496 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob3terd]

You want to label me call me an IT skeptic, i dont pyshically hate hypothesis.

[Silhouett3]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Actually I'd say people who disregard the I.T. are generally thinking _harder_ about the end and, in general, coming up with better and more interesting suggestions.

I.T. is destructive, it does nothing but subtract content, hence it can seem to be as good as you think it should be as it doesn't actually contribute anything. IMHO it's just terribly lazy, much as I don't like the ending we have, I.T. is _more_ lazy and less coherent.

Really?

Such as?

[Lord Goose]

My greatest concern of the IT is idea, that according to it there is only one correct way of thinking: Reapers must be destroyed no matter the cost. If you disagree with what, Reapers are control you, no matter why. That's sorta... zealotish.

If IT as it is turned out to be true, when it means what developers would be punishing you for your [b]morallity-based decision.[b] Throught the course of games morality was neutral. You had your downsides as idealist, your downsides as idealist. Rachni queen, for example. If you were good to her, you will be rewarded. Another example is that asari scientist who will succumb to Reapers in the third game and reduce your EMS,

There was rationality-based decision who would backfire if you don't use them. Suicide mission is a great example. But decisions where should not be based on correct ideals. While in IT, if you don't believe that Reapers death is only goal, you're screwed.

If they go by IT, I would like them to make only ''true'' choice to be ''refuse to make choice''. What would be completely negating all options provided by source who you don't trust. You shouldn't be doing anything, ignoring Catalyst and when all ''dream'' would shatter to pieces,

[Arian Dynas]

Lord Goose wrote...

My greatest concern of the IT is idea, that according to it there is only one correct way of thinking: Reapers must be destroyed no matter the cost. If you disagree with what, Reapers are control you, no matter why. That's sorta... zealotish.

If IT as it is turned out to be true, when it means what developers would be punishing you for your [b]morallity-based decision.[b] Throught the course of games morality was neutral. You had your downsides as idealist, your downsides as idealist. Rachni queen, for example. If you were good to her, you will be rewarded. Another example is that asari scientist who will succumb to Reapers in the third game and reduce your EMS,

There was rationality-based decision who would backfire if you don't use them. Suicide mission is a great example. But decisions where should not be based on correct ideals. While in IT, if you don't believe that Reapers death is only goal, you're screwed.

If they go by IT, I would like them to make only ''true'' choice to be ''refuse to make choice''. What would be completely negating all options provided by source who you don't trust. You shouldn't be doing anything, ignoring Catalyst and when all ''dream'' would shatter to pieces,

Let's think about this. You are fighting an enemy known for their crimes against humanity and known for their subversive propoganda.

And you are arguing that it is a good idea to listen to them?

The problems with Control and Synthesis respectively both come down to hubris. To beleive either one you have to A) accept the reality the star child presents you with as fact (Destroy is only an attractive option if you specifically choose not to beleive him, otherwise you are correct, if we beleive the star child, there is nothing good about destroy. Many of us however do not beleive him.) and beleive you are essentially God. You must beleive in Control that you genuinely DO have the power to control a countless number of beings with minds so large as to be beyond even your comprehension, let alone control, or in Synthesis, that you have the right to decide what is good for the entire galaxy. Neither sounds paticularly likely does it?

IT is not arguing there is only one "right way of thinking" it argues that when going up against an enemy who fights with psychological warfare, your resolve will be tested and the way to survival and victory is found in sticking to your guns. You have been trying to destroy the Reapers since ME1, every single character you trust from Hackett to Anderson to Javik to Garrus to Tali to Legion tells you that if you give the Reapers even an inch, they will take a mile, yet the only people who argued for Synthesis and Control were Saren and The Illusive Man respectively.  And you are going to trust these people? 

Refusing to make a choice is being noncommital, not resisting, Destroy is the opposite of what the Guardian wants you to do, THAT is resisiting. Standing about farting around is just making him wait until you pick something. At which point you are that guy in front of him at the Wendy's Counter, a minor annoyance and nothing more.

[Candidate 88766]

I have too many problems with the idea of the IT.

Firstly, it means they sold an incomplete game. They are giving the EC out for free, but even so they made no mention of the game being incomplete at launch. It would at the very least have been polite to inform the fans that, while unfinished, the 'true' ending is on the way.

Secondly, this is a series about choice and consequence. The game never tells you that you were wrong in your choices. Some choices backfire, but they were still perfectly justifiable at the time. IT throws this out the window and just outright says you're wrong for two of the three choices.

Thirdly, the IT is based around some new form of indoctrination that never appears in the trilogy. Indoctrination in-game is subliminal signals and electromagnetic fields that cause permanent changes to the subject's brain. Thats it. Just signals. However, in the IT, indoctrination is now some sort of mind-game where the Reapers have to try to infiltrate the target's brain undetected, and then speak to the subject through projections of the subject's own subconscious. Its no longer indoctrination - its some fourth-wall breaking, meta mind game with the player. Its an interesting idea, but thats not what indoctrination is. In ME indoctrination, you experience headaches and ringing in your ears, followed by feelings of being watched and hallucinations, and finally you hear the Reapers' voices in your mind (by which point its too late). In IT indoctrination, none of this stuff happens during the game (dreams are not hallucinations - hallucinations, by definition, occur when you are conscious and awake) and instead Harbinger suddenly 'attempts' to indoctrinate Shepard, not through signals but by speaking to Shepard to Shepard's own subconscious and trying to trick him. This isn't the indoctrination that was present during the rest of the trilogy. 

Fourthly, this line is from the announcement about the EC:

The extended cut DLC will expand on the existing endings, but no further ending DLC is planned. 

Bioware believes that the ending has already occured in the game. If IT is true, this is not the case - there wasn't an ending in ME3, the story simply stopped.

Fifthly, not only does the IT imply there is only one 'correct' ending, which goes against the whole point of having an open-ended story, but the only way to get this 'correct' ending is to play multiplayer.

Finally, the game outright disproves the IT:


IT supporters will focus on the 2nd line: "Now you can continue to build the legend through further gameplay and downloadable content" and claim that this somehow disproves the first line: "Commander Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat."

The 2nd line is little more than a DLC advert, inviting the player to play NG+, repeat playthroughs, and pre-credits DLC to build on the 'legend' of Shepard.

The first line is directly from the people that wrote this story, telling the player in no uncertain terms that Shepard has ended the Reaper threat, regardless of your ending choice. You can't get clearer than that. IT supporters either ignore the first line or focus on the 2nd line, as if either somehow disproves the first. Yes, line 2 is a DLC advert; however, line 2 isn't what we're interested in. We're interested in line 1, which disproves that the IT was initially intended.

The IT could be true. There is stuff that lends it credence. However, it obviously wasn't initially true. I also very much doubt that the IT will be made true in the EC - Bioware has said they aren't changing the endings.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 04 juin 2012 - 12:51 .

[killage_wizard]

Lord Goose wrote...

My greatest concern of the IT is idea, that according to it there is only one correct way of thinking: Reapers must be destroyed no matter the cost. If you disagree with what, Reapers are control you, no matter why. That's sorta... zealotish.

If IT as it is turned out to be true, when it means what developers would be punishing you for your [b]morallity-based decision.[b] Throught the course of games morality was neutral. You had your downsides as idealist, your downsides as idealist. Rachni queen, for example. If you were good to her, you will be rewarded. Another example is that asari scientist who will succumb to Reapers in the third game and reduce your EMS,

There was rationality-based decision who would backfire if you don't use them. Suicide mission is a great example. But decisions where should not be based on correct ideals. While in IT, if you don't believe that Reapers death is only goal, you're screwed.

If they go by IT, I would like them to make only ''true'' choice to be ''refuse to make choice''. What would be completely negating all options provided by source who you don't trust. You shouldn't be doing anything, ignoring Catalyst and when all ''dream'' would shatter to pieces,

In ME2 Shepard you can make choices that result in Shepards death, and you still beat the game.  According to the series canon those are the incorrect choices since ou can't import a dead shepard into ME3.  That invalidates choices you made in ME2.  It punishes your decisions.  And the true choice is not refusing to make a choice.  If it's IT and you want to not become indoc'd, you pick destroy.  That is the choice that breaks it.

[Candidate 88766]

killage_wizard wrote...

In ME2 Shepard you can make choices that result in Shepards death, and you still beat the game.  According to the series canon those are the incorrect choices since ou can't import a dead shepard into ME3.  That invalidates choices you made in ME2.  It punishes your decisions.  And the true choice is not refusing to make a choice.  If it's IT and you want to not become indoc'd, you pick destroy.  That is the choice that breaks it.

Imagine if ME2 went to a game over screen if you chose to keep the Collector Base.

You've spent the entire game trying to destroy the Collectors. At the last minute, you actually get an option to kepe and use it (much like ME3's final choices). Keeping it, while abhorrent, is perfectly justifiable. If the game then went to a game over screen and told you that despite your justifiable reasons you were wrong, destroying it was the correct choice, you'd be pretty pissed off. Yet thats what IT supporters are hoping is true. 

[killage_wizard]

Seboist wrote...

I'm sure 9/11 "Truther" whackjobs think the same of their "theories".

Not cool.  I.T. is the interpretation of the story in a video game.  To compare people discussing it to people who believe 9/11 was in inside job is beyond insulting.  Go troll somewhere else.

[llbountyhunter]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
a list of "issues" and "major flaws" that have all ready been explained half to death.

if I had a nickel for everytime I answered these questions... do you mind doing some reaserch before posting simple things with easy to reach answers???????

[Lord Goose]

Destroy is only an attractive option if you
specifically choose not to beleive him, otherwise you
are correct, if we beleive the star child, there is nothing good about destroy. Many of us however do
not beleive him

Catalyst outright states that: ''You have to choose''. Making any kind of choice would be going along with that statement.
We don't know consequences of our choices if we don't believe Catalyst. What if Shepard would be indoctrinated in his special way, and would wake up as rabid Reaper-hater, ready to sacrifice anybody to win this war? Who will eventually kill his allies, thinking they're indoctrinated?
Thats certainly what Reapers would have wanted.

And there is good side in Destroy. The reapers would die. That's appealing not just to me, but for everybody.

Also, goal was to protect the galaxy.

[Candidate 88766]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
a list of "issues" and "major flaws" that have all ready been explained half to death.

if I had a nickel for everytime I answered these questions... do you mind doing some reaserch before posting simple things with easy to reach answers???????

If you've answered these so many times before then I'm sure you don't mind simply pasting your previous answers in.

Or are you simply going to deflect the points again by telling me that I should sift through the preposterous number of IT threads that have spread across this forum rather than simply answering the points?


Lets start with this one: if the IT is true, not only does this supposedly open-ended story-focused RPG only have one 'correct' ending  (the others simply being glorified game over screens that tell you you've won anyway, but thats another point) but that the only way to get the 'true' ending is to play MP, and even then the 'true' ending doesn't yet exist. Why is this desirable?

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 04 juin 2012 - 01:01 .

[killage_wizard]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

In ME2 Shepard you can make choices that result in Shepards death, and you still beat the game.  According to the series canon those are the incorrect choices since ou can't import a dead shepard into ME3.  That invalidates choices you made in ME2.  It punishes your decisions.  And the true choice is not refusing to make a choice.  If it's IT and you want to not become indoc'd, you pick destroy.  That is the choice that breaks it.

Imagine if ME2 went to a game over screen if you chose to keep the Collector Base.

You've spent the entire game trying to destroy the Collectors. At the last minute, you actually get an option to kepe and use it (much like ME3's final choices). Keeping it, while abhorrent, is perfectly justifiable. If the game then went to a game over screen and told you that despite your justifiable reasons you were wrong, destroying it was the correct choice, you'd be pretty pissed off. Yet thats what IT supporters are hoping is true. 

"In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was
taking risks with Mass Effect 3's plot, including a negative ending in
which the Reapers win.

"Gamble simply said , "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he said, "Yes"."

The ME series is all about choices and their consequences.  To provide choices that lead to the Reapers winng is to me a brilliant idea.   There is nothing stopping you from doing another play through.  TIM thought he was right in that he could control the Reapers, and Saren thought we should join them.  TIM thought it was the only way to beat them.  Justifiable.  Saren thought it was the only way to survive them,  Justifiable.  They were still wrong.

[Candidate 88766]

killage_wizard wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

In ME2 Shepard you can make choices that result in Shepards death, and you still beat the game.  According to the series canon those are the incorrect choices since ou can't import a dead shepard into ME3.  That invalidates choices you made in ME2.  It punishes your decisions.  And the true choice is not refusing to make a choice.  If it's IT and you want to not become indoc'd, you pick destroy.  That is the choice that breaks it.

Imagine if ME2 went to a game over screen if you chose to keep the Collector Base.

You've spent the entire game trying to destroy the Collectors. At the last minute, you actually get an option to kepe and use it (much like ME3's final choices). Keeping it, while abhorrent, is perfectly justifiable. If the game then went to a game over screen and told you that despite your justifiable reasons you were wrong, destroying it was the correct choice, you'd be pretty pissed off. Yet thats what IT supporters are hoping is true. 

"In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was
taking risks with Mass Effect 3's plot, including a negative ending in
which the Reapers win.

"Gamble simply said , "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he said, "Yes"."

The ME series is all about choices and their consequences.  To provide choices that lead to the Reapers winng is to me a brilliant idea.   There is nothing stopping you from doing another play through.  TIM thought he was right in that he could control the Reapers, and Saren thought we should join them.  TIM thought it was the only way to beat them.  Justifiable.  Saren thought it was the only way to survive them,  Justifiable.  They were still wrong.

Allowing the Reapers to win by making wrong choices throughout the story would've been amazing.

Building up an amazing army, and being on the verge of winning only for the Reapers to win simply because the player chose the wrong choice in a set of choices that weren't actually the choices they represented is an awful way to go about doing that.

And I thought in one of the later interviews thay said they scrapped the idea of Reapers being able to win?

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 04 juin 2012 - 01:03 .

[killage_wizard]

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

P47 ace wrote...

ok I know some people don't like the idea of indoc theory, and for differant reasons (mostly illogical ones), but there is one that i hear a lot that makes sence but i still have to ask Why

Here it is, tell me if you have herd it
"IT means i bought an unfinished game"

Now i understand their resoning for saying this but look at it this way

Everyone knows the game was rushed out the door, so EA and friends could get their $$$$$$

So one, you already have an unfinshed product that Sucks beyond Sucking, and many other descriptions,

now IT still has this "unfinshed game that was already unfinshed" but it will help it NOT suck

so for the IT theory Haters out there you have 2 chioces

1) unfinshed game that sucks
or
2) unfinshed game that dose not suck

the chioce is your's

Your post implies that IT doesn't suck. It does.

Are you going to elaborate on that?  Or does it just suck because you think it sucks?

[llbountyhunter]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
a list of "issues" and "major flaws" that have all ready been explained half to death.

if I had a nickel for everytime I answered these questions... do you mind doing some reaserch before posting simple things with easy to reach answers???????

If you've answered these so many times before then I'm sure you don't mind simply pasting your previous answers in.

Or are you simply going to deflect the points again by telling me that I should sift through the preposterous number of IT threads that have spread across this forum rather than simply answering the points?


Lets start with this one: if the IT is true, not only does this supposedly open-ended story-focused RPG only have one 'correct' ending  (the others simply being glorified game over screens that tell you you've won anyway, but thats another point) but that the only way to get the 'true' ending is to play MP, and even then the 'true' ending doesn't yet exist. Why is this desirable?

niether endind  is "correct" but one gives you a better chance of winning than the others (just like EVERY mass effect choice)... presumably you could still win with the other option in some form, only it would be much more difficutl.


you donts always win everything. the quarians or geth can die. you can even die your self in the end of me2. 

you have to handle the situation properly every time.   

[killage_wizard]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

killage_wizard wrote...

"In an inteview with NowGamer at Gamescom, we asked if BioWare was
taking risks with Mass Effect 3's plot, including a negative ending in
which the Reapers win.

"Gamble simply said , "Yes". We asked him again to confirm what he had just said and he said, "Yes"."

The ME series is all about choices and their consequences.  To provide choices that lead to the Reapers winng is to me a brilliant idea.   There is nothing stopping you from doing another play through.  TIM thought he was right in that he could control the Reapers, and Saren thought we should join them.  TIM thought it was the only way to beat them.  Justifiable.  Saren thought it was the only way to survive them,  Justifiable.  They were still wrong.

Allowing the Reapers to win by making wrong choices throughout the story would've been amazing.

Building up an amazing army, and being on the verge of winning only for the Reapers to win simply because the player chose the wrong choice in a set of choices that weren't actually the choices they represented is an awful way to go about doing that.

And I thought in one of the later interviews thay said they scrapped the idea of Reapers being able to win?

But it makes sense if you play tthe game again and look for the indoc clues.  The fact that no one else sees or aknowledges the kid, the hum on the nomandy, the dreams etc.  Its the same with ME2.  You build an amazing crew over the course of the game, but if you make the wrong decisions at the end they can die.  And I never read anything about the Reapers winning being scrapped, but I just may have missed it.

Modifié par killage_wizard, 04 juin 2012 - 01:09 .

[Arian Dynas]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

I have too many problems with the idea of the IT.

Firstly, it means they sold an incomplete game. They are giving the EC out for free, but even so they made no mention of the game being incomplete at launch. It would at the very least have been polite to inform the fans that, while unfinished, the 'true' ending is on the way.

This may seem heartless, but I'm in a bad mood so I'll be blunt. Get over it. If they had informed you it would have defeated the whole purpose, which was to make you feel the same doubt and fear that Shepard is facing. It's a PR stunt, in this case on Casey Hudson himself admits to; http://www.gameinfor...nterviewae.aspx 

Secondly, this is a series about choice and consequence. The game never tells you that you were wrong in your choices. Some choices backfire, but they were still perfectly justifiable at the time. IT throws this out the window and just outright says you're wrong for two of the three choices.

It remains as it ever was. If you chose Control or Synthesis, your heart remained in the right place, though was unruled by the sometimes grim necessity of logic. Just like Rana Thanoptis or any of the choices you could have made in the Suicide Mission, I see no difference here.

Thirdly, the IT is based around some new form of indoctrination that never appears in the trilogy. Indoctrination in-game is subliminal signals and electromagnetic fields that cause permanent changes to the subject's brain. Thats it. Just signals. However, in the IT, indoctrination is now some sort of mind-game where the Reapers have to try to infiltrate the target's brain undetected, and then speak to the subject through projections of the subject's own subconscious. Its no longer indoctrination - its some fourth-wall breaking, meta mind game with the player. Its an interesting idea, but thats not what indoctrination is. In ME indoctrination, you experience headaches and ringing in your ears, followed by feelings of being watched and hallucinations, and finally you hear the Reapers' voices in your mind (by which point its too late). In IT indoctrination, none of this stuff happens during the game (dreams are not hallucinations - hallucinations, by definition, occur when you are conscious and awake) and instead Harbinger suddenly 'attempts' to indoctrinate Shepard, not through signals but by speaking to Shepard to Shepard's own subconscious and trying to trick him. This isn't the indoctrination that was present during the rest of the trilogy.

Let's see... indoctrinated Cerberus Scientists... shared visions, several mentions of nightmares and poor sleeping, hallucinations, shared memories, feelings of being watched...

Saren, sugguestion, motor control, personality manipulation...

There are alot of symptoms, not all of which are listed in the codex, but ALL of which can be seen in game or in the expanded universe. We made up no symptoms.

The Guardian itself comes right up to you and informs you it's "Soloution will no longer work" Shepard has resisted all previous attempts at indoctrination, accepting the Reaper Philosophy, they couldn't intimidate him, convince him, bribe him or force him, thus they are forced into tricking him.

Fourthly, this line is from the announcement about the EC:

The extended cut DLC will expand on the existing endings, but no further ending DLC is planned. 

Bioware believes that the ending has already occured in the game. If IT is true, this is not the case - there wasn't an ending in ME3, the story simply stopped.

This is a good point, and should be noted, but the thing I would point out IT CAN be an ending, since by Bioware's own admission they must expand things. Even if after making the choice we saw Shepard lying in the rubble, we pan down to his face, and his eyes snap open revealing indoctrinated irises then cut to black, THAT would still be an ending.

Fifthly, not only does the IT imply there is only one 'correct' ending, which goes against the whole point of having an open-ended story, but the only way to get this 'correct' ending is to play multiplayer.

Finally, the game outright disproves the IT:


IT supporters will focus on the 2nd line: "Now you can continue to build the legend through further gameplay and downloadable content" and claim that this somehow disproves the first line: "Commander Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat."

The 2nd line is little more than a DLC advert, inviting the player to play NG+, repeat playthroughs, and pre-credits DLC to build on the 'legend' of Shepard.

First off wrong. IT does not hinge on there being "one right ending" it hinges on there being one ending in which Shepard beats indoctrination. Big difference. Shepard could just as easily win in the other two, but sacrifice himself to do so. Choosing Destroy does not require multiplayer either, though likely higher EMS would effect your game positively.

"Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat" the threat to what? What kind of threat? It never states he ended the Reapers, merely the threat, this could just as easily mean he killed the Reapers, it could just as easily mean he made the Reapers leave, or that he slaughtered every organic in the galaxy, meaning there is no reason for the Reapers to be there at all. Or it could mean he became the first man to lick indoctrination by sheer willpower and ended the Reaper threat to his own mind. This is a sentence that basically says something but means nothing. The other is a promise of SOMETHING more to come, we just don't know what.

The IT could be true. There is stuff that lends it credence. However, it obviously wasn't initially true. I also very much doubt that the IT will be made true in the EC - Bioware has said they aren't changing the endings.

IT hinges on the endings NOT being changed, since IT basically states that it was the plan the whole time. 

[Arian Dynas]

killage_wizard wrote...

Seboist wrote...

I'm sure 9/11 "Truther" whackjobs think the same of their "theories".

Not cool.  I.T. is the interpretation of the story in a video game.  To compare people discussing it to people who believe 9/11 was in inside job is beyond insulting.  Go troll somewhere else.

Agreed. Should we compare you to holocaust deniers because you don't agree with us?

[Arian Dynas]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
a list of "issues" and "major flaws" that have all ready been explained half to death.

if I had a nickel for everytime I answered these questions... do you mind doing some reaserch before posting simple things with easy to reach answers???????

Literalist has a point here dude. I know it's frustrating, but when you act hissy it only gives them ammunition, better to post when not annoyed to avoid this sort of thing.

[Lord Goose]

In ME2 Shepard you can make choices that result in
Shepards death, and you still beat the game.

Rationality-based choices.
Effort-based choices (how much of the game you have completed).
I have pointed out, what suicide mission is filled with them.

Also, pay attention what with low EMS you would have Destroy as the only option availible. Or Control if you have saved Collectors base.

According to IT, that means that with low EMS, you wouldn't be indoctrinated at all, or would be completely indoctrinated.

But... you will keep option to not do anything of Catalysts options. Do nothing.

[Arian Dynas]

Lord Goose wrote...

Destroy is only an attractive option if you
specifically choose not to beleive him, otherwise you
are correct, if we beleive the star child, there is nothing good about destroy. Many of us however do
not beleive him

Catalyst outright states that: ''You have to choose''. Making any kind of choice would be going along with that statement.
We don't know consequences of our choices if we don't believe Catalyst. What if Shepard would be indoctrinated in his special way, and would wake up as rabid Reaper-hater, ready to sacrifice anybody to win this war? Who will eventually kill his allies, thinking they're indoctrinated?
Thats certainly what Reapers would have wanted.

And there is good side in Destroy. The reapers would die. That's appealing not just to me, but for everybody.

Also, goal was to protect the galaxy.

Ok.... maybe I'm just tired but I don't see the point you're trying to make here.

You do realizing that choosing NOT to choose is a choice, right? "You have to choose" means nothing, we have to choose something every second of our lives. Even if that something is to keep breathing.

Um nooooo.... what the Reapers WOULD have wanted was someone they could manipulate, not to create a potentially more desperate and lethal enemy than before, considering a Shepard only caring about body count WOULD get the Allied forces killed yes, but it would also kill Reapers, considering that is precisely what the Reapers want to avoid, I doubt it.

There is good. But you're basically given the choice between a hamburger, a steak and a three day old roadkill. Which would you pick? COMPARED TO THE OTHER TWO, Destroy is only attractive if you choose to disbeleive the Guardian, who also is likely lying through his luminescent little teeth about the other two as well.

[llbountyhunter]

Arian Dynas wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
a list of "issues" and "major flaws" that have all ready been explained half to death.

if I had a nickel for everytime I answered these questions... do you mind doing some reaserch before posting simple things with easy to reach answers???????

Literalist has a point here dude. I know it's frustrating, but when you act hissy it only gives them ammunition, better to post when not annoyed to avoid this sort of thing.

merely pointed that his very same questions have been answered tens, if not hundred of time already...

answers can be easily found at this point. <_<

[Arian Dynas]

Lord Goose wrote...

In ME2 Shepard you can make choices that result in
Shepards death, and you still beat the game.

Rationality-based choices.
Effort-based choices (how much of the game you have completed).
I have pointed out, what suicide mission is filled with them.

Also, pay attention what with low EMS you would have Destroy as the only option availible. Or Control if you have saved Collectors base.

According to IT, that means that with low EMS, you wouldn't be indoctrinated at all, or would be completely indoctrinated.

But... you will keep option to not do anything of Catalysts options. Do nothing.

Ok, now considering I am a regular in the IT thread, I can speak with authority here.

According to IT, the reason you get Destroy is because you are basically worthless, the Reapers don't care enough to bother indoctrinating you, and really are quite surprised you even managed to live this long at all. They simply don't care enough to bother with you.

If you get Control, it basically is showing, well, you were willing to compromise your goals once, why not twice? You chose to preserve something that is quite simply dangerous and, well, out and out evil because it might MAYBE work for you. To the Reapers that's an in a "Well maybe we're not so bad after all" kind of thing.

[Lord Goose]

I'm just saying that if I would need to trick you, I wouldn't be so blunt about it. I would provide you number of options and all of them would be beneficial to me. I would say that you have to choose, and think that you can only choose how to help ME. What's why I wouldn't do anything if I don't trust Catalyst.

Speaking about Destroy. What if Shepard wakes up as paranoid and starts shooting everybody thinking they're indoctrinated? He or she cannot be reasoned with, he or she cannot be tamed. He won't use Catalyst thinking its a Reaper trap and would refuse any potentially positive option, thinking that Reapers trying to trick him. Reapers would be pleased. With enemy like that, who needs slaves?
Why it is impossible? It would be Shepards own kind of indoctrination.

And I personally think that destroy is attractive. If my Shepard didn't cared about synthetics, he would have choosen it. And even so, geth maybe sacrificed. Or they maybe dead before. If Shepard failed to save them, I don't see any downsides of Destroy.

Also, I don't buy that explanation with only one ending. It makes no sense, that if I spared Collectors base and don't have enough EMS, I would be indoctrinated any way, BUT if I've ''compromised'' with them once, AND have enough EMS, I would have an option. Why did they gave it to me? Out of respect?

[killage_wizard]

Arian Dynas wrote...

According to IT, the reason you get Destroy is because you are basically worthless, the Reapers don't care enough to bother indoctrinating you, and really are quite surprised you even managed to live this long at all. They simply don't care enough to bother with you.

I see it differently.  The reason Destroy is an option is because without it Shepard's mind would see throught the illusion.  Its about not choosing Destroy as much as it is about choosing Control or Synthesis.  He has to be presented the option in order for the indoc to truly stick.  Choosing Destroy then becomes a metaphor for seeing throught the Reaper illusion and breaking the indoc.