209 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

Billyg3453 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The entire point of the IT was that a series of 'hints' in the game would lead players to the conclusion that the endings weren't real, with the eventual payoff of a 'real' ending. Its sort of like a treasure map, with X being the true conclusion to the trilogy.

However, we now know that there is no real ending on the way. If there had been, it would have been in the EC. There is simply no logical reason whatsover for Bioware to not have put the 'real' ending in the EC if there was a 'real' ending.

Which leads to two conclusions.

Firstly, that all these hints aren't actually building up to anything. Its a treasure map with no treasure at the end. The trilogy simly ends with Shepard and the Reapers still on Earth, with Shepard possibly indoctrinated or possibly not. There is no way to know.

Secondly, they weren't hints at all and people were simply mistaken. The real endings are the ones in the game (which is obvious vast majority of us given that Bioware spent three months expanding on them instead of giving us a 'real' ending). People say bad writing is impossible, but this is the same company that wrote Arrival; your entire squad leaving the Normandy in ME2; Kai Leng; Diana Allers. Bioware is capable of great writing - some of the best in the business - but they also do terrible writing sometimes. Its really not that hard to believe that, not really knowing how to wrap up their trilogy, they simply dropped the ball.

There is another possibility. IT was their true intention all along, but for whatever reason they didn't go with it. It might make them deeply unprincipled, and would go against what many ITers themselves say ("IT is supported by the majority of fans"). If most fans indeed wanted it, and it was intention, then it is bewildering as to why they wouldn't do it

They said they did not intend IT, and I would say that no more than 25% of ME3 players knew about it, and maybe only 10% supported it.

And because I know someone's going to ask for a link www.youtube.com/watch

If the numbers are as low as you suggest, then it is clear that BW have failed tremendously in their role as storytellers by failing to impart the true meaning of the ending, but most people who think the face-value interpretations. It is ironic that, given this, the main criticism that ITers have against those who oppose them is that all their arguments rely on BW being terrible writers, and yet their own intepretation is predicated on exactly the same thing

[Billyg3453]

SubAstris wrote...

If the numbers are as low as you suggest, then it is clear that BW have failed tremendously in their role as storytellers by failing to impart the true meaning of the ending, but most people who think the face-value interpretations. It is ironic that, given this, the main criticism that ITers have against those who oppose them is that all their arguments rely on BW being terrible writers, and yet their own intepretation is predicated on exactly the same thing

I'm not sure I understand this post.
It's pretty clear that the original ending was horrendusly written, regardless of what you believe.

[Darth_Trethon]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Cecilia L wrote...
Or maybe it had been their plan all along to release a seriously BIG real ending. One that has to be bought on disc. It will also take time to finish this incredibly long Final Showdown expansion, that's why they only made this small EC to pacify fans long enough to keep interest and not be quite as outraged as after the first version of false endings.

I don't think anyone seriously believes that.

At least, I hope nobody seriously believes that.

I think you can pretty much count on additional ending alterations regardless of what BioWare says now simply because the EC makes the endigs worthy of the $60/$80 we paid to get the game but not mind blowing....just a mild level of awesome. So they have fullfilled their obligation to fix what we paid for and can charge money for the things everyone is REALLY going insane over like LI and party reunion.

When they first announced the EC they said that there would also be several DLC initiatives to address the ending and then they retconed that much like they retconed most of the ending problems and now they are no longer "planning" to make further changes to the ending. They just can't yet open discussion about further ending alterations because many are still angry and cooling down with the EC....saying "yeah prepare your wallet for LI reunion" would no go overly well at the moment so give it a few months.

However with that said there is no doubt in my mind that there will never be an IT DLC so the thory while great and to be fair still holds water is more or less gone.....there won't be a confirmation or debunking of teh IT. The EC gives you a good idea at what they are going for....take it or leave it is all we can do right now.

[1upD]

Am I the only one who thinks Bioware left IT open intentionally just to make the ending ambiguous? It's no longer necessary, and the endings are much better if you just ignore the idea in my opinion, but I think there are still some hints.

When Shepard wakes up on the Citadel, there is a very weird sound. I'm not sure exactly what it is. Does anyone have an idea why that's there? It was very creepy and out of place, and sounded as if he was woken up by the Reapers.

After Shepard is shot by the beam, there is a tree that looks just like one from his dream. Was that there before? I seriously don't remember it from before the Extended Cut. Maybe I just missed it.

Finally, in the Destroy ending, Shepard still wakes up in the ambiguous pile of rubble that looks like it could be either the Citadel or London. I feel like Bioware denied us the 'reunion' scene just to keep people who are attached to Indoctrination Theory happy. It still could all be a dream this way. The entire epilogue could have been Shepard's dream. I don't think it is or want to, but I just feel like that was the intention of leaving Shepard's reunion unresolved. 

[SubAstris]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The entire point of the IT was that a series of 'hints' in the game would lead players to the conclusion that the endings weren't real, with the eventual payoff of a 'real' ending. Its sort of like a treasure map, with X being the true conclusion to the trilogy.

However, we now know that there is no real ending on the way. If there had been, it would have been in the EC. There is simply no logical reason whatsover for Bioware to not have put the 'real' ending in the EC if there was a 'real' ending.

Which leads to two conclusions.

Firstly, that all these hints aren't actually building up to anything. Its a treasure map with no treasure at the end. The trilogy simly ends with Shepard and the Reapers still on Earth, with Shepard possibly indoctrinated or possibly not. There is no way to know.

Secondly, they weren't hints at all and people were simply mistaken. The real endings are the ones in the game (which is obvious vast majority of us given that Bioware spent three months expanding on them instead of giving us a 'real' ending). People say bad writing is impossible, but this is the same company that wrote Arrival; your entire squad leaving the Normandy in ME2; Kai Leng; Diana Allers. Bioware is capable of great writing - some of the best in the business - but they also do terrible writing sometimes. Its really not that hard to believe that, not really knowing how to wrap up their trilogy, they simply dropped the ball.

There is another possibility. IT was their true intention all along, but for whatever reason they didn't go with it. It might make them deeply unprincipled, and would go against what many ITers themselves say ("IT is supported by the majority of fans"). If most fans indeed wanted it, and it was intention, then it is bewildering as to why they wouldn't do it

In which case the IT is dead. Regardless of their intentions, its clear that they did not run with the IT. Whether all the so-called 'hints' are really hints and not just plot-holes, examples or poor writing, or inconsistencies is irrelevant - its clear now that they did not run with the IT.

And I strongly disagree that most fans wanted this. BSN represents a small portion of the fanbase, and look how contentious it was on here. People simply wanted something better.

There will always be those who argue that IT was their original intention though (a very small percentage I might add), and this is something which can't be completely disproved, just shown to be incredibly unlikely from a story and financial perspective.

I agree, I have had some ITers who have said "80% of fans want IT" and such rubbish like that without good evidence to back it up. Although no one knows the real answer, from my experience, relatively few of the players wanted it, as you say

[Zero132132]

The reason the shots, events, and framing is similar is because they're meant to be. Rushing the beam is very, very similar to ME1's scene where you rush the Conduit. In that scene, you're taking fire, and if you stop to try to fight the enemy, you won't make it in time. In ME3, you just don't have the tools to fight back. Falling out is the same way, but if IT was true, why would the framing matter? Shepard sees himself from the first person perspective. The way they show it to us is for OUR benefit. You also go to a console to open the Citadel arms, face the human (fine, Saren was Turian, but you know what I mean) enemy of the game, and you can convince him that he's working the wrong side, convince him to kill himself.

That sort of mirroring happens in a lot of stories. It's sort of a callback, but it also serves the emphasize what's different. In ME3, Shepard doesn't have the same level of power that he did. He's on the brink of death when he enters the Citadel, the Earth is in ruins, and the only hope anyone has left is the Crucible. The entire point is to get us thinking that this time, the solution won't be as simple. Desperation is a much bigger factor.

[SubAstris]

Billyg3453 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

If the numbers are as low as you suggest, then it is clear that BW have failed tremendously in their role as storytellers by failing to impart the true meaning of the ending, but most people who think the face-value interpretations. It is ironic that, given this, the main criticism that ITers have against those who oppose them is that all their arguments rely on BW being terrible writers, and yet their own intepretation is predicated on exactly the same thing

I'm not sure I understand this post.
It's pretty clear that the original ending was horrendusly written, regardless of what you believe.

Most ITers I have met seem to think everything wrong about it was an intentional clue by BW, and by following this path of logic, BW have done well to impart a dream like atmosphere with all their subtle clues

[DeathScepter]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It just won't ****ing die will it?

IT exist to ****** you off. Agree with it and it will disappear. If you want it to stop forever, believe it. 

[Cecilia L]

Billyg3453 wrote...

Cecilia L wrote...

Billyg3453 wrote...

Cecilia L wrote...
Or maybe it had been their plan all along to release a seriously BIG real ending. One that has to be bought on disc. It will also take time to finish this incredibly long Final Showdown expansion, that's why they only made this small EC to pacify fans long enough to keep interest and not be quite as outraged as after the first version of false endings.

This is the most delusional post I've ever read.

That may be so. But it still would be awesome wouldn't it?

No, two ending DLCs would not be awesome. It would be stupid

Yeah, but it wouldn't be just a DLC. It would be 10 hours of more story, plot twists, epic boss fights, suicide-mission-styled deployment of war assets and characters. And the last hour is just epilogue (think LOTR:ROTK ending) where you get to have victory speeches, drinks with friends, hanging out with Tali on Rannoch building her house, final sendoffs for minor characters and happy ever after with LI.

Not want?

[mrcanada]

XxDarkTimexX wrote...

only three plot holes are still left for indoctriation theory that anyone can look up

1. The dreams are still the same, with the affects of indoctriation still there. (look for indoctriation in mass effect lore but not just the codex)

2. The three explosions are still there and if you look at the galaxy map and the three ending both ec and not ec its not the local cluster.

3. Why is Sheperd waking up if he is already dead.

4. Why does the camera still show the gun shot he got out of no where

answer those plot holes with the mass effect lore and the EC, not your opinion but fact. If anyone wants to see Indoctriation Theory down and gone forever then answer the the last three plot holes

There's a lot more than that.

[mrcanada]

SubAstris wrote...

Billyg3453 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The entire point of the IT was that a series of 'hints' in the game would lead players to the conclusion that the endings weren't real, with the eventual payoff of a 'real' ending. Its sort of like a treasure map, with X being the true conclusion to the trilogy.

However, we now know that there is no real ending on the way. If there had been, it would have been in the EC. There is simply no logical reason whatsover for Bioware to not have put the 'real' ending in the EC if there was a 'real' ending.

Which leads to two conclusions.

Firstly, that all these hints aren't actually building up to anything. Its a treasure map with no treasure at the end. The trilogy simly ends with Shepard and the Reapers still on Earth, with Shepard possibly indoctrinated or possibly not. There is no way to know.

Secondly, they weren't hints at all and people were simply mistaken. The real endings are the ones in the game (which is obvious vast majority of us given that Bioware spent three months expanding on them instead of giving us a 'real' ending). People say bad writing is impossible, but this is the same company that wrote Arrival; your entire squad leaving the Normandy in ME2; Kai Leng; Diana Allers. Bioware is capable of great writing - some of the best in the business - but they also do terrible writing sometimes. Its really not that hard to believe that, not really knowing how to wrap up their trilogy, they simply dropped the ball.

There is another possibility. IT was their true intention all along, but for whatever reason they didn't go with it. It might make them deeply unprincipled, and would go against what many ITers themselves say ("IT is supported by the majority of fans"). If most fans indeed wanted it, and it was intention, then it is bewildering as to why they wouldn't do it

They said they did not intend IT, and I would say that no more than 25% of ME3 players knew about it, and maybe only 10% supported it.

And because I know someone's going to ask for a link www.youtube.com/watch

If the numbers are as low as you suggest, then it is clear that BW have failed tremendously in their role as storytellers by failing to impart the true meaning of the ending, but most people who think the face-value interpretations. It is ironic that, given this, the main criticism that ITers have against those who oppose them is that all their arguments rely on BW being terrible writers, and yet their own intepretation is predicated on exactly the same thing

It's a lot more than 10% and even if they didn't know about IT, every poll I saw showed an overwhelming majority of fans hated the endings in their present form.

[Candidate 88766]

Cecilia L wrote...

Yeah, but it wouldn't be just a DLC. It would be 10 hours of more story, plot twists, epic boss fights, suicide-mission-styled deployment of war assets and characters. And the last hour is just epilogue (think LOTR:ROTK ending) where you get to have victory speeches, drinks with friends, hanging out with Tali on Rannoch building her house, final sendoffs for minor characters and happy ever after with LI.

Not want?

Its a nice thing to imagine I guess (apart from the 'happy ever after' - this is a war story and imo this would be out of place), but you can't possibly believe that this will ever actually be made.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 29 juin 2012 - 05:41 .

[Billyg3453]

mrcanada wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Billyg3453 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The entire point of the IT was that a series of 'hints' in the game would lead players to the conclusion that the endings weren't real, with the eventual payoff of a 'real' ending. Its sort of like a treasure map, with X being the true conclusion to the trilogy.

However, we now know that there is no real ending on the way. If there had been, it would have been in the EC. There is simply no logical reason whatsover for Bioware to not have put the 'real' ending in the EC if there was a 'real' ending.

Which leads to two conclusions.

Firstly, that all these hints aren't actually building up to anything. Its a treasure map with no treasure at the end. The trilogy simly ends with Shepard and the Reapers still on Earth, with Shepard possibly indoctrinated or possibly not. There is no way to know.

Secondly, they weren't hints at all and people were simply mistaken. The real endings are the ones in the game (which is obvious vast majority of us given that Bioware spent three months expanding on them instead of giving us a 'real' ending). People say bad writing is impossible, but this is the same company that wrote Arrival; your entire squad leaving the Normandy in ME2; Kai Leng; Diana Allers. Bioware is capable of great writing - some of the best in the business - but they also do terrible writing sometimes. Its really not that hard to believe that, not really knowing how to wrap up their trilogy, they simply dropped the ball.

There is another possibility. IT was their true intention all along, but for whatever reason they didn't go with it. It might make them deeply unprincipled, and would go against what many ITers themselves say ("IT is supported by the majority of fans"). If most fans indeed wanted it, and it was intention, then it is bewildering as to why they wouldn't do it

They said they did not intend IT, and I would say that no more than 25% of ME3 players knew about it, and maybe only 10% supported it.

And because I know someone's going to ask for a link www.youtube.com/watch

If the numbers are as low as you suggest, then it is clear that BW have failed tremendously in their role as storytellers by failing to impart the true meaning of the ending, but most people who think the face-value interpretations. It is ironic that, given this, the main criticism that ITers have against those who oppose them is that all their arguments rely on BW being terrible writers, and yet their own intepretation is predicated on exactly the same thing

It's a lot more than 10% and even if they didn't know about IT, every poll I saw showed an overwhelming majority of fans hated the endings in their present form.

The overwhelming majority of Mass Effect players do not partake in internet polls for it.
Everyone hated the ending. Thats why they made EC

Everyone hating the ending =/= Everyone supports indoctrination

[Candidate 88766]

mrcanada wrote...

It's a lot more than 10% and even if they didn't know about IT, every poll I saw showed an overwhelming majority of fans hated the endings in their present form.

Hating the endings is not the same as supporting the IT.

Ideally, the endings would've been changed completely. Take out the Catalyst and the Normandy crash. Show war assets doing their things. Change the ending based on your choices. You don't need the IT for that.

[Cecilia L]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Cecilia L wrote...

Yeah, but it wouldn't be just a DLC. It would be 10 hours of more story, plot twists, epic boss fights, suicide-mission-styled deployment of war assets and characters. And the last hour is just epilogue (think LOTR:ROTK ending) where you get to have victory speeches, drinks with friends, hanging out with Tali on Rannoch building her house, final sendoffs for minor characters and happy ever after with LI.

Not want?

Its a nice thing to imagine I guess (apart from the 'happy ever after' - this is a war story), but you can't possibly believe that this will ever actually be made.

Fallout 3 got 10 additional hours of main quest story.

I don't fully believe, no, but I really hope. It's what I headcannon happens after Shepard wakes up haven broken free of indoctrination. And I do think it would be fantastic, amazing and awesome beyond anything that has happened in gaming if Bioware actually had something like this planned.

Time will tell.

[Galbrant]

Bah... I don't care anymore I was a firm believer of the IT... but if they some how decide to pull it out in their very last DLC.... SO BE IT!!! I'll buy their DLC in hopes of the IT. If not well I can always refuse to buy their next products.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It just won't ****ing die will it?

The awful ending? Well I suppose it is actually endings (plural) now, no I suppose it wont.

[SubAstris]

mrcanada wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Billyg3453 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The entire point of the IT was that a series of 'hints' in the game would lead players to the conclusion that the endings weren't real, with the eventual payoff of a 'real' ending. Its sort of like a treasure map, with X being the true conclusion to the trilogy.

However, we now know that there is no real ending on the way. If there had been, it would have been in the EC. There is simply no logical reason whatsover for Bioware to not have put the 'real' ending in the EC if there was a 'real' ending.

Which leads to two conclusions.

Firstly, that all these hints aren't actually building up to anything. Its a treasure map with no treasure at the end. The trilogy simly ends with Shepard and the Reapers still on Earth, with Shepard possibly indoctrinated or possibly not. There is no way to know.

Secondly, they weren't hints at all and people were simply mistaken. The real endings are the ones in the game (which is obvious vast majority of us given that Bioware spent three months expanding on them instead of giving us a 'real' ending). People say bad writing is impossible, but this is the same company that wrote Arrival; your entire squad leaving the Normandy in ME2; Kai Leng; Diana Allers. Bioware is capable of great writing - some of the best in the business - but they also do terrible writing sometimes. Its really not that hard to believe that, not really knowing how to wrap up their trilogy, they simply dropped the ball.

There is another possibility. IT was their true intention all along, but for whatever reason they didn't go with it. It might make them deeply unprincipled, and would go against what many ITers themselves say ("IT is supported by the majority of fans"). If most fans indeed wanted it, and it was intention, then it is bewildering as to why they wouldn't do it

They said they did not intend IT, and I would say that no more than 25% of ME3 players knew about it, and maybe only 10% supported it.

And because I know someone's going to ask for a link www.youtube.com/watch

If the numbers are as low as you suggest, then it is clear that BW have failed tremendously in their role as storytellers by failing to impart the true meaning of the ending, but most people who think the face-value interpretations. It is ironic that, given this, the main criticism that ITers have against those who oppose them is that all their arguments rely on BW being terrible writers, and yet their own intepretation is predicated on exactly the same thing

It's a lot more than 10% and even if they didn't know about IT, every poll I saw showed an overwhelming majority of fans hated the endings in their present form.

The fundamental problem with most polls on the subject are that they mainly consist of people on BSN, who are not representative of the average ME player. Furthermore, there is an intrinsic bias because people tend to vote for positive outcomes rather than negative ones. Hence why it is very difficult to gauge IT's popularity

[Candidate 88766]

Cecilia L wrote...
Fallout 3 got 10 additional hours of main quest story.

I don't fully believe, no, but I really hope. It's what I headcannon happens after Shepard wakes up haven broken free of indoctrination. And I do think it would be fantastic, amazing and awesome beyond anything that has happened in gaming if Bioware actually had something like this planned.

Time will tell.

Fallout 3 was an open-world RPG. The Mass Effect games have never been open-world - they're story focused games with side missions and some choice over mission order.

There isn't 10 hours of story left to tell. The story is over. I'm sure they'll add pre-ending stuff, but a 10 hour DLC based on the endings is ridiculous. 

Its not going to happen.

You either believe that Mass Effect ended with Shepard firing the Crucible, plotholes and all, or you believe that this trilogy ended with the Reapers still on Earth, which isn't really an ending. It isn't even a cliffhanger ending. The story just stopped. No closure, no reo****ion, nothing.

[SubAstris]

Cecilia L wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Cecilia L wrote...

Yeah, but it wouldn't be just a DLC. It would be 10 hours of more story, plot twists, epic boss fights, suicide-mission-styled deployment of war assets and characters. And the last hour is just epilogue (think LOTR:ROTK ending) where you get to have victory speeches, drinks with friends, hanging out with Tali on Rannoch building her house, final sendoffs for minor characters and happy ever after with LI.

Not want?

Its a nice thing to imagine I guess (apart from the 'happy ever after' - this is a war story), but you can't possibly believe that this will ever actually be made.

Fallout 3 got 10 additional hours of main quest story.

I don't fully believe, no, but I really hope. It's what I headcannon happens after Shepard wakes up haven broken free of indoctrination. And I do think it would be fantastic, amazing and awesome beyond anything that has happened in gaming if Bioware actually had something like this planned.

Time will tell.

Unless they go against absolutely everything they have said about the EC and Shepard's story, then you might have a point. But as it stands, no, there is practically no chance of what you are proposing happenin

[jpraelster93]

The ending didnt happen the ec added more evidence to the IT

[Candidate 88766]

jpraelster93 wrote...

The ending didnt happen the ec added more evidence to the IT

The sarcasm is strong in this one.

At least, I hope it is.

[SubAstris]

jpraelster93 wrote...

The ending didnt happen the ec added more evidence to the IT

How?

[Vet223]

I'm glad the OP question came back around just in time for me to post, since it was promised and not delivered on.

Here's how (at least part of it, I know I can't have the only list).

1) First things first, ignore the angle of departure from the conduit and all that in the OP. But do use the ME3 video in his post. Skip ahead to about 3:30 and wait for the flippin-weird new thing at 3:33. This wasn't in the original, and it's hard to believe that they bothered putting this in just because they wanted to show how Shepard likes to answer his comms sometimes. This is an intentional addition to the game. It incites the beholder to question reality even more than we already did. Indoctrination is almost certainly what they were getting at, so it is supposed to be at least one of many interpretations.

2) We now know the citadel remains in space if it explodes, it doesn't fall to earth. It looks like floating space debris with no atmosphere. There appears to be even more planet-like ambiance in the "breath" scene as well. And I'd wager 99 out of 100 people who are familiar with reinforced-concrete-turned-rubble and unfamiliar with ME3 and what they're watching would call parts of his surroundings just that. The case for it being anywhere except London is dramatically weakened.

3) New dialogue with the starchild has him admitting to BEING (not controlling as if a pet/toy) the consciousness of the reapers. The starchild is a reaper, or at the very least all reapers speaking simultaneously. And this is the character that literalist interpretation assumes must be fully trusted, every one of his words believed, even though the player knows the Reaper M.O. is to manipulate until bad seems good. More dialogue that destroys the "innocent/well-meaning X uses single-minded Y for some goal Z" theme, and places the starchild as instead your enemy, your manipulator, your indoctrinator, includes the starchild straight up dropping the act. He uses his normal reaper voice, and stops acting like he cares about solutions to save organics, because if you're refusing to decide he's already beaten you into qutting, giving up on what you came there for -- destroying the Reapers. But that Shep may be less a useful idiot than someone actively trying to combine with or control reapers, so he might be a little disappointed that you're not too great a thrall.

4) The control ending (the most obvious "it's a trick, you're indoctrinated" one) now includes Shepard, who supposedly (laughably) influences the reapers instead of them influencing him, saying some very un-Shepard like things. Apparently Renegade is even worse, but here's Paragon ShepaReaper:

"There is power in control. There is
wisdom in harnessing the strengths of your enemy."

When is any Shepard build able to talk like this? When tricking Morinth? Even renegade Shep is more of a libertine with their own essentially-principled way of doing things, and sooner or later is against using the means/strengths of the reapers and similarly brutal a-holes. We just saw to it that the illusive man (or psychological manifestation) was shot to death just a few minutes ago for attempting this very thing, and there is a general consensus that he was only trying to convince us to control because he was indoctrinated (if not indoctrination itself). Yet doing exactly what he said is a victory? I think not.

"The man I was knew that he could only
achieve this by becoming something greater"

"Eternal, infinate, immortal... the man
I was used these words, but only now do I truly understand them"

Typical Sovereign. Ant-like mortals cannot even begin to fathom the infinate awe that is reaper, bla bla bla. All about the reaper-chauvanism, whereas Shepard did everything he did to retain humans (if not all sentient species) and all their faults, and held on with bared teeth to his own oft-vaunted humanity.

"... give me reason, direction, just as
he gave direction to the ones who followed him, the ones who helped
him achieve his purpose... now my purpose"

Again, ringing a bell? Suddenly it was Shepard's destiny to be ascended, and to hell with autonomy, everyone follow? Harby was right all along? More likely he's just finally succeeded in getting you to succumb to believing that.

And what are you left with? Sure, ShepaReaper pays lots of lip service to aiding the greater good. So did Saren. So did TIM. All true believers in the series come to see their actions as good (for the "many"[reapers]?), rather than believing in evil. The good guys in the series fight them because they know what is never okay to sacrifice for that supposed common good.

Modifié par Vet223, 29 juin 2012 - 08:55 .

[Firesaber82]

Vet223 wrote...

I'm glad the OP question came back around just in time for me to post, since it was promised and not delivered on.

Here's how (at least part of it, I know I can't have the only list).

1) First things first, ignore the angle of departure from the conduit and all that in the OP. But do use the ME3 video in his post. Skip ahead to about 3:30 and wait for the flippin-weird new thing at 3:33. This wasn't in the original, and it's hard to believe that they bothered putting this in just because they wanted to show how Shepard likes to answer his comms sometimes. This is an intentional addition to the game. It incites the beholder to question reality even more than we already did. Indoctrination is almost certainly what they were getting at, so it is supposed to be at least one of many interpretations.

2) We now know the citadel remains in space if it explodes, it doesn't fall to earth. It looks like floating space debris with no atmosphere. There appears to be even more planet-like ambiance in the "breath" scene as well. And I'd wager 99 out of 100 people who are familiar with reinforced-concrete-turned-rubble and unfamiliar with ME3 and what they're watching would call parts of his surroundings just that. The case for it being anywhere except London is dramatically weakened.

3) New dialogue with the starchild has him admitting to BEING (not controlling as if a pet/toy) the consciousness of the reapers. The starchild is a reaper, or at the very least all reapers speaking simultaneously. And this is the character that literalist interpretation assumes must be fully trusted, every one of his words believed, even though the player knows the Reaper M.O. is to manipulate until bad seems good. More dialogue that destroys the "innocent/well-meaning X uses single-minded Y for some goal Z" theme, and places the starchild as instead your enemy, your manipulator, your indoctrinator, includes the starchild straight up dropping the act. He uses his normal reaper voice, and stops acting like he cares about solutions to save organics, because if you're refusing to decide he's already beaten you into qutting, giving up on what you came there for -- destroying the Reapers. But that Shep may be less a useful idiot than someone actively trying to combine with or control reapers, so he might be a little disappointed that you're not too great a thrall.

4) The control ending (the most obvious "it's a trick, you're indoctrinated" one) now includes Shepard, who supposedly (laughably) influences the reapers instead of them influencing him, saying some very un-Shepard like things. Apparently Renegade is even worse, but here's Paragon ShepaReaper:

"There is power in control. There is
wisdom in harnessing the strengths of your enemy."

When is any Shepard build able to talk like this? When tricking Morinth? Even renegade Shep is more of a libertine with their own essentially-principled way of doing things, and sooner or later is against using the means/strengths of the reapers and similarly brutal a-holes. We just saw to it that the illusive man (or psychological manifestation) was shot to death just a few minutes ago for attempting this very thing, and there is a general consensus that he was only trying to convince us to control because he was indoctrinated (if not indoctrination itself). Yet doing exactly what he said is a victory? I think not.

"The man I was knew that he could only
achieve this by becoming something greater"

"Eternal, infinate, immortal... the man
I was used these words, but only now do I truly understand them"

Typical Sovereign. Ant-like mortals cannot even begin to fathom the infinate awe that is reaper, bla bla bla. All about the reaper-chauvanism, whereas Shepard did everything he did to retain humans (if not all sentient species) and all their faults, and held on with bared teeth to his own oft-vaunted humanity.

"... give me reason, direction, just as
he gave direction to the ones who followed him, the ones who helped
him achieve his purpose... now my purpose"

Again, ringing a bell? Suddenly it was Shepard's destiny to be ascended, and to hell with autonomy, everyone follow? Harby was right all along? More likely he's just finally succeeded in getting you to succumb to believing that.

And what are you left with? Sure, ShepaReaper pays lots of lip service to aiding the greater good. So did Saren. So did TIM. All true believers in the series come to see their actions as good (for the "many"[reapers]?), rather than believing in evil. The good guys in the series fight them because they know what is never okay to sacrifice for that supposed common good.

Or you know, He ascended to a greater level of understanding.  He talks of his friends and looking over them.  Exactly what the Catalyst says is going to happen if you opt for control happens.  He talks of being a Guardian, the sacrifice of one to protect the many...

That doesn't sound like the original Reapers at all.  They were the exact opposite : the sacrifice of many.