware was planning. All that would change is your interpretation of the endings.

[/quote]

...Removed the pyramid, because posts became unreadable.

If you really don't want Control and Synthesis to be removed or changed in any way, then you should understand that both these endings can't have different interpretations. Control means that Shepard Controls the Reapers. Synthesis means that organics and synthetics were Merged. And both endings means that the Reapers were stopped... And the endings were not a "hallutination".

...You still think that you are "IT"er?

...Catalist isn't lieing. It's obvious, because if Catalist wanted to stop Shepard, it could just let her to bleed to death. When someone saves you from certain death it was not because he wanted to kill you one minute later. Besides, indoctrination process is too slow, and Shepard is clearly immune to it in given small amount of time.
[/quote]

They can. They didn't happen for real. Any of them. The interpretation is that Shepard chose one of those endings because of some aspect of his personality, and that decision affects his mental state when he wakes up. Control and Synthesis mean those things according to your interpretation.

Yes I am an ITer. 

Not if it's not actually happening. Letting Shepard bleed to death in a dream is meaningless. The events in Arrival suggest that Object Rho is the start of Shepard's indoctrination. Nobody is immune to indoctrination, and yet everyone else that it activates on it ends up indoctrinated. In the face value interpretation, there's no reason to bring Shepard upstairs, as Shepard had failed, the Crucible wasn't activating, and conventional victory was off the table. The Reapers solution could easily have continued.
[/quote]

So you are saying, that Shepard choosing, say, Synthesis was just a symbol, a reflection of her way of thinking. But Merging organics and synthetics didn't happen for real, and Reapers just died in "real life" instead. And at the same time you are saying this will not change the endings?... This will literally remove Control and Synthesis endings from the game. And this is not acceptable (remember EC official announcement?).

So you think that Shepard wasn't even wounded. And the closest Reaper (Harbinger) tried to indoctrinate her in seconds, while it couldn't do so even in hours... Even days or weeks will not be enough for that actually... But this is not the main point. The main point is that it will also literally remove Control and Synthesis from the game.

...So yes, I suppose you are "IT"er. And you want to remove Control and Synthesis from the game. So, I'm glad BioWare decided to explain current endings instead of listening to "IT"ers "suggestions".[/quote]

No. I'm saying all 3 were just symbols, reflections of Shepard's thinking. And Shepard is still unconscious in London having been nearly killed by Harbinger. And no, I believe the attempt to kill Shepard was genuine. Indoctrination started with Object Rho, but Shepard's mind was too strong and his indoctrination hasn't matured quickly enough unfortunately for poor Harby. So he tries to kill Shepard. Shepard being unconscious is left in a weakened state, and the Reaper taint is his mind influences his dream. It won't remove the choices from the game. The choices just have different consequences to what you expected. EC announcement said nothing about Destroy, Synthesis or Control actually happening. They said they would clarify the consequences of your choices.

And yes I am an ITer, and no I don't want to remove the choice for Control and Synthesis from the game. I in fact believe that Control and Destroy will be the two options at the end, as I said before.

Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?

[/quote]

EC announcement didn't also tell anything about if Shepard really quitted Virtual Reality Concensus. So nothing game showed after that really happened... Yes, you are telling me exactly the same thing.

Game shows what happened. There was no collusion. "IT"ers just don't wanna accept and understand the endings, so they are trying to adapt them to themselves, like other people who write "alternative endings" and think their writing is better then BioWare's.

...Do you really believe that "IT"ers really want Control to be the Control, or Synthesis to be the Synthesis? I'm afraid they are not. They only want those choices to be a hallucinations. You should study their ideology more carefully.[/quote]

It is possible. Joker does ask you about this possibility And no... you said the EC announcement said certain things about control and synthesis. It does not. I was pointing out that what you said wasn't true.

As you said yourself, some of what we see didn't really happen. You say that the Starchild and conversation was a mental thing, and I'm sure we'd agree that TIM and Anderson didn't really activate the Crucible. Some of what we see is purely what Shepard sees.

No. Like I said, those choices are choices that stay, but they are not of the Crucible. They are of Shepard's imagination. This applies to destroy as well. IT is not an ideology (a system of ideas). It is an idea. An idea that says that this scene is not real, and that Shepard is undergoing indoctrination.

You still haven't answered my questions:
Do you think that an earlier cycle decided than what an anti-reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why?
[/quote]

EC announcement said that the endings will remain the same, but will have additional cinematics to add more details. Also, EC announcement said that there will be a full-scale epilogue scene. There will be no "alternative interpretations".

Yes, I said that conversation with Catalist was mental, and that it was clear from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that the conversation didn't happen, or something during/after that conversation didn't happen for real. Game shows only something what really happened, not hallucinations.

That's the point. Crucible is the main plot device. Shepard chooses the option during the "mental conversation" with Catalist, and Crucible fires for real, not in a "dream". Removing this is against the endings' main concept. And this is not going to happen.

...The earlier cycles didn't even know what can the Crucible do. None of them knew. And if you wanna ask me how and why did they try to build it at all, then you should read my Crucible support thread to get the answer: http://social.biowar...ndex/12045178/1[/quote]

Like I said, the endings aren't changed. They aren't retconned. What changes is your understanding that it was a dream. EC announcement never said there will be no "alternative interpretations"

FIne the whole thing happened.. IN SHEPARD'S MIND. Just like when we saw Anderson and TIM activate
the Crucible. You say the observed the results don't take place in the dream. Saying that it being a part of the dream goes against the main concept of the endings is pure speculation.

If the Crucible is a massive Biotic Amp(which is certainly a fun idea.. maybe Bioware should have used it) , then why are there only 3 options? Why does Shepard have to choose to destroy the Reapers and the Geth, and not just the Reapers? Why can't he just target each reaper, one by one and explode them.

How do you do synthesis with biotic abilities? You can't even do it if you had Edward Elric's powers (from Full Metal Alchemist) due to the laws of equivalent exchange (unless you have a philosopher's stone on you).
How does Shepard biotically reengineer all life, to be partially synthetic and partially organic? Where does he get the extra material from? How does he know what he's doing? after all he's not exactly an expert. Why can't he use this biological expertise to create a (mecha) Shepard Colossus, with super biotic powers and eyes that shoot lasers (just for fun) , then explode all the Reapers with his mind?

[/quote]

Like I said, it was clear form the beginning that "dream" is only the Catalist Dialogue part. Everything else happens for real. And "alternative interpretation" = change. EC clearly stated that no changes will be made, only explanations.

Simple. What all biotics can do? They can crowd-control their enemies (Dominate), destroy them (Warp), or change their physical properties (Lift, Pull, etc). Moreover, biotics can do it selectively to avoid harming friendly targets.[/quote]

Like I said, that's your interpretation. No, it's not a change of the endings. You have your interpretation, we have ours. They can't both be true. Clarification from the EC can show that IT is true. It could also show the opposite.

Lifting and pulling isn't changing their physical properties. How does Shepard swap out all the parts without killing anyone in Synthesis? Why can't he create the super biotic Shepard Colossus with the eyes that shoot lasers? Why can't he destroy the Reapers without harming the Geth, when as you say biotics can do these things selectively to avoid harming friendly targets? Where does he get all the materials required to make the necessary changes for synthesis? Why is he limited to controlling the Reapers, instead of say.. controlling everything: organic, synthetic, organosynthetic?

[/quote]

As I said, I strongly believe that different interpretation = change. A scene can have only one true interpretation.

Changing object's mass is clearly changing its physical properties. Who knows how deeply biotic powers can affect objects? Especially if the biotic powers were improved by 45km-long amplifier.[/quote]

Yes, and we disagree on which interpretation is true among other things. Changing YOUR interpretation of the ending, isn't the same as changing the ending. By that logic, if the EC was to confirm that the conversation didn't take place in Shepard's mind, that because it changed my interpretation of the scene, it changed the ending.

Yes, that's courtesy of the Dark Energy that biotics employ. Doesn't really help Shepard rewrite all Biology, and obtain the resources required to rebuild every single organism, never mind achieving all this without killing everyone. Doesn't explain why Shepard can't use these powers to make the Super Biotic, Laser-eyes Shepard Colossus or to just explode all the reapers and leave everything else untouched, or mind-control every organic, every synthetic, every husk and every reaper, instead of just the reapers.

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Yes, and we disagree on which interpretation is true among other things. Changing YOUR interpretation of the ending, isn't the same as changing the ending. By that logic, if the EC was to confirm that the conversation didn't take place in Shepard's mind, that because it changed my interpretation of the scene, it changed the ending.

Yes, that's courtesy of the Dark Energy that biotics employ. Doesn't really help Shepard rewrite all Biology, and obtain the resources required to rebuild every single organism, never mind achieving all this without killing everyone. Doesn't explain why Shepard can't use these powers to make the Super Biotic, Laser-eyes Shepard Colossus or to just explode all the reapers and leave everything else untouched, or mind-control every organic, every synthetic, every husk and every reaper, instead of just the reapers.

(...Killed the "pyramide")

I think that it is actually changing the ending. BioWare initially meant something particular by a scene, there was an idea with only one intended meaning behind it. So, the BioWare's initial idea is the only true interpretation. We disagree with each other's interpretations. And I'm afraid they can't co-exist in the same game without conflicting each other.

The Citadel and Mass Relays Network contain incredible power. So If used as biotic amplifiers, thay can support extremally powerfull abilities, even abilities which can rewrite all Biology, I suppose. Why not use some "biotic lasers"? I suppose AOE is much more effective. Especially because of biotic powers can affect targets selectively.

Modifié par Seival, 15 juin 2012 - 10:38 .

[Seival]

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

Modifié par Seival, 15 juin 2012 - 12:45 .

[KingZayd]

Seival wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

[Seival]

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

About fundamental misunderstanding... This is not a misunderstanding. The main concept of "IT" always was "the ending was a hallucination", and Control/Synthesis options "just represent critical mission failures", because "Shepard becomes indoctrinated". And this is against main endings' concept. So, according to the EC official announcement, "IT" is not an option.

No, this is most definitely a fundamental misunderstanding. The entire bolded section above is 100% false. I've made more posts in the two IT threads than all the posts in this entire thread combined, so I think I'm a bit more of an authority on the fundamentals of IT than yourself. 

If you have your own personal vision of IT that enables you to dismiss it, thats fine. I have no issue with that. But you cant slap labels on us because of your own modified version of our theory. That is just rude, so please dont do it. 

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.

[HellishFiend]

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.

I wont and cant fault you for being Anti-IT. Bioware wants it to be a realm of contention, debate, and speculation. But thinking that "Synth/Control = critical mission failure" is strictly your belief, not ours. We simply feel it lends to becoming indoctrinated. But that doesnt mean all is lost. There are several possible factors, such as the Rachni or Eve's crystal, that could potentially assist Shepard with overcoming indoctrination in completionist playthroughs. 

[mass perfection]

HellishFiend wrote...

Seival wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Seival wrote...

Ok, I'll not do that. But you should understand that I'm pure anti-"IT"er. Even if "IT"ers really don't want to remove/change Control or Synthesis (which I really doubt, especially after reading your signature), I don't like the indoctrination-attempt idea itself. And I'm 100% sure it was not what BioWare really meant.

? His sig says that he thinks choosing Synthesis or Control leads to indoctrination. He's not for removing or changing Control or Synthesis. His interpretation is that those choices lead to indoctrination. He doesn't want to change it.

Exactly. Which means that "Synthesis/Control = critical mission failure, because Shepard was indoctrinated". I just can't read the sig any other way. This sig just yells: "Shepard fails the mission if she didn't choose Destroy". Sorry, but I can't accept that... I believe that "IT" will always remain alien to me, and to ME.

I wont and cant fault you for being Anti-IT. Bioware wants it to be a realm of contention, debate, and speculation. But thinking that "Synth/Control = critical mission failure" is strictly your belief, not ours. We simply feel it lends to becoming indoctrinated. But that doesnt mean all is lost. There are several possible factors, such as the Rachni or Eve's crystal, that could potentially assist Shepard with overcoming indoctrination in completionist playthroughs. 

Rachni to fight indoctrination?What's Eve's crystal?

[HellishFiend]

mass perfection wrote...
Rachni to fight indoctrination?What's Eve's crystal?

The Rachni queen is immune to indoctrination. It has something to do with her extraordinary telepathic abilities. What the Reapers do is hijack her telepathic connection with her "children" in order to manipulate them. But the queen herself is immune, as we see in ME3, and explained by her in ME1 dialog. If you assist her, she promises to "add her voice to yours" when the time comes. 

Here is the dialog where you receive Eve's crystal:


Some have speculated that it could play a role in resisting indoctrination. It's a reminder that "In the darkest hour, there is always a way out".

[mass perfection]

HellishFiend wrote...

mass perfection wrote...
Rachni to fight indoctrination?What's Eve's crystal?

The Rachni queen is immune to indoctrination. It has something to do with her extraordinary telepathic abilities. What the Reapers do is hijack her telepathic connection with her "children" in order to manipulate them. But the queen herself is immune, as we see in ME3, and explained by her in ME1 dialog. If you assist her, she promises to "add her voice to yours" when the time comes. 

Here is the dialog where you receive Eve's crystal:


Some have speculated that it could play a role in resisting indoctrination. It's a reminder that "In the darkest hour, there is always a way out".

How do the Rachni help Shepard fight indoctrination?Weren't the Rachni all indoctrinated in the Rachni wars?

[HellishFiend]

mass perfection wrote...
How do the Rachni help Shepard fight indoctrination?Weren't the Rachni all indoctrinated in the Rachni wars?

It's all speculation, but the Rachni queen is the only entity we know of that is immune to indoctrination, so that plus her powerful telepathic abilities, plus the fact that she ominously claims she will "add her voice to yours when the time comes", lends credence to the possibility that she could help Shepard resist indoctrination. 

And like I mentioned above, only the queen's children were indoctrinated, because the Reapers were able to hijack the telephathic connection the Queen used to communicate with them. But they tried and failed to indoctrinate her directly, which is why they had to resort to physically restraining her and stealing away her young to use them for their purposes.