And it would be nice if you add the humming james mentions remember kaidan said the same and it was a relay it's too much coincidence.
Kaiden hears a humming that makes his teeth chatter next to a Relay. Vega hears a hum in the belly of the Normandy. If kaiden hearing a hum is evidence of Indoctrination, then everyone who's ever been to the Citadel is at risk. The two incidents aren't related at all.
(Vega alone saying that he hears a hum is evidence, sure; but don't say that one is evidence for another.)
@ The Arrival debate: If it is canon (yes, yes, there's a cell on the very first page of the comic that specifically states that Shepard is responsible) then can you understand why people would be upset? You're relying on an external source to explain what happens inside the game--not just what happens, but helps to explain the most important choice in the game. If it is canon that Shepard is responsible for the Alpha Relay's destruction, then it's a MASSIVE "**** you" from Walters to every player jumping in to ME3 cold, a MASSIVE "**** you" to everyone who didn't buy / play through Arrival. That's probably why the feelings in the other thread got so heated--most people are fans that don't want to be treated like trash by the writers.
maybe its like this from the reapers point of view...
(destroy shepard) well, we arent going to be able to convince this shepard even though hes lazy and has few assets...
(control shepard) hmm, this shepard didnt do much, but hell, hes easily influenced... lets do it anyways.
(keep in mind, these are only my personal views... maybe someone already figured this out)
technically, the reapers still "win" in the control scenario, though earth and most of the major garden worlds are ravaged (well, at least earth): they live. in the destroy scenario, they don't need to do anything anyway, the reapers are not going to get exactly what they want (everything is destroyed), but the reapers' "solution" will will be fulfilled to an extent, and there will be no synthetics wiping out organics for a VERY long time...
Modifié par Heiwa no Senso, 15 juin 2012 - 03:06 .
And it would be nice if you add the humming james mentions remember kaidan said the same and it was a relay it's too much coincidence.
Kaiden hears a humming that makes his teeth chatter next to a Relay. Vega hears a hum in the belly of the Normandy. If kaiden hearing a hum is evidence of Indoctrination, then everyone who's ever been to the Citadel is at risk. The two incidents aren't related at all.
(Vega alone saying that he hears a hum is evidence, sure; but don't say that one is evidence for another.)
@ The Arrival debate: If it is canon (yes, yes, there's a cell on the very first page of the comic that specifically states that Shepard is responsible) then can you understand why people would be upset? You're relying on an external source to explain what happens inside the game--not just what happens, but helps to explain the most important choice in the game. If it is canon that Shepard is responsible for the Alpha Relay's destruction, then it's a MASSIVE "**** you" from Walters to every player jumping in to ME3 cold, a MASSIVE "**** you" to everyone who didn't buy / play through Arrival. That's probably why the feelings in the other thread got so heated--most people are fans that don't want to be treated like trash by the writers.
well you could watch arrival on youtube.
but yeah, such a critical part of the story shouldnt have to be paid for.... *cough* from the ashes *cough*
but yeah, such a critical part of the story shouldnt have to be paid for.... *cough* from the ashes *cough*
I agree 100% about the From the Ashes DLC--but at least it's not critical to understanding a major interpretation of the end. Shepard being Indoctrinated actually makes a fair amount of sense if he interacted with Object Rho; it really doesn't if he didn't. At the very least, IT becomes much stronger with Arrival than without. The endings don't seem to take this into consideration, though; they're the same whether you're flagged with having Arrival completed or not.
Posted this somewhere else, but the thread pretty much died after I did, so I thought I'd just re-post it here:
Here's most of the evidence I'm aware of against IT. This is intended more as reference than as definitive refutation, as I don't think there is any such thing. The evidence is also presented in an extremely quick fashion; I'll leave more detailed discussion to further posts. I'm not an IT supporter, but if the EC comes out and IT is true, I'll certainly be willing to admit my mistake. Still, looking back it will be useful to have a catalogue of all the evidence we had for/against the theory before the EC came out. Anyway, here goes:
Above is a link to a thread discussing another tweet from Gamble where he defends the synthesis ending against the objection that it is worse than control. Why is he defending the synthesis ending if it is the losing ending?
Everything in this interview is paraphrased, not directly quoted, so perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, I'm going to assume that it is mostly accurate. Of particular interest are two passages:
"Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive."
If IT is true, the crucible hasn't fired yet, so the question of whether or not people on the Citadel survived doesn't even arise. So why is Weekes saying this? Also, in response to a question regarding whether or not the relay explosions destroyed entire solar systems, there is this passage:
"We really didn't mean to imply that the whole galaxy had been destroyed. People interpreted the ending in ways we really didn't expect."
If IT is true, the relay explosions don't even occur. So Weekes would effectively be clarifying events that didn't take place. Also, the suggestion that the developers did not anticipate that players would draw a connection between Arrival and the ending is problematic from the point of view of IT. I've always found it unlikely that they would not expect us to make this connection, but that they would expect us to make connections with Object Rho, Ashley and Kaiden's armor in ME1 & ME2, the Rachni Queen's description of indoctrination, etc.
3. The ending message and the "Mission Accomplished" achievement. These are relatively self-explanatory. There's no message at the end of Blade Runner saying "Deckard is not a replicant"; there's no message at the end of High Plains Drifter saying "By the way, that dude you saw disappear into the desert? TOTALLY NOT the ghost of Marshal Jim Duncan." So why include the message at the end of ME3, if IT is true?
4. The whole EMS thing: This is a very murky issue, so I'm just bringing it up to start discussion. If your EMS is low, you can only get the destroy option. So why is your reward for doing better the opportunity to choose losing endings? That seems unlikely. Also, here's what I believe to be a passage from the leaked script:
"Shepard must now make his final decision - to control the Reapers, to destroy the Reapers, or if they had a perfect game to become one with the Reapers."
We can guess that the idea of "becoming one with the Reapers" is what evolved into synthesis. So the association of this ending with a 'perfect game' suggests that the developers didn't think of it as a losing ending. Here's the source:
Since I'm a bit lazy and didn't do a ridiculous amount of research for this, I'm not 100% sure if this is reliable. If anyone can debunk this, I'd appreciate that information, and apologize in advance if it turns out incorrect. Again, this is all intended more for reference than as some kind of definitive refutation. Anyway, I hope this is useful to the OP, and hope that many speculations will ensue.
EDIT: Fixed paragraphs
1. I didnt get that from the tweet.
2-3. yeah, he was bassically saying that it could all be interperted different ways, nothings conclusive.
4. if you choose to keep the collector base in me2 your only option is control.
but yeah, such a critical part of the story shouldnt have to be paid for.... *cough* from the ashes *cough*
I agree 100% about the From the Ashes DLC--but at least it's not critical to understanding a major interpretation of the end. Shepard being Indoctrinated actually makes a fair amount of sense if he interacted with Object Rho; it really doesn't if he didn't. At the very least, IT becomes much stronger with Arrival than without. The endings don't seem to take this into consideration, though; they're the same whether you're flagged with having Arrival completed or not.
yeah, that, and the fact that its in the comic, makes it cannon.
Missed a link there. Here's a link to a thread discussing one of the relevant Gamble tweets (haven't been able to find the actual tweet, but to my knowledge the information is reliable):
Missed a link there. Here's a link to a thread discussing one of the relevant Gamble tweets (haven't been able to find the actual tweet, but to my knowledge the information is reliable):
I think bill caseys post (found in the OP) explains it quite well.
while he doesnt say that synthesis is worse than control, and argues that both are bad, clearly synthesis has worse undertones when compared to the blue choice.
Bill Casey's post is very well-written, but it does not really have much to do with the point I was making. The point is that at least some of the developers themselves seem to think that synthesis is the best option, and that is highly unlikely if IT were the intended ending. We can argue whether or not it actually is the best until we're blue in the face, but if IT were true, then certainly the developers would consider destroy the best, as it is the only option, according to IT, that allows you to escape indoctrination. The tweets are much easier to explain if we assume that the endings were intended to be taken at face value. Hence they constitute evidence against IT.
Bill Casey's post is very well-written, but it does not really have much to do with the point I was making. The point is that at least some of the developers themselves seem to think that synthesis is the best option, and that is highly unlikely if IT were the intended ending. We can argue whether or not it actually is the best until we're blue in the face, but if IT were true, then certainly the developers would consider destroy the best, as it is the only option, according to IT, that allows you to escape indoctrination. The tweets are much easier to explain if we assume that the endings were intended to be taken at face value. Hence they constitute evidence against IT.
well, to me it sounded like he was just explaining the idea behind synthesis, not that he thinks its the "best" ending.
id assume hed to the same for control or destroy, if someone were to ask about them.
Point well-taken. Still, if you consider the context, Gamble is defending synthesis against the objections of someone who thinks it's utterly bogus. If IT is true, then synthesis=indoctrination, so we'd expect Gamble to be thinking, "Good job! You figured it out." We should expect extremely vague remarks, like "Wait until the EC to find out the real nature of the choices," etc. Instead, he's trying to sell a skeptic on synthesis - "No, wait, it's really not that bad!" This, combined with the leaked script's equation of "becoming one with the reapers" and "perfect game," constitute evidence that Bioware thought quite highly of synthesis. Again, none of this constitutes a definitive refutation, or anything even close. Like I said in my original post, I don't think any such thing is possible. But these tidbits, taken together, reduce the likelihood that IT is what was intended.
Anyways, I'm getting ready to turn in for the night. Hope this stuff has been useful to you.
Point well-taken. Still, if you consider the context, Gamble is defending synthesis against the objections of someone who thinks it's utterly bogus. If IT is true, then synthesis=indoctrination, so we'd expect Gamble to be thinking, "Good job! You figured it out." We should expect extremely vague remarks, like "Wait until the EC to find out the real nature of the choices," etc. Instead, he's trying to sell a skeptic on synthesis - "No, wait, it's really not that bad!" This, combined with the leaked script's equation of "becoming one with the reapers" and "perfect game," constitute evidence that Bioware thought quite highly of synthesis. Again, none of this constitutes a definitive refutation, or anything even close. Like I said in my original post, I don't think any such thing is possible. But these tidbits, taken together, reduce the likelihood that IT is what was intended.
Anyways, I'm getting ready to turn in for the night. Hope this stuff has been useful to you.
If IT was true, he wouldn't tell you to roll with destroy because that would ruin the trick they're playing on the players. Ashton Kutcher didn't tell the people he punked that he was punking them while he was punking them.
Point well-taken. Still, if you consider the context, Gamble is defending synthesis against the objections of someone who thinks it's utterly bogus. If IT is true, then synthesis=indoctrination, so we'd expect Gamble to be thinking, "Good job! You figured it out." We should expect extremely vague remarks, like "Wait until the EC to find out the real nature of the choices," etc. Instead, he's trying to sell a skeptic on synthesis - "No, wait, it's really not that bad!" This, combined with the leaked script's equation of "becoming one with the reapers" and "perfect game," constitute evidence that Bioware thought quite highly of synthesis. Again, none of this constitutes a definitive refutation, or anything even close. Like I said in my original post, I don't think any such thing is possible. But these tidbits, taken together, reduce the likelihood that IT is what was intended.
Anyways, I'm getting ready to turn in for the night. Hope this stuff has been useful to you.
If IT was true, he wouldn't tell you to roll with destroy because that would ruin the trick they're playing on the players. Ashton Kutcher didn't tell the people he punked that he was punking them while he was punking them.
I think your missing the point of his post.
If they're planning IT, Gambles would have left a really vague "wait until EC clarifies" post instead of one outright defending synthesis.
Weekes and Gambles seem to be taking the ending literally.
Point well-taken. Still, if you consider the context, Gamble is defending synthesis against the objections of someone who thinks it's utterly bogus. If IT is true, then synthesis=indoctrination, so we'd expect Gamble to be thinking, "Good job! You figured it out." We should expect extremely vague remarks, like "Wait until the EC to find out the real nature of the choices," etc. Instead, he's trying to sell a skeptic on synthesis - "No, wait, it's really not that bad!" This, combined with the leaked script's equation of "becoming one with the reapers" and "perfect game," constitute evidence that Bioware thought quite highly of synthesis. Again, none of this constitutes a definitive refutation, or anything even close. Like I said in my original post, I don't think any such thing is possible. But these tidbits, taken together, reduce the likelihood that IT is what was intended.
Anyways, I'm getting ready to turn in for the night. Hope this stuff has been useful to you.
If IT was true, he wouldn't tell you to roll with destroy because that would ruin the trick they're playing on the players. Ashton Kutcher didn't tell the people he punked that he was punking them while he was punking them.
I think your missing the point of his post.
If they're planning IT, Gambles would have left a really vague "wait until EC clarifies" post instead of one outright defending synthesis.
Weekes and Gambles seem to be taking the ending literally.
or they're explaining it as if they were literal. those are two different things. It's a double standard. People say Bioware lied to them, now they claim they can't lie when it suits them. It's hypocritical.
Point well-taken. Still, if you consider the context, Gamble is defending synthesis against the objections of someone who thinks it's utterly bogus. If IT is true, then synthesis=indoctrination, so we'd expect Gamble to be thinking, "Good job! You figured it out." We should expect extremely vague remarks, like "Wait until the EC to find out the real nature of the choices," etc. Instead, he's trying to sell a skeptic on synthesis - "No, wait, it's really not that bad!" This, combined with the leaked script's equation of "becoming one with the reapers" and "perfect game," constitute evidence that Bioware thought quite highly of synthesis. Again, none of this constitutes a definitive refutation, or anything even close. Like I said in my original post, I don't think any such thing is possible. But these tidbits, taken together, reduce the likelihood that IT is what was intended.
Anyways, I'm getting ready to turn in for the night. Hope this stuff has been useful to you.
If IT was true, he wouldn't tell you to roll with destroy because that would ruin the trick they're playing on the players. Ashton Kutcher didn't tell the people he punked that he was punking them while he was punking them.
I think your missing the point of his post.
If they're planning IT, Gambles would have left a really vague "wait until EC clarifies" post instead of one outright defending synthesis.
Weekes and Gambles seem to be taking the ending literally.
or they're explaining it as if they were literal. those are two different things. It's a double standard. People say Bioware lied to them, now they claim they can't lie when it suits them. It's hypocritical.
That's...that's reaching honestly.
They didn't have to answer the questions in a literal sense. They could have just said something like "no comment" or "wait till EC expands on it." They went out of their way to answer them in this manner. The unofficial Weekes interview basically proves that the ending was not a hallucination.
Great job OP to try to bring some clarity to some ideas on the forum without sounding rude about it.
llbountyhunter wrote...
The indoctrination theory is nothing more than fanfiction. I dunno about you, but I personally cant stand fanfic, I just dont like it. Now, some of you are probably asking "well, why do you support IT??" well, thats because I dont view IT as fanfiction. Rather than vewing IT as a segment that arose from some very devoted fans- I view it a puzzle set forth by bioware in which, we (the average player) piece together, and complete the image.
The idea here was more, I think, that it was too specifically derived from general situations such that given ANY ending people believe IT would be able to be derived.
If IT is true then bioware sold me an incomplete game. this one is true, however this shouldnt be regarded as a bad thing, nor should many people be particularly suprised by this. after all, when has ANY mass effect game been sold complete? without the need for any DLC?
Even with all the questionable business practices, the point is that they have to be able to sell the product as a finished product, either in their mind or not - somehow, it has to be considered finished. It should be able to stand on its own. To have an additional ending that basically shows it ended, of all things, on a cliffhanger - it's unheard of in anything, especially given quotes that they're finishing Shep's story with this one and whatnot.
IT boils down to a "It was all a dream". close, but not quite. IT is more akin to "battle within the mind" in which the character (or in this case, the player as well) engage a enemy within the character mind, and your conclusion has real world results.
I never found a problem with this part, but I understand why you put it in. If taken literally, I also believe there's still a clear battle within the mind with Shepard trying to resist indoctrination from TIM, and Shep only overcomes TIM's ambition with his/her idealism/pragmatism.
So what happens after IT? do you just get up and go to the citadel all over again, and finally beat the reapers for real this time? possibly. however, we cant accuratly answer this question because we just dont know, IT only talks about what happens in me3, not whats going to happen next.
Too much of an open-ended question to agree or disagree, but this is my main problem overall. A lot of problems will still remain, such as the need of the Crucible and whatnot.
EDIT #1 the prothean VI does not detect shepards indoctrination. argument 1. shepards is not indoctrinated at this point. the reapers are chipping away at his resistence here. and remember, the whole point of IT is to try to get shepard indoctrinated in the first place.
argument 2. (works best with sarcasm...sorry) well, of course, its common knowladge that the protheans had perfect indoctrination scanners, right? I mean its not like they themselfs were undermined by sleeper agents right?......oh wait.
Argument 1: Shep's remarkable resistance becoming completely shattered when Harby comes and esp when Harby shoots a laser is a little far-fetched. Shep faces death constantly and there's no real reason for resistance to collapse completely when Harby comes. If distance is such a factor, then Harby should be able to completely overpower Shep up-close simply because Harby's been doing it for billions of years and surely there are other races that had more willpower or intelligence.
Argument 2: I will ignore the sarcasm. This is a valid point, but remember that for the sake of story the Prothean VI is the only thing we can follow. It would be sloppy story-telling to not have more of a hint from it.
EDIT#2 Arrival is not cannon. well, as it turns out, that the events of arrival do seem to be canonical. take a look at this mass effect comic introducing Vega.
Now we can fairly certain that whatever happened on that asteroid is in fact, cannon.
It's not reflected in the game, though.
EDIT #3 IT punishes the player. I would answer this but a fellow IT'er explains it in very great detail.
Too much to answer in this post and I apologize but I'm tired.
Posted this somewhere else, but the thread pretty much died after I did, so I thought I'd just re-post it here:
Here's most of the evidence I'm aware of against IT. This is intended more as reference than as definitive refutation, as I don't think there is any such thing. The evidence is also presented in an extremely quick fashion; I'll leave more detailed discussion to further posts. I'm not an IT supporter, but if the EC comes out and IT is true, I'll certainly be willing to admit my mistake. Still, looking back it will be useful to have a catalogue of all the evidence we had for/against the theory before the EC came out. Anyway, here goes:
Above is a link to a thread discussing another tweet from Gamble where he defends the synthesis ending against the objection that it is worse than control. Why is he defending the synthesis ending if it is the losing ending?
Everything in this interview is paraphrased, not directly quoted, so perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt. Still, I'm going to assume that it is mostly accurate. Of particular interest are two passages:
"Yes. We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay, that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died. The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it blows up, millions might survive."
If IT is true, the crucible hasn't fired yet, so the question of whether or not people on the Citadel survived doesn't even arise. So why is Weekes saying this? Also, in response to a question regarding whether or not the relay explosions destroyed entire solar systems, there is this passage:
"We really didn't mean to imply that the whole galaxy had been destroyed. People interpreted the ending in ways we really didn't expect."
If IT is true, the relay explosions don't even occur. So Weekes would effectively be clarifying events that didn't take place. Also, the suggestion that the developers did not anticipate that players would draw a connection between Arrival and the ending is problematic from the point of view of IT. I've always found it unlikely that they would not expect us to make this connection, but that they would expect us to make connections with Object Rho, Ashley and Kaiden's armor in ME1 & ME2, the Rachni Queen's description of indoctrination, etc.
3. The ending message and the "Mission Accomplished" achievement. These are relatively self-explanatory. There's no message at the end of Blade Runner saying "Deckard is not a replicant"; there's no message at the end of High Plains Drifter saying "By the way, that dude you saw disappear into the desert? TOTALLY NOT the ghost of Marshal Jim Duncan." So why include the message at the end of ME3, if IT is true?
4. The whole EMS thing: This is a very murky issue, so I'm just bringing it up to start discussion. If your EMS is low, you can only get the destroy option. So why is your reward for doing better the opportunity to choose losing endings? That seems unlikely. Also, here's what I believe to be a passage from the leaked script:
"Shepard must now make his final decision - to control the Reapers, to destroy the Reapers, or if they had a perfect game to become one with the Reapers."
We can guess that the idea of "becoming one with the Reapers" is what evolved into synthesis. So the association of this ending with a 'perfect game' suggests that the developers didn't think of it as a losing ending. Here's the source:
Since I'm a bit lazy and didn't do a ridiculous amount of research for this, I'm not 100% sure if this is reliable. If anyone can debunk this, I'd appreciate that information, and apologize in advance if it turns out incorrect. Again, this is all intended more for reference than as some kind of definitive refutation. Anyway, I hope this is useful to the OP, and hope that many speculations will ensue.
EDIT: Fixed paragraphs
There 3 theories on IT.. Fun fact...There 3 theories for IT. In 2 of the theories, the curcible would of fired and SHepard would be on the citadel.
but yeah, such a critical part of the story shouldnt have to be paid for.... *cough* from the ashes *cough*
I agree 100% about the From the Ashes DLC--but at least it's not critical to understanding a major interpretation of the end. Shepard being Indoctrinated actually makes a fair amount of sense if he interacted with Object Rho; it really doesn't if he didn't. At the very least, IT becomes much stronger with Arrival than without. The endings don't seem to take this into consideration, though; they're the same whether you're flagged with having Arrival completed or not.
But it is need to understand everything else from Vigil, everything on Illos, and a entire race. It even impves thessia's story line.
Bill Casey's post is very well-written, but it does not really have much to do with the point I was making. The point is that at least some of the developers themselves seem to think that synthesis is the best option, and that is highly unlikely if IT were the intended ending. We can argue whether or not it actually is the best until we're blue in the face, but if IT were true, then certainly the developers would consider destroy the best, as it is the only option, according to IT, that allows you to escape indoctrination. The tweets are much easier to explain if we assume that the endings were intended to be taken at face value. Hence they constitute evidence against IT.
We don't know what reason why they like certin endings. Your forgetting they have more info on it then we do.
Point well-taken. Still, if you consider the context, Gamble is defending synthesis against the objections of someone who thinks it's utterly bogus. If IT is true, then synthesis=indoctrination, so we'd expect Gamble to be thinking, "Good job! You figured it out." We should expect extremely vague remarks, like "Wait until the EC to find out the real nature of the choices," etc. Instead, he's trying to sell a skeptic on synthesis - "No, wait, it's really not that bad!" This, combined with the leaked script's equation of "becoming one with the reapers" and "perfect game," constitute evidence that Bioware thought quite highly of synthesis. Again, none of this constitutes a definitive refutation, or anything even close. Like I said in my original post, I don't think any such thing is possible. But these tidbits, taken together, reduce the likelihood that IT is what was intended.
Anyways, I'm getting ready to turn in for the night. Hope this stuff has been useful to you.
If IT was true, he wouldn't tell you to roll with destroy because that would ruin the trick they're playing on the players. Ashton Kutcher didn't tell the people he punked that he was punking them while he was punking them.
I think your missing the point of his post.
If they're planning IT, Gambles would have left a really vague "wait until EC clarifies" post instead of one outright defending synthesis.
Weekes and Gambles seem to be taking the ending literally.
We don't know enough to say what the devs say disproves IT. And they are saying wait till EC.
EDIT#2 Arrival is not cannon. well, as it turns out, that the events of arrival do seem to be canonical. take a look at this mass effect comic introducing Vega.
Now we can fairly certain that whatever happened on that asteroid is in fact, cannon.
It's not reflected in the game, though. .
Yes it is ...James is guarding Shepard in the start of ME3. Andmany people metion the events of arrival...Including Balik and a badly injurded Batarian.
If IT is true then bioware sold me an incomplete game. this one is true, however this shouldnt be regarded as a bad thing, nor should many people be particularly suprised by this. after all, when has ANY mass effect game been sold complete? without the need for any DLC?
dont forget bioware also asked EA for 3 extra months and EA said "no".... perhaps IT was used to buy more time?
and dont worry, I know that there is a difference between side story dlc, and dlc that is a critical part of the story (although.... from the ashes...), but these lines are being blurred more every day by gaming companies.
as we can see, If IT is true, then bioware is far from bieng the first company to separate the ending of a game. at least they didnt charge us $6.99!!!
Wait, wait. So I need to accept this? So what if other companies do it? If we all would just accept BioWare gave us an incomplete game, it wouldn't be long until EVERY game will start to make DLC for the ending of a game. If not for the reaction of the fans, you can bet BioWare would have charged money. I might not have bought the EC out of princible.
So what happens after IT? do you just get up and go to the citadel all over again, and finally beat the reapers for real this time? possibly. however, we cant accuratly answer this question because we just dont know, IT only talks about what happens in me3, not whats going to happen next.
however it is possibe that IT can be a way to actually defeat the repears. (my personal speculation at this point)
in my eyes I view IT as a huge, epic mental boss battle with harbinger. perhaps, after choosing detroy, harbinger is destroyed in the real-world, or maybe even the reaper fleets shields are taken down. (similar to how killing saren disabled sovereign in me1), this then allows the alliance fleet to have fair odds in destroying the reapers and a chance for your war-assets and choices to shine.
But it's a major question. All of the game we wondered about what the catalyst and crucible might be. If the ending is not real, does it mean... What? That there is nothing to them? EVERYTHING was a lie?
EDIT #1 the prothean VI does not detect shepards indoctrination. argument 1. shepards is not indoctrinated at this point. the reapers are chipping away at his resistence here. and remember, the whole point of IT is to try to get shepard indoctrinated in the first place.
argument 2. (works best with sarcasm...sorry) well, of course, its common knowladge that the protheans had perfect indoctrination scanners, right? I mean its not like they themselfs were undermined by sleeper agents right?......oh wait.
Got better answer to this question in the IT thread. The VI only detect fully indoctrinated, not the ones in the process of indoctrimation.
EDIT#2 Arrival is not cannon. well, as it turns out, that the events of arrival do seem to be canonical. take a look at this mass effect comic introducing Vega.
Now we can fairly certain that whatever happened on that asteroid is in fact, cannon.
And how does that help your argument? Shepard still was not there, doens't matter if the events themeleves happened. Indoctrination still didn't effect him/her there.
EDIT #3 IT punishes the player. I would answer this but a fellow IT'er explains it in very great detail.
Bill Casey wrote...
Control working out runs concurrent to base themes. Control of this type is doomed to folly in the Mass Effect universe, from Miranda and Tali's respective fathers, to the Illusive Man, Project Overlord, to the Salarians and their uplift program, to the Prothean separatists to the Prothean Empire itself. Any attempt to Control the Reapers has led to indoctrination. Shepard repeatedly chastises The Illusive Man's methods regardless of options picked, and your crew repeatedly calls him crazy for thinking he can control the reapers. The theme is prevalent. This level of overreach shouldn't be rewarded just because Shepard does it...
This is compounded by the fact that the Reapers themselves are a force of corruption. Legion describes their minds are incomprehensibly powerful. It isn't like the Nautilus whose power itself corrupts Nemo; The Reapers themselves warp minds. Shepard is hearing voices, seeing shadows on the screen, and he just shot Anderson against his will a few minutes ago. Now he's going to control all of the Reapers. That's insultingly stupid from a conceptual standpoint. The fact that Anderson was yelling warnings and the Catalyst says "you will lose everything you have" turns this option from incredible dumb to "Schmuck Bait". Control working out turns the whole thing into a "Violation of Common Sense"...
Then we have Synthesis and I don't even know where to start. We've been fighting forced transhumanism for three games now. It spits in the face of the themes of working out our differences, self determination against fatalism, the socio-technological balance, and diversity. It alters all life in the galaxy under the assertion that there is something fundamentally wrong with us. It's beyond cynical...
This is again a recurring theme with unfortunate implications. The Reapers see themselves as the final evolution of life. Saren has been mentioned enough, but the Illusive Man is forcing transhumanism to bring humanity to the "apex of evolution", in his own words. The Collectors and the Zha'Til are examples of Reapers fusing man and machine, and then altering their genetic material at the deepest level to form something new. Pretty much your entire squad in Mass Effect 2 tells you rewriting the heretics is the same as killing them...
The way the Geth and EDI are presented has severe racist undertones for the assertion that synthetic life will inevitably destroy organic life. The Geth tackle hot button issues of slavery and basic civil rights, and the Geth Consensus had scenes straight out of Germany in the 1940s, where martial law is declared and Quarians are shot for "harboring synthetics"...
It's established through talking to EDI that peace between the Reapers should not work. World Leaders are being called into Reaper super structures to negotiate peace, but it's a ruse to indoctrinate them and pacify the populace. The leaders will soon enact laws that prevent attacking the Reapers, which will again be done in the name of peace. EDI makes certain to reiterate this. When the master control reapers says "we need eachother to make this happen", it red flags the entire situation and makes it working out another violation of common sense...
In fact, Destroy is the only option whose viability fits the narrative presented. If you talk to James Vega in your quarters, he will tell about how he destroyed a collector ship, but sacrificed most of the abducted colonists and his team in the process. There is no option to say anything other than James made the right call. Paragon or Renegade, Shepard says this was the right thing to do...
Lieutenant Victus doesn't want to sacrifice his men for the mission, and all Shepards talk him into it... Hackett sacrifices the entire second fleet, and Garrus has to make some extremely unpleasant tactical decisions...
The reapers can be controled through the crucible. Same for synthesis. And no one ever said synthesis is not achivable, no matter how stupid it sounds to you. no one ever said in the game control and syntesis are not possible with the crucible. So the IT IS punishing the player, you can't hide behind sense here.
On the issue on Arrival.
My Shepard was there. Your's was not. It doesn't mean the plot will ignore it or whatever the writer plan won't be used. I just like how Liara is the Shadow broker in ME3 no matter what, the same can be said with Shepards indoctrination if the writes did us it.
If you Shepard was not in the events of the arrival, you stillhave 3 on and of years near reapers tech that causes it.
And even thing, bw still wroting in the plot with ME:conviction.
And even at that, TIM is still using indoctriantion to control Shepard and Anderson.
Retour en haut
